PDA

View Full Version : GUILTY Mechele Linehan, 99 Years for Murder of Kent Leppink,-UPDATE Won Appeal of Conviction



Pages : [1] 2 3

nancy botwin
03-09-2009, 11:51 PM
I first saw this case profiled on 48 Hours and have continued to be somewhat fascinated by the events leading up to the 1996 murder of Kent Leppink, the trial itself, and the resultant convictions of Mechele Linehan and John Carlin in 2008.

If you haven't followed the case and are interested, you can read the transcripts of the 48 Hours and Dateline episodes about the cases here:
The Stripper & The Steel Worker on NBC's Dateline (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25876168/)
Love & Death in Alaska on CBS's 48 Hours. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/48hours/main3914454.shtml)
Watch the full 48 Hours broadcast here. (http://search.cbsnews.com/?q=love+and+death+in+the+wild&x=0&y=0&num=10&type=Videos&newsvideo=1&offset=0)

Co-defendant John Carlin was killed in prison this fall and Mechele Linehan is currently appealing her conviction and 99 year sentence. You can read the Statement of Points on Appeal here. (http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/04/29/18/linehan-points-of-appeal.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf)

At trial, the prosecution depicted Linehan as a devious and sociopathic stripper who dated three men simultaneously, ultimately duping one paramour (Carlin) into murdering another (Leppink) for insurance money.


http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo326/misconline/linehan/web.jpg
The defense disputed this account and revealed that Mechele Linehan is now a model member of society, a PTA mom married to a military doctor. Much of the trial focused on the "two Mecheles," and Linehan's history as an exotic dancer. The defense maintained that the prosecution constructed a false narrative about Mechele and that the "real Mechele" is a dedicated mother and wife who had nothing to do with Leppink's murder.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo326/misconline/linehan/inbookstore.jpg

I'm still fascinated by this case because IMO there wasn't a lot of strong evidence conclusively linking Linehan to the murder. I tend to think too much of the trial focused on Linehan's personality, lifestyle and stereotypes about exotic dancers. After reading everything I could about the case, I tend to think Linehan is guilty. But sometimes I wonder if she was perhaps wrongfully convicted in a trial dominated by sensationalism and stereotyping.

Linehan's husband and friends created a website which maintains her innocence and shares information about Mechele, the trial and the pending appeal. http://freemechele.blogspot.com/

--
Have others followed this case? Do you have an opinion about Linehan's guilt? I'm curious to know how other WS'ers see her-- she sits down for a lengthy interview in the 48 Hours episode I linked above.

Do you believe her? Or know any other information about the case and the players?

Blondie in Spokane
02-04-2010, 08:27 AM
Hi, malcomthemiddle and welcome to Websleuths!

I, too, have followed this case. Mechele is guilty as sin in my book! I agree with all of your points above and believe her to be the instigator. She seems to be very manipulative and used just about every man she came into contact with in some way or another. Also, her "sweet and innocent/poor, poor me" act just annoyed me to no end!

She gives women a bad name, if you ask me!

Texas Mist
02-05-2010, 04:40 PM
Appeals court overturns Linehan conviction

By Megan Holland | Anchorage Daily News • Published February 05, 2010

The Alaska Court of Appeals has overturned the murder conviction of Mechele Linehan, the ex-stripper and Olympia resident accused of murdering a fiancé.

The decision, handed down this morning, concluded it was improper for Superior Court Judge Philip Volland to allow evidence about the movie "The Last Seduction" and a letter written by Kent Leppink in the days before he died. The letter accused Linehan of the murder.

http://www.theolympian.com/breakingnews/story/1127559.html

malcomthemiddle
02-05-2010, 05:13 PM
wow! Cant say I am too surprised. I wish they didnt bring up that movie. It didnt make a difference.
From what I have read from the juror interviews, they didnt care about her stripper past, or movies. After their first vote, (6 - guilty / 6 - undecided), they went for the emails. Not her movie collection.

So, they refile the charges, arrest her, she bails out, and we do it again

malcomthemiddle
02-05-2010, 07:44 PM
ok, she wont be released...
""Well there are essentially three options," Rosenstein said. "We could ask the Alaska Supreme Court to review the decision -- that's something they don't have to do, they have the discretion to do so, but they are not obligated to do that; or we could simply decide to proceed to retry Ms. Linehan; or we could decide to drop the case, which I really doubt that we'll do that."

The state has 15 days to seek a review by the Supreme Court, Rosenstein said. If the state does not take it to the high court, the case will be returned to Superior Court where guidelines would be set for a retrial.

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=11940649

"The state will be given a reasonable opportunity to review the case and decide whether in light of the court ruling they thought a retrial was warranted," Feldman said.

Linehan remains incarcerated at Hiland Mountain Correctional Center in Eagle River. She would not be released until she is acquitted in a retrial or the state decides not to pursue a retrial."

flourish
02-09-2010, 01:20 AM
I have to admit that I'm actually shocked at the news! I did not really think they would overturn her conviction. I'm with the rest of ya--I don't care if she stripped or what movies she liked or didn't...the Hope note, the Seychelles email, the whole creepy manipulative man-harem, the insurance policy...it all just reads guilty guilty guilty.

Oh, while I'm FINALLY able to rant about this (this thread has been s l o w) wth is with her and her family saying this stuff about "how could a 'girl' of 23 get grown men to do these things..." a 23-year old is not a "GIRL" for pete's sake!!!!! That's a woman and it's degrading to women to insist that a 23-year old woman is just a helpless little girl innocently grinding on men for money.

Another rant: her voice. I know, I know, it's shallow of me, but go over to youtube and watch a video with Karla Homolka talking (preferably the "Fifth Estate" episode), then watch video of Mechele Linehan talking. Tell me that simpering baby-doll voice they both have doesn't have a sinister use...

Okay, flourish, breathe!

oh!! and what about Mechele's sister testifying (albeit unwillingly) about Mechele taking the computer to her and asking her to erase incriminating emails and the like?

And more on the stripper thing....okay, I worked at stupid K Mart when I was 20. Now, let's just say (read: hypothetical) that while I worked at K Mart, I met some people at K Mart, conspired with one of them to kill another one of them, it all went down, but I wasn't caught. Years go by. Now, I'm a teacher. If I were to get arrested tomorrow for that conspiracy, I'd fully expect that in the news, I'd be referred to as "ex-K Mart checker turned killer gets arrested today" and probably even something worse, like, "Blue-light special on...murder?? More at eleven!" You probably wouldn't hear, "Local preschool teacher knows more than just her ABC's," even though it's funny, too. I sometimes wonder if Mechele and company have more of a problem with the fact that she used to be a stripper than most of the public does.

Oh, and if a Master's degree really absolves a person of all previous sins, I'd better get a lot of sinning done before the end of this summer, cuz I'm graduating! Whoo hoo, Amnesty!

As for my opinion as to whether or not they will try her again...I'm gonna go with yes they will. For a variety of reasons, some admirable, some not so much, but I'm guessing this is only the beginning...again...?

All of the above is my opinion, based on all the information I've found and read about this case. I've tried to find court transcripts online but with no luck and I can't afford to pay Alaska for copies...did I mention I'm a teacher LOL? But every piece of actual information I can find leaves me to believe that she is guilty. It is possible that the trial was improper in some sense or something, obviously there is good reason to think it was, but that doesn't change whether or not she is actually guilty, and I still think she is.

:twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents: :twocents::twocents::twocents:

cluciano63
02-18-2010, 03:16 PM
Wow! I am really shocked but also am surprised that prosecutors do these types of things that will get overturned...many times they do not even need to use these types of evidence, especially the bit about her so-called favorite movie from the other stripper. i am not sure i believed that bit. But the letter from KL to his parents was very strong and was surely a factor. I guess that one goes to the need to be able to confront your accuser...i wonder if Mark Benson will get an appeal for this same reason, his wife's note that she feared her husband was poisoning her was the biggest evidence in his case (and he is guilty for sure IMO but this may come back too...)
These prosecutors have to try everything I guess...but the defense lawyers are just watching for errors the whole time, more than they are trying to prove lack of guilt, it seems...
I still think Mechele will be convicted again eventually...
the one thing i did not think was a big deal with the Sechelles e-mail...no one was going to have 10 million to buy citizenship...or whatever the amount was, it was way more than the insurance would have been worth...

LadyBug99
02-22-2010, 05:34 PM
I just came across The "Free Mechele" website and I must say that I'm disgusted. Do criminals really have websites like this to gain profit? Gross!

So will Mechele be eligible for bond? How long will it take to get this to trial again? (if that's what they decide to do?)

How can so many people honestly believe she had nothing to do with this???

flourish
02-22-2010, 11:48 PM
http://www.sitnews.us/0210news/022210/022210_linehan.html

Quote from article:

["While the appeals court has reversed Linehan's conviction on the basis of two particular pieces of evidence being admitted during her trial, we are confident that there is sufficient evidence to support a second conviction," said Deputy Attorney General Rick Svobodny, head of the Criminal Division in the Department of Law.]

I for one am pleased they are trying her again. Hopefully it will stick this time!

And, yeah, the blog is almost sad. I mean, in a recent entry, one of Mechele's family members was complaining about how they couldn't just send her more envelopes when she runs out. Like, um...P R I S O N...it's not summer camp, you know.

LadyL
02-22-2010, 11:57 PM
I remember this case and recall thinking she's definately guilty. Might read a bit now though to refresh my memory. Thanks for the thread!

ETA: Ok, I've reread the 48 hours transcript etc. and yeah, I still think she's guilty.

cluciano63
02-23-2010, 12:28 AM
i wonder if the triggerman being killed in prison will affect 2nd trial and how? how much can they bring up about him I wonder? maybe since he is dead they can talk about his conviction. a weird weird case. I guess her family and friends have to believe in her, the same way Darly Routier's etc etc etc all have to do the same...if people won't ever confess, then their families must have to convince themselves that they are innocent...i just am glad i am not in that club...

flourish
02-23-2010, 01:56 AM
Disclaimer: My inclusion of links doesn't mean I've judged those site to be impartial or anything, I'm just letting you know they exist. FWIW.

Find more information here:

MSNBC article
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25876168/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports//

Anhorage Daily News' website:
http://www.adn.com/linehan/

Basic story goes something like this, from the best of my memory from reading/watching everything available to me regarding this case:

So, early 90's, Mechele Hughes of Louisiana, in her late teens, moves away from home and eventually lands in Alaska. Gets a job dancing at the...wait for it....Great Alaskan Bush Company strip club. By all accounts she's beautiful, charming, knows how to work it, and makes lots of money. At some point, while working there, she meets three guys, customers, whom she spends time with outside of the club. These men don't know each other previous to this...they all end up meeting each other through her.

The men are:


John Carlin III, a widower who lives with his teenage son, John Carlin IV



Scott Hilke: I want to say he was some sort of salesman...not sure, but he traveled for work it seems.
Kent Leppink, nickname of "TT": former taxidermist turned fisherman; from most accounts had somewhat of a troubled past.


So it's all kind of squirrely here, but it seems like she was basically stringing them all along, because by most accounts, all three men asked her to marry them, and she said yes to all of them. I have no idea how she knew which engagement rings to wear when...sounds very confusing. Her and Kent get life insurance policies and name each other as beneficiaries. This was accounted for as some sort of beginning business or something, I'm not sure because I don't think that's ever really been explained. Anyway, making it even more confusing is their living arrangements--she and Kent lived in her house, but then she was getting home repairs done, so she and Kent moved in with the John Carlins. Sounds like Scott was around a lot, staying there, but I'm not sure if he was a permanent resident.

So life goes on...Mechele, Kent, Scott, John Carlin III, and the teenage John Carlin IV...all living together...Kent is in love with Mechele, Scott is in love with Mechele, John Carlin III is in love with Mechele, I'm pretty dang sure that Mechele is in love with Mechele. Heck, a teenage boy living with a stripper...John Carlin IV was probably in love with her, too (my own conjecture).

Who was Mechele in love with (besides herself)?
Good question.

So, it's Spring of 1996. It appears Kent is all excited about getting married and his dad visits him in Alaska. Kent's made all these plans to hang out with his dad and his fiance. But Mechele is AWOL. Wth? She knows his dad's coming...where'd she go? She remains AWOL while his dad is there, and dad leaves wondering what the deal is with his supposed future daughter-in-law. Kent finds a piece of paper. It's a note! The top half of the note is a print-out of an email or fax or something. It is from John Carlin III telling Mechele that her new cabin outside of Hope, Alaska is ready, he's so glad he bought it for her, and he hopes she [and Scott] have a great little getaway for the weekend. The bottom half of the note is a handwritten response from Mechele thanking him and reminding him not to tell anyone where she is.

See the note here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877809/

Kent's parents get a letter from Kent. It may or may not have also included Mechele's passport and/or ID, which may or may not have been stolen by Kent. For sure, there was a letter inside the letter. Kent wrote that if he was found dead in the near future, open the other letter.

A few days later, Kent is found dead. Shot three times. Guess where he was? Outside Hope, Alaska! Where was Mechele? Not in a cabin outside Hope, Alaska, but in Lake Tahoe with Scott! Hmm...so who was at the cabin outside Hope, Alaska? Nobody! There was no cabin outside Hope, Alaska! That's right, no cabin. Interesting.

Mechele says Kent wasn't really engaged to her, but it was a ruse because he was gay or bisexual or something. However, she also says that he was obsessed with her. So obsessed with her that she thought he was going to follow her to Lake Tahoe, and that's why it was necessary to write the note about the fake cabin.

Kent's parents open the other letter, and it basically says if I'm dead look at Scott, John III, or Mechele, and take her down.

Read parts of that letter here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877834/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877835/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877836/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877833/


The cops have their suspicions, but can't pin anything on anybody. Mechele and John Carlin IV load up her motorhome and head on down to Louisiana. Why her and the teenager? I have no idea. John Carlin III sells his house and comes soon after, and it sounds like the John Carlins go to...New Jersey (?) and Mechele goes to college and marries an army doctor, whom she's still married to today and they have a daughter. Oh, and at her trial it came out that she and her daughter flew to see Scott while her husband was in Iraq. Mechele and army doctor and daughter settle in Olympia, Washington, where they buy an old house and are happy.

Years go by. Alaska gets a new cold case team. They realize that John Carlin IV is an adult now and his father can't keep the cops from talking to him any more. So they interview him and he says he remembers seeing his dad and Mechele standing over the bathroom sink which contained a gun and clear liquid, which smelled like bleach. They can't find the gun, but they are able to track down the guy who sold John Carlin III the gun (!) through the newspaper ad he'd taken out to sell the gun in the first place.

There's also a laptop, which, IMHO says A LOT about this case. Kent had a laptop, which Mechele shipped to her sister soon after the murder. She asked her sister to erase everything off of the computer. Apparantly, on the way from Alaska to Louisiana with John Carlin IV, Mechele stopped to see her sister in Utah. Her sister told her she had not erased everything off of the computer, and Mechele was quite displeased. While the sister testified at Carlin's trial, she hid in Europe during Mechele's trial. Read more about the laptop here, in an Anchorage Daily News article:

http://www.adn.com/2007/03/24/117435/stripper-asked-sister-to-wipe.html

John Carlin III and Mechele get arrested and tried. He is found guilty and sent to prison. She is found guilty and sent to prison. He is found dead in his cell. Beaten to death, apparently. Mechele, as we all know, recently won an appeal, and will be getting a retrial.

Mechele's friends and family have a blog about her and the quest to get her out of prison. For more interesting (imho) reading, here's an old email from Mechele to her mom:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877752/



I'm done for now. If only I spent as much time on my schoolwork :blushing: :angel:

flourish
02-23-2010, 02:02 AM
In an email from John Carlin III to Mechele, Carlin says, with my punctuation added for clarity, "You (Mechele) say, 'I don't know what to say or do! I just feel bad! I feel like trying to be happy with you was being selfish. Like you (John) said, 'A mark I got close to.' "

A mark she got close to.

I'd like someone else's take on all this, because I keep typing things and it ends up sounding so mean and snarky.

Beginning of paragraph 3:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877695/

cluciano63
02-23-2010, 02:44 PM
i agree that she is most likely guilty of setting this whole thing up...but why so much on e-mail and in writing? i will never get over how "smart" people commit stupid crimes, over and over again...of course not quite as much was known about computers at the time, maybe they thought hitting delete really deleted things, but it was not that long ago. and it still keep happening, even more with cell phones, with criminals leaving a trail...good thing for LE that they are so stupid and can't stay off of phones and computers or a lot of murders would probably go unsolved...

txsvicki
02-23-2010, 11:17 PM
I remember watching 48 hrs. and Kent also had the change of beneficiary card in his pocket when found deceased. He'd changed it over to his parents. During the show at times I almost suspected Kent of having himself killed somehow, his parents since he'd embezzled from them in the past, and the teenager because Michelle was probably manipulating him along with the rest. But, lies about the homosexuality of Kent and the Hope note in her writing, pretty much convinced me, but without the insurance policy those weren't very much evidence against her IMO. I don't understand why she strung Kent along so much with on and off marriage plans though. Michelle's voice also annoyed me and the stony look on her face when found guilty. Her husband was crushed and trying to reach out for her and she almost seemed to recoil from him until she was led out and allowed to give him a hug.

flourish
03-23-2010, 12:10 AM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011409653_apaklastseductiontrial.html

"The mother of Mechele Linehan says the former stripper-turned-soccer mom whose conviction for murdering her former fiance was overturned in February was rushed from prison to an Anchorage hospital last week," from the above linked Seattle times article.

darnudes
03-23-2010, 12:22 AM
Nope, I keep an eye on this case as well. :) Thank you

Oh, she is guilty all right. I have done a lot of reading on this case and there is next to nothing in the way of evidence that points to her innocence and a hell out a lot to her guilt. I hope she is convicted all over again. As a side note, interesting how John Carlin was beaten to death in prison. Probably the only other person that knew the truth.

cluciano63
03-23-2010, 12:33 AM
I wonder if John Carlin's death will affect the 2nd trial and if they will be able to get his son to testify again...he had nothing against Mechele and later said he wished he had not testified. The case will be harder to try as was all circumstantial to begin with. But I think all of Alaska is aware of this case and will be unlikely to let her go. I wonder if they would accept a plea at this point if they lost witnesses. (Not on Mechele's side here, just thinking aloud about chances of a conviction again, with less evidence to use.)

bamabeauty
03-23-2010, 01:57 AM
I wonder if it was a real live medical problem or just histrionics that sent her to the hospital. I think she is guilty as sin and is a psychopath! I think because of that she would never be willing to take a plea bargain. I do not recall the details of Carlin's death but i it possible that she or her supporters could have had him axed in prison? I really hope that with out Carlin they can still bring her to justice. They need to MAKE her sister testify in this trail because her wanting that computer wiped clean screams of her guilt!

darnudes
03-24-2010, 05:17 AM
I wonder if it was a real live medical problem or just histrionics that sent her to the hospital. I think she is guilty as sin and is a psychopath! I think because of that she would never be willing to take a plea bargain. I do not recall the details of Carlin's death but i it possible that she or her supporters could have had him axed in prison? I really hope that with out Carlin they can still bring her to justice. They need to MAKE her sister testify in this trail because her wanting that computer wiped clean screams of her guilt!

I saw a special on the case on youtube and IIRC, I think it was stated that it was very unusual/rare for a prisoner to be murdered in that particular jail. I don't know how true this is but it did make me suspicious.

Mia
03-24-2010, 06:17 AM
Oh wow I just watched the Dateline episode about this case a couple of days ago. I definitely think Linehan is guilty - it sounded to me like she milked these three physically unattractive, awkward guys for all the money they had, and eventually that wasn't enough and she conspired with Carlin to murder Leppink. The letter about the imaginary 'cabin' in Hope clinched it for me - there's absolutely no other reason that letter would have been written except to lure Leppink to Hope, where he was shot to death. Also John Carlin Jr's testimony about his dad and Michelle standing over the sink full of bleach in which the gun was placed. At the same time, however, I had a feeling her conviction would be overturned, because yes, now she is married to a doctor and is a 'productive' member of society; she's certainly no longer dangerous to society any more - so I feel like they thought, "why lock this poor woman up for a mistake she made in her early 20s? It's not like she pulled the trigger."

The strangest part about this whole case, however, is that Leppink predicted his own death by these people's hands, and in fact sent a letter to his parents to only be opened upon his murder/death which stated that Mechele and John Carlin were responsible. Yet he still chose to accompany Carlin to Hope that day; he continued to hang around these people even after he realized they were going to murder him! Didn't really seem like the brightest guy, either that or he had a death wish.

I've heard that in Alaska there's like fifteen men for every one woman. In an environment like that, I'm surprised things like this don't happen more often. Lots of desperate, lonely guys up there willing to sacrifice everything, even their life in this case, for a bit of company with an attractive female. Also, the "Great Alaskan Bush Company"??? Subtle name for a strip club.

Blondie in Spokane
03-24-2010, 11:34 AM
This woman came off as a total phoney in every way to me. That little girl sing-songy, poor me voice just grated on me to no end. As far as I'm concerned, she's right where she belongs (after she gets out of the hospital) and I certainly hope they keep her in there. I think she sold her doctor husband a fake bill of goods. Some men are so blind. How could he respect her after finding out all of this was in her past? This is the mother of his child?

cluciano63
03-24-2010, 11:48 AM
I loved when she said in one interview...."we'll have to stop now, I'm feeling attacked..."

The one boyfriend, Scott, seemed relatively normal...he thought they were just her roommates and that Kent was gay...he is lucky to have gotten away clean from this mess...

I do think Kent was too needy and too much in love with Mechele to think straight...but true, if he was so wary about them, he was too quick to rush up to Hope all alone...poor guy.

flourish
03-27-2010, 04:47 PM
i agree that she is most likely guilty of setting this whole thing up...but why so much on e-mail and in writing? i will never get over how "smart" people commit stupid crimes, over and over again...of course not quite as much was known about computers at the time, maybe they thought hitting delete really deleted things, but it was not that long ago. and it still keep happening, even more with cell phones, with criminals leaving a trail...good thing for LE that they are so stupid and can't stay off of phones and computers or a lot of murders would probably go unsolved...

I know what you mean about leaving a trail. I started going online in 1993, and sure didn't know anything about leaving traces or anything like that...of course, I wasn't planning anything sinister, either, so I had no reason to even think about it.

Remember, though, that Mechele allegedly shipped the victim's laptop to her more computer savvy sister right after the murder, and wanted her to erase everything. So she was worried enough about what was possibly on the computer to do that. And angry enough when said sister didn't do it that they supposedly didn't talk for years after.

From what I understand, there were faxes involved, too, so while some of this stuff was via email, I think some of it may have been transmitted by personal fax machines, too.

I think people get themselves psyched up to think they are invincible or too smart or something...but yeah I am also glad criminals do screw up so they can be caught:)

flourish
03-27-2010, 04:52 PM
Nope, I keep an eye on this case as well. :) Thank you

Oh, she is guilty all right. I have done a lot of reading on this case and there is next to nothing in the way of evidence that points to her innocence and a hell out a lot to her guilt. I hope she is convicted all over again. As a side note, interesting how John Carlin was beaten to death in prison. Probably the only other person that knew the truth.


I saw a special on the case on youtube and IIRC, I think it was stated that it was very unusual/rare for a prisoner to be murdered in that particular jail. I don't know how true this is but it did make me suspicious.

Yeah, I have no idea about whether or not his death was connected. There are rumors flying among the comments sections on stories about this case throughout the internet (newspaper websites, etc.), which indicate that there is a connection, but I have never heard any information one way or another about investigations or connections or whatever. A person can certainly speculate, though. :angel:

flourish
03-27-2010, 05:10 PM
I remember watching 48 hrs. and Kent also had the change of beneficiary card in his pocket when found deceased. He'd changed it over to his parents. During the show at times I almost suspected Kent of having himself killed somehow, his parents since he'd embezzled from them in the past, and the teenager because Michelle was probably manipulating him along with the rest. But, lies about the homosexuality of Kent and the Hope note in her writing, pretty much convinced me, but without the insurance policy those weren't very much evidence against her IMO. I don't understand why she strung Kent along so much with on and off marriage plans though. Michelle's voice also annoyed me and the stony look on her face when found guilty. Her husband was crushed and trying to reach out for her and she almost seemed to recoil from him until she was led out and allowed to give him a hug.


The pro-Mechele camp really really wants people to believe that Kent planned his own assisted suicide. [There are also hints among commentators (I use the term loosely meaning folks who comment online about news articles on the case) that perhaps his father and/or mother killed him which is just an abhorrent, and IMHO completely unfounded, accusation]. I don't think it's entirely impossible to think that a person might do that [assisted suicide]. However, there are some problems I have with this particular scenario in this particular case, such as why all the cover up by the accused? If my friend supposedly had himself killed, and I'm being questioned about it, I would probably want the cops to examine said friend's computer so they could find evidence about the assisted suicide. Destroying the computer seems counterintuitive for an innocent party, IMO.

Also, the gun. Evidence shows which kind of gun killed Kent. Carlin bought the same kind of gun before death. Carlin's son testifies he sees his dad and Mechele standing over a gun in a sinkful of bleach after the death. Gun is not seen after that. Hinky much?

The whole "Kent was gay, but also horribly obsessed about Mechele" thing is just weird and does not ring anywhere near true, IMO.

Yeah, the weird reaction and interaction between her and her husband at trial was just c r e e p y. See this photo courtesy of the Seattle times:

flourish
03-27-2010, 05:18 PM
This woman came off as a total phoney in every way to me. That little girl sing-songy, poor me voice just grated on me to no end. As far as I'm concerned, she's right where she belongs (after she gets out of the hospital) and I certainly hope they keep her in there. I think she sold her doctor husband a fake bill of goods. Some men are so blind. How could he respect her after finding out all of this was in her past? This is the mother of his child?

Denial is a very strong thing. Especially group denial. And public denial.

Yes, the person I feel the worst for, too, at this point is their daughter. Regardless of the status of her mother's true responsibility in Kent's murder, this little girl is going to face significant challenges due to everything that has happened and will continue to happen around her. I can't imagine how confused and scared she must feel at times. Despite the denial issue, and their disdain for anyone who disagrees with their perspective on the facts of the case (those whom Mechele's mother refers to as "undesirable readers," I think it was, I'm trying NOT to click on that site too much), they are a supportive bunch, so at least Mechele's daughter has people who love her and will do their best to help her.

flourish
03-27-2010, 05:24 PM
I wonder if it was a real live medical problem or just histrionics that sent her to the hospital. I think she is guilty as sin and is a psychopath! I think because of that she would never be willing to take a plea bargain. I do not recall the details of Carlin's death but i it possible that she or her supporters could have had him axed in prison? I really hope that with out Carlin they can still bring her to justice. They need to MAKE her sister testify in this trail because her wanting that computer wiped clean screams of her guilt!

According to the pro-Mechele blog, which I'm trying to not click on but did anyway, this was a "female-related" issue and she's healing well.

I hope they don't offer a plea bargain...so far they've stated they're going back to trial...I don't know the specific laws about that who process anyway:)

Yeah, the sister thing is sooo disturbing. According to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechele_Linehan

and this article:

http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=7096234

the sister testified at Carlin's trial, then took off and hid in the Czech Republic until after Mechele's trial, when she was held in an Atlanta jail for a week.

Yeah, that doesn't really cast an innocent light on Mechele. At all. Not sure how anyone gets past this part.

Mia
03-28-2010, 06:34 AM
Have you all looked at the freemechele site? It has a paypal donation button where yaou can donate to her legal defense - which I guess probably isnt that unusual for these 'Free so and so' sites, but there is also a Free Mechele "store" where you can buy buttons, mugs, t-shirts, etc with Mechele Linehan is Innocent! etc printed on them. Give me a break! Also I agree with the rest of you re her voice - little girlish in an extremely fake way and 'poor me' sounding. In addition I do not think this is a smart woman we are talking about. Anyone who takes out a life insurance policy worth a million dollars on someone else and then murders/has that person murdered not long after and thinks they're going to get away with it is just not intelligent, I'm sorry. If you leave a letter and e-mail trail behind, even less so.

Mia
03-28-2010, 06:47 AM
Yeah, the sister thing is sooo disturbing. According to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechele_Linehan

and this article:

http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=7096234

the sister testified at Carlin's trial, then took off and hid in the Czech Republic until after Mechele's trial, when she was held in an Atlanta jail for a week.

Yeah, that doesn't really cast an innocent light on Mechele. At all. Not sure how anyone gets past this part.

Hi Flourish, do you know why Mechele's (gosh, even the spelling of her name annoys me) sister was held in jail in Atlanta for a week after she returned from the Czech Republic? Or am I reading that wrong?

Blondie in Spokane
03-28-2010, 09:11 AM
Mia...Lol...I agree...the spelling of her name annoys* me, too!

Flourish....thanks for the photo...it's quite telling, isn't it?? " I've just been sentenced to life in the clink....here...kiss me goodbye on my ear, baby (as I pull away from you!)."

*To be quite honest, I have to admit that just about everything about this woman annoys me!

flourish
03-28-2010, 01:43 PM
Hi Flourish, do you know why Mechele's (gosh, even the spelling of her name annoys me) sister was held in jail in Atlanta for a week after she returned from the Czech Republic? Or am I reading that wrong?

IIRC, she was jailed because she was subpoenaed to testify at Mechele's trial but skipped the country instead. The sister did testify at Carlin's trial, though, and her testimony there didn't speak well of her sister. I think there is video somewhere...I'll see if I can find it.

It's nice to have more people around here:)

Blondie in Spokane
03-28-2010, 02:00 PM
Thanks for looking for thank Flourish. I haven't seen anything else on this except the 48 Hours episode but I was fascinated from the get-go. I'm surprised no one has written a book on this (or have they?). Anyway, I didn't know anything about the sister/computer info but what has been written here, so that's news to me. More nails for her coffin if you ask me.

flourish
03-28-2010, 02:00 PM
Mia...Lol...I agree...the spelling of her name annoys* me, too!

Flourish....thanks for the photo...it's quite telling, isn't it?? " I've just been sentenced to life in the clink....here...kiss me goodbye on my ear, baby (as I pull away from you!)."

*To be quite honest, I have to admit that just about everything about this woman annoys me!

If you haven't already, watch the video of the verdict...it's even more telling, IMO.

flourish
03-28-2010, 02:20 PM
Have you all looked at the freemechele site? It has a paypal donation button where yaou can donate to her legal defense - which I guess probably isnt that unusual for these 'Free so and so' sites, but there is also a Free Mechele "store" where you can buy buttons, mugs, t-shirts, etc with Mechele Linehan is Innocent! etc printed on them. Give me a break! Also I agree with the rest of you re her voice - little girlish in an extremely fake way and 'poor me' sounding. In addition I do not think this is a smart woman we are talking about. Anyone who takes out a life insurance policy worth a million dollars on someone else and then murders/has that person murdered not long after and thinks they're going to get away with it is just not intelligent, I'm sorry. If you leave a letter and e-mail trail behind, even less so.

Well, her weird name-spelling allowed for the catchy, "Free Me" slogan LOL:croc:

I re-watched the Dateline episode yesterday. The audio of the police questioning her right after the murder and then "breaking the news" that he was dead was something I paid more attention to this time than the first time I watched. I think wearing earphones helped, maybe, but anyway, her baby voice was in full force, and listening to her trying to describe her relationship with Kent is ridiculous. I think she's trying to say that "it was a relationship of convenience because he was gay and didn't want his family to know," but she can't think of the word "convenience," and says "conventional" instead.

The life insurance policy is weird. Not exactly high on my list of "Thing to Do with My New Fiance" list.

flourish
03-28-2010, 02:31 PM
Thanks for looking for thank Flourish. I haven't seen anything else on this except the 48 Hours episode but I was fascinated from the get-go. I'm surprised no one has written a book on this (or have they?). Anyway, I didn't know anything about the sister/computer info but what has been written here, so that's news to me. More nails for her coffin if you ask me.

There's one book, but I hear it's awful. I'm surprised there aren't more and will be even more surprised if there aren't some in the works as we speak. Be sure to check out the Dateline episode, which you can see here:

msnbc.com Video Player

I think there is footage of her sister in there. I believe the above video contains footage that wasn't seen on the aired episode. On the site, the video is broken down in several pieces, but they play back-to-back all by themselves. I don't know what the embedded video in this post will do.

bamabeauty
03-28-2010, 10:13 PM
Ok after watching that I still feel 100% that she is guilty but do have a few notes to make. First off she has had some work done. Looks like botox and collagen in the lips. I just could not help but notice how young and fresh faced she looked during her trail. Second I had forgotten that I was initially very suspicious of Scott and now I remember why. I do not think he was looked at hard enough! Third it sure is funny how everyone is trying to make her ut to be litle Suzy homemaker but she took her baby to go have an afair with one of her boyfriends (Scott ) from the time of the murder. Last watching Lora on the stand she looked coked out of her gourd but watching the extra interview footage with her she really seemed to have a very good grip on the kind of person Mechele is!

darnudes
03-30-2010, 02:13 AM
Some info on the jail John Carlin was in. As I thought they have only had two murders since they opened, one of them being Mr Carlin.


In the prison's history, there have been two murders inside the prison, one escape and at least one failed escape plot.

In 2008, convicted murderer John Carlin III was beaten to death in Spring Creek. Carlin was the alleged co-conspirator in the case of Mechele Linehan, a former stripper convicted in the death of her former fiance Kent Leppink.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Creek_Correctional_Center

Miss Orange
03-30-2010, 05:24 PM
Apparently the appeal relied partly on the use of poor dead Ken Leppink's letter in the first case. The one about Mechele being guilty. Will the second trial go as well without that piece of evidence? Ooohh, this ticks me off. She's already had more freedom than she deserved.

bamabeauty
03-30-2010, 07:04 PM
Even without Kent's letter I can not imagine how in the world any jury would not be able to see that she is as guilty as homemade sin!!!

Blondie in Spokane
03-31-2010, 03:32 AM
Hi Nancy B...Thanks for the info...most of it's news to me...I have to admit I haven't followed Mechele's story too much. I was surprised to hear that Sharee's (another annoying name!) conviction was overturned. Her and Mechele are two peas in a pod if you ask me! two manipulative bit**es (IMO). Did Sharee get out of jail?

nancy botwin
03-31-2010, 03:35 PM
Hi Nancy B...Thanks for the info...most of it's news to me...I have to admit I haven't followed Mechele's story too much. I was surprised to hear that Sharee's (another annoying name!) conviction was overturned. Her and Mechele are two peas in a pod if you ask me! two manipulative bit**es (IMO). Did Sharee get out of jail?

Peas in a pod indeed! And yes, Sharee has been free since July 2009. A federal judge released her on a personal recognizance bond, pending appeal. Sharee gave a pretty extensive interview in the recent Dateline episode, which can be watched online here: msnbc.com Video Player. She's apparently living with a woman who used to work as a guard at her prison. The former guard, Terri F. Williams, is apparently an author who is working on Sharee Miller's biography. In the Dateline interview, Sharee said she was very troubled by Fatal Error the true crime book about her case and apparently she and Williams are going to set the story straight or something.:liar:

txsvicki
04-01-2010, 12:06 AM
Does anyone remember what was said about Kent being killed in that remote location? I remember them saying that it was a fluke that he was found at that time. Seems like the murderer would want him found pretty quickly so that a bear or animal didn't scatter his remains resulting in a big delay in insurance payout, if it paid at all for a missing person. It won't suprise me at all if she's found innocent now that Carlen is dead.

Bigbadjohn
04-09-2010, 08:55 PM
All the cases I have seen the prosecution always has an advantage on a retrial
They learn from mistakes that were made first time around and focus on the relevant facts
There is still far more than enough evidence for a conviction bail will be bitter sweet for her
She is being completely delusional if she thinks she’s going to stay out

Bigbadjohn
04-24-2010, 12:08 AM
Let’s get the ball rolling again things have been pretty quiet lately.
Funny thing as much as we all think she’s guilty the folks at the other camp think the opposite
How can that be for the same facts 2+2 =5?
One would wonder how a bunch of same people could be so Diametrically Opposed are we missing something here
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2886453948518019548&postID=4054110039146366980

I think this Brian Watt is no stranger

Brian Watt said...

With regard to sharing legal costs, indeed, if 40 of us chipped in, say, $2,000 up front, and we made monthly payments for a year to the lawyers, each of another $500 a month or something, per person, we have what we need. Right there, is $320,000. I'm in. Count me in. In fact I will contribute more than $2,000down and $500 a month, to the lawyers, so count me in. I'll go way higher than that, on my contribution. Now we just need another 39 people...But I'm in. As they say in poker 'I'm all in".



I understand they have to have a new trial within 6 months?
They keep going on about money for the defense, some indigent people have had the best defense lawyers money can buy provided by the state.

I still think the state will win

flourish
04-24-2010, 07:22 PM
Let’s get the ball rolling again things have been pretty quiet lately.
Funny thing as much as we all think she’s guilty the folks at the other camp think the opposite
How can that be for the same facts 2=2 =5?
One would wonder how a bunch of same people could be so Diametrically Opposed are we missing something here
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2886453948518019548&postID=4054110039146366980

I think this Brian Watt is no stranger

Brian Watt said...

With regard to sharing legal costs, indeed, if 40 of us chipped in, say, $2,000 up front, and we made monthly payments for a year to the lawyers, each of another $500 a month or something, per person, we have what we need. Right there, is $320,000. I'm in. Count me in. In fact I will contribute more than $2,000down and $500 a month, to the lawyers, so count me in. I'll go way higher than that, on my contribution. Now we just need another 39 people...But I'm in. As they say in poker 'I'm all in".



I understand they have to have a new trial within 6 months?
They keep going on about money for the defense, some indigent people have had the best defense lawyers money can buy provided by the state.

I still think the state will win

Yeah, I read some of his comments on the freemechele blog...the guy sure is vocal about this that's for sure... :crazy::crazy:

I wrote a long post the other day (but my boss interrupted me and I lost it in the shuffle :angel:) about how some of the pro-mechele folks are saying they think the state of Alaska needs to just drop it now because it's so costly to the state of Alaska and the Linehan family. It's starting to remind me of Casey Anthony's lawyers and their whole "the mean old state attorney's office only want the death penalty because they know we can't pay for it and/or had to add more of us so we're qualified." It's ridiculous to think that the decision of whether or not to prosecute someone should be based on whether or not they can afford to pay for the attorneys they want. Am I really missing something here? :waitasec:

One person even said how since Mechele lives in another state now she's not a threat to any Alaskans so why should they bother? Gee...that's awfully kind and logical :waitasec: Why don't all criminals just kill and move to another state and hey that'll be just great! Oooh, and if they get a Master's degree...well, heck, then it's home free! :banghead:

ETA: I think we're waiting for a bond hearing to see if she's going to get out until her trial.

Oh, and I'm not worried about their case with the omission of the movie and letter, although I think the letter should be allowed. In any case, I agree that the state will still win this one.

joeskidbeck
04-24-2010, 07:52 PM
Speechless. If you knew me, you would know just how incredible this is. I wonder if all these people at Mechelle's website would be so loving toward her if it had been their son/brother/father that she killed. Also, I'm pretty sure that prison employees are not paid to be kind to the inmates. Especially those that show absolutely no remorse for the taking of another's life.

Bigbadjohn
04-28-2010, 08:37 PM
Linehan may be released to third party
She must stay in the Anchorage area.

http://www.adn.com/2010/04/28/1254851/linehan-may-be-released-to-third.html

I can see a plea deal to a lesser charge

Blondie in Spokane
04-28-2010, 08:49 PM
Oh, yes...I'm quite sure that's exactly what will happen....this must be so hard for Kent Leppink's family to take.

nancy botwin
04-29-2010, 01:05 AM
The Alaska Daily News has posted audio from Linehan's May 3, 1996 interview with law enforcement. It's posted within 7 clips under the related audio content accompanying this article:

http://www.adn.com/2010/04/28/1254851/linehan-may-be-released-to-third.html

nancy botwin
04-29-2010, 05:40 PM
There's a video containing footage from yesterday's bail hearing at this link:
http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=12393949

nancy botwin
05-03-2010, 07:21 PM
[
The one thing the prosecution said that I definitely believe is that "there are two Mechele Linehans"-- I, however, think only one is real. I just don't know which one-- the "scorpion" manipulator who was somehow complicit in a murder plot, or the woman who was essentially railroaded and wrongfully accused. If the latter is true, then it is indeed an outrage.

I understand that it has been Linehan's strategy to try everything in the courtroom and not use the media or internet as instruments of the defense. And I think that's clearly a wise strategy with respect to all accusations and aspersions related to Leppink and his family. However, if Linehan supporters are angry with the way Linehan is being portrayed, then show us where we're wrong. Show me the emails. Show me the official and public documents the media overlooked or misrepresented. I'm very open minded and my only agenda is to understand. To wit, I think that the vast majority of information we've gotten to see (brief work as an exotic dancer, the strained theory about The Last Seduction and Aspiotis' dubious testimony, etc.) has been either totally irrelevant or sensationalized to the point of absurdity. Clearly, when the charge is conspiracy to commit murder, the communications between the parties are the most relevant thing-- so I'm frustrated that we've only gotten to see a few disjointed email snippets in the mainstream media coverage. I'm more than open to the idea that, like you say, those emails were taken out of context and defy the broader picture of the interactions between the parties.

It's clear you are passionate about this case and have access to the transcripts and official information-- upload some of what you think we're missing. I can promise you it will be read and thoughtfully considered.

nancy botwin
05-03-2010, 09:20 PM
According to today's (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/new-update.html) post from the Free Mechele blog, the Linehans have secured the funds necessary to release Linehan on bond. They anticipate her release on Tuesday or Wednesday of this week.

cluciano63
05-03-2010, 09:25 PM
I don't have a problem w/ her getting bond; others do and I don't think she plans to vanish.
Sheree Miller in Michigan is out on bond pending another trial for arranging the murder of her husband.

flourish
05-04-2010, 01:04 AM
The one thing the prosecution said that I definitely believe is that "there are two Mechele Linehans"-- I, however, think only one is real. I just don't know which one-- the "scorpion" manipulator who was somehow complicit in a murder plot, or the woman who was essentially railroaded and wrongfully accused. If the latter is true, then it is indeed an outrage.

I understand that it has been Linehan's strategy to try everything in the courtroom and not use the media or internet as instruments of the defense. And I think that's clearly a wise strategy with respect to all accusations and aspersions related to Leppink and his family. However, if Linehan supporters are angry with the way Linehan is being portrayed, then show us where we're wrong. Show me the emails. Show me the official and public documents the media overlooked or misrepresented. I'm very open minded and my only agenda is to understand. To wit, I think that the vast majority of information we've gotten to see (brief work as an exotic dancer, the strained theory about The Last Seduction and Aspiotis' dubious testimony, etc.) has been either totally irrelevant or sensationalized to the point of absurdity. Clearly, when the charge is conspiracy to commit murder, the communications between the parties are the most relevant thing-- so I'm frustrated that we've only gotten to see a few disjointed email snippets in the mainstream media coverage. I'm more than open to the idea that, like you say, those emails were taken out of context and defy the broader picture of the interactions between the parties.

It's clear you are passionate about this case and have access to the transcripts and official information-- upload some of what you think we're missing. I can promise you it will be read and thoughtfully considered.

Hey Nancy,
Have I told you lately how awesome you are? Thank you for putting this into much more eloquent and kind words than I could have. I would love to read more information, too, and have wondered why it's not so available particularly in light of the amount of support.

Anyway, one of those "thanks" button wasn't enough moments:)

nancy botwin
05-04-2010, 01:39 AM
Hey Nancy,
Have I told you lately how awesome you are? Thank you for putting this into much more eloquent and kind words than I could have. I would love to read more information, too, and have wondered why it's not so available particularly in light of the amount of support.

Anyway, one of those "thanks" button wasn't enough moments:)

Thanks, flourish. You're awesome :-)
I'm pretty baffled by the lack of substantive info available in light of all the support as well! Particularly the emails-- Linehan won her appeal, those emails are going to be in evidence at the retrial; it can't hurt the defense to release the email history that purportedly blows the entire prosecutorial narrative (and the charges themselves) out of the water.

I hope rolena will return and take our requests into consideration. If not, I think we should form a coalition to send Musikman to Alaska! :smile:

Blastfunnee
05-04-2010, 11:25 AM
Seems like the jury chose that option.

Whoops.

Someone didn't hear about the Court of Appeals decision.

Maznblu1
05-04-2010, 12:30 PM
Whoops.

Someone didn't hear about the Court of Appeals decision.

You mean another case of someone found guilty getting off on a technicality? I heard about it. I also know that the jury that listened to her entire trial found her guilty.

flourish
05-04-2010, 02:02 PM
Well, Blondie, I am an Alaskan currently, but I was a born and raised Washingtonian before that so I feel qualified to answer your question. Most of the Washingtonians I know would think your question is a silly non-issue and most Alaskans don't give a rip too much about what anyone Outside thinks about much of anything.

Um, I'm not Blondie, and Blondie isn't the one who stated what I was discussing, which was the idea that Mechele shouldn't be prosecuted because she lives out of state now and isn't a threat to Alaskans. That idea is certainly silly.

rolena
05-04-2010, 03:46 PM
Um, I'm not Blondie, and Blondie isn't the one who stated what I was discussing, which was the idea that Mechele shouldn't be prosecuted because she lives out of state now and isn't a threat to Alaskans. That idea is certainly silly.

Yes, if she were dangerous or circumstances were different, probably all Alaskans would agree with you. The reasoning some have expressed in their local board posts though isn't quite that simple. It is a position a lot of people would argue with, but what I've read is that those who've included something like that in their arguments do so because there isn't enough evidence against her, there wasn't before and now there is even less, the state already spent God knows how much money on trying to get her and failed, so since she is no threat to Alaskans and doesn't even have any ties to here, it is more waste to pursue prosecuting her.

flourish
05-04-2010, 04:01 PM
Yes, if she were dangerous or circumstances were different, probably all Alaskans would agree with you. The reasoning some have expressed in their local board posts though isn't quite that simple. It is a position a lot of people would argue with, but what I've read is that those who've included something like that in their arguments do so because there isn't enough evidence against her, there wasn't before and now there is even less, the state already spent God knows how much money on trying to get her and failed, so since she is no threat to Alaskans and doesn't even have any ties to here, it is more waste to pursue prosecuting her.

I respectfully disagree that Alaska should not prosecute her. The crime occurred in Alaska. It doesn't need to get more complicated than that, IMO. As for the evidence, like we've mentioned before, we don't have access to everything and have looked at things using what we do have.

Can you address the laptop computer issue? Why go to such pains to erase someone else's computer if you've nothing to hide or worry about?

Also, I'm confused. Not that it really matters to me, but if Colin's not in the army anymore, he's not an army doctor anymore. Family practice doctors and botox and laser centers don't sound like the same thing to me. Any clarification there?

Carolina Girl
05-04-2010, 07:57 PM
I don't have a problem w/ her getting bond; others do and I don't think she plans to vanish.
Sheree Miller in Michigan is out on bond pending another trial for arranging the murder of her husband.

Innocent until proven guilty...in a court of law by her peers please.

flourish
05-04-2010, 10:40 PM
Why do you assume all other people are too stupid to think about how they would feel if it had been their relative? Do you ever stop long enough to consider that perhaps not everyone accused of a crime is guilty (well, we know they aren't because all those people released from death row because it turned out they were wrongfully convicted, as well as other cases around the country) and that something is wrong with our system when people are convicted without actual evidence?

Put the shoe on the other foot. I wonder how all these people talking about ridiculous things like whether Mechele Linehan is eating crab or wearing white tank tops would be so shallow and cruel if it were their mother/sister/daughter who lost her life without evidence in a trial that even the state appeals court said was an unfair trial, and people in her community and across the nation ridiculed her, smeared her reputation, humiliated her husband, child, and mother, insulted anyone who dared speak up for her, and took her from her child? Ask yourself if you would be so judgmental if it were you or your loved one that happened to?

Respectfully snipped and bolded by me, for space and emphasis

I was the one who mentioned the white tank tops. I just thought it was notable that she was wearing the same kind of top in 2 of the 3 shots. No real significance there--just me being me and noticing what people wear. :blushing:

Not sure how that makes me cruel...it's not like I was saying that I wished my recently murdered "ex-fiance" had been tortured before dying...now, in my opinion, that would be cruel

As for the crab, that topic is relevant and I stand by my words. People defending Mechele have touted her alleged vegetarianism as some sort of defense like, "she couldn't possibly have killed someone--she can't even eat chicken!" So seeing her eating crab made me stop and go :waitasec:

And I also must reiterate my issue with her being referred to as a "girl." She was a woman. A young woman, yes, but a woman.

Oh--one more thing: I didn't mention her eyebrows previously, but I did notice them in the photo from the bond hearing and wondered about it because I didn't think inmates had access to tweezers. I guess that's just me being shallow, though :crazy:

rolena
05-05-2010, 06:37 AM
I just have a hard time getting past some of the evidence that I have seen--like the laptop.
.

What aspect of the "laptop" evidence is an issue for you? Can you explain in a little more detail what you've read that you find compelling about it?

cluciano63
05-05-2010, 06:13 PM
I hope that Mechele's second trial sticks to actual evidence and is judged based on fact. But sadly, attacking character of witnesses or defendant is common practice in US trials and therefore does of course affect the outcome of trials. Juries are all too human and are affected by the portrayal of a person as much as by factual evidence. It is far easier to convict an unlikable, or worse, person, than someone who seems just like you and me. I have no idea if Mechele had anything at all to do with KL's murder or if she learned of it after the fact or never knew anything about it. I totally believe that her beauty played a role in the trial and in a negative way. People are affected by physical appearance and it can either go totally against you or totally the other way, depending upon circumstances; that combined with the hysteria over her being an exotic dancer/stripper was too much to resist by prosecution, in my opinion.
I would just like the trial to be fair, using only evidence and not supposition, and see if another jury feels the state has done its job. We should hope this much for any defendant, regardless of whether we deem her likable or not.

rolena
05-05-2010, 06:14 PM
I respectfully disagree that Alaska should not prosecute her. The crime occurred in Alaska. It doesn't need to get more complicated than that, IMO.

I agree that the crime occurred in Alaska, and so if there is a prosecution it should be on our dime, but I do not agree that it "doesn't need to get more complicated than that."

First, nothing in our society is more complicated than the law.

Second, if a defendant can't get a fair trial here because of our isolation, small population, and professional coziness, then the defendant deserves to have the trial in a less biased place. (Although, under AK law that is Very difficult, if not impossible. Even her bail is being decided by the same judge who oversaw both Carlin's and Linehan's trials and sentenced them both to 99 years! Checks and balances are hard to come by up here.)

Third, just because the state wants to solve the crime and wants to charge someone does not mean it should be her when they haven't been able to find any physical evidence or substantive circumstantial evidence. Otherwise, why not just pick names out of a hat?

rolena
05-05-2010, 07:09 PM
According to Wikipedia:


Are you not aware that Wikipedia is open to the public to write on and edit? Anyone can post an article and can make edits. That's why there is incorrect information in the article you refer to.

It isn't the gospel.

flourish
05-05-2010, 08:47 PM
I hope that Mechele's second trial sticks to actual evidence and is judged based on fact. But sadly, attacking character of witnesses or defendant is common practice in US trials and therefore does of course affect the outcome of trials. Juries are all too human and are affected by the portrayal of a person as much as by factual evidence. It is far easier to convict an unlikable, or worse, person, than someone who seems just like you and me. I have no idea if Mechele had anything at all to do with KL's murder or if she learned of it after the fact or never knew anything about it. I totally believe that her beauty played a role in the trial and in a negative way. People are affected by physical appearance and it can either go totally against you or totally the other way, depending upon circumstances; that combined with the hysteria over her being an exotic dancer/stripper was too much to resist by prosecution, in my opinion.
I would just like the trial to be fair, using only evidence and not supposition, and see if another jury feels the state has done its job. We should hope this much for any defendant, regardless of whether we deem her likable or not.

I would like to see that, too. I'd also like to see that happen without disparaging the victim who can't defend himself.

nancy botwin
05-05-2010, 09:44 PM
For what it's worth, I've called and tried to get access to the physical transcripts-- thousands of dollars in copying fees. So, that's out. I also looked into getting the audio transcript so I could put the mp3s on a free file sharing site and we could listen here at WS, but discovered Alaska courts exclusively use the FTR audio system (it is incompatible with all mac operating systems and I'm a mac person, so I couldn't do the initial burn and upload). So, that's out.

I REALLY want to see the entire email history. And complete/portions of the court transcript. And any and all exculpatory evidence that may or may not exist. So, I'm going to keep with this thread :-) I nominate myself to be the subject of all personal attacks and belittling. Bring it-- I don't care-- I really want to see the actual court documents/evidence.

txsvicki
05-05-2010, 11:37 PM
Wow, lots of posts to read since I last read here. I wasn't swayed by TV shows showing the more gossipy aspects of Michele, but definitely noticed the oddities about Leppink. I agree that there really wasn't enough evidence to prove that she conspired to have him killed. After reading here about the sexual harassment accusations by the teen, I am wondering if there was some attempt to set up Leppink as even more of a weirdo. Also, I don't understand why Michele would even have wanted to go into business with him. Still, there really wasn't enough evidence.

nancy botwin
05-06-2010, 05:26 AM
Club Owner Offers His Property to Cover Linehan Bail (http://www.adn.com/2010/05/05/1265416/motel-club-owner-offers-property.html), PROPERTY BOND: Anchorage man willing to put up hotel as collateral to free accused killer he hasn't met. Anchorage Daily News 5-6-2010

LadyBug99
05-06-2010, 10:13 AM
Reasons that I believe Mechele is guilty

1) The call to "cancel" the life insurance policy.
2) The laptop.
3) Seychelles Islands.
4) Her sisters refusal to testify.

Mechele was a manipulative young women, IN MY OPINION. This case was based on circumstantial evidence which is obviously subject to different interpretations. I was surprised when she was sentenced to 99 years. I was not surprised that she won an appeal. She may win this time around. If she does, I am happy that she has at least served some time in prison for her role in Kent's murder.

flourish
05-06-2010, 01:44 PM
Thank you. I'm neither ruffled nor upset. You have every right to challenge me and I tried to see where you were coming from. I tried to clarify. To me, there's nothing wrong with having breast implants. Or being gay. Or eating cheeseburgers. I don't think anyone deserves to get sick or be hospitalized. I don't know what else to say.





I'm not sure what specific points you feel we aren't addressing. If you're referring to all the insinuations and accusations about Leppink and his family, I've engaged the idea there's something to what you're saying, but I'm not going to touch any of it with a 10 foot pole unless you show some objective evidence (the emails, investigative reports, interview transcripts etc.) to back yourself up because Leppink is a murder victim and he can't defend himself. And while it's "dehumanizing" and cruel to make incidental remarks about Mechele's tank tops and awesome skin, it's totally within the bounds of productive civilized discourse to mockingly insinuate Leppink was a gay, "imported rug and sculpture"-appreciating "fun uncle." --??? :waitasec:

Beyond that, I have thoughtfully considered all of the other information you've offered. Like I said, I think it's quite plausible the email history reveals a relationship dynamic that's more consistent with your characterization than the prosecution's narrative. I don't really think you'd devote thousands of words to just making random stuff up and pretending you read all this evidence that doesn't exist. I suppose that's possible, but I don't believe you're doing that. I believe you believe the evidence shows what you say it shows. And I don't intend that to resonate as patronizing--I'd just like to read it for myself. I'm completely open to the idea I would read everything and draw the same conclusions you have drawn-- and be just as fired up about it.

I don't expect you to scan and upload 1000's of pages of documents-- DairyGirl's suggestion sounds reasonable:


It's just strange to me that apparently all this mysteriously hidden evidence shows that a woman has been wrongfully convicted and now faces retrial for a crime she didnt' commit. If the evidence says what you say it says, rolena, I think it's in Mechele's interest to bring it out of the darkness-- put it online or get it out there somehow. I think the national media and law makers could rally in support and public pressure could deter a retrial. If she's innocent and people are sitting on exonerating evidence, she deserves to have that brought to light as quickly, clearly and effectively as possible.
If you are interested in sharing any small amount of that evidence here at WS, I would be happy to give you links to the best free file sharing sites for documents and/or audio files.





I agree-- very well said. Also, ahem:

Okay, I'm gonna have to start a WS's Nancy Botwin fan-site:)

I agree with you and Darnudes...show us! Kent can't defend himself against the unproven and hateful things being said about him.

Belinda
05-06-2010, 05:04 PM
My take is that Rolena is somehow involved with the family or is simply way over emotionally invested in this case. Anyone who says something she doesn't like, gets bashed. I haven't been posting on here much, but I have been reading all the back and forth. What I see is that, instead of discussing and surmising about the case, everyone is constantly defending themselves from Rolena's attacks. This isn't a court of law, Rolena. People here are free to throw out their thoughts for discussion. They don't need to have a lawyer's pre-approval to do so. No one is asking that you agree with them. But, constantly berating everyone else does nothing but annoy everyone. It doesn't further the goal of ruminating about the case. Further, everyone is not required to agree with everything you say, when you have yet to provide a shred of evidence. Stop shoving your superior attitude down everyone's throat.

Tricia
05-06-2010, 11:43 PM
LISTEN UP EVERYONE.

I will not tolerate name calling or rude posts. DO NOT ENGAGE IN A DISCUSSION IF SOMEONE IS RUDE TO YOU. Hit the red triangle in the upper right hand corner of offending post. That will alert a moderator to the situation. BE PATIENT. We won't get to your complaint right away. It may take up to a day.

If you chose to engage in a discussion with someone who is calling you a name or being snarky then you too will either be timed out or banned.

NO PICTURES THAT CAN'T BE LINKED BACK TO. DO THIS AGAIN AND YOU WILL BE BANNED.

One more thing. Please stick to the facts. Don't state your opinion as fact. People complain about rumors then post all these "facts" with nothing backing them up.

It is greatly appreciated when you provide links to your source for your facts.

Thank you.

Tricia Griffith
Owner/Websleuths.com

LadyBug99
05-07-2010, 04:39 PM
I just want to come back here to say that I apologize to you Tricia, Rolena and all other members of here that read the back and forth banter that was going on the last few days. I was childish to even take the bait. I should have known better than to be lured into a ridiculous war of words. Rolena was right in saying this isn't about us.

I can fully admit when I'm wrong and I can agree to disagree. All of this has taken away from the sad and untimely death of Kent. Which is who we were trying to stick up for. Mechele has won her appeal. Let's go back to the case and facts that we do have.

Again sorry to all the great people and posters here!

nancy botwin
05-07-2010, 05:16 PM
I also apologize for my contribution to the disintigration of this thread. I'm excited to move forward and think the coming weeks should contain a lot of new developments.

According to today's update (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/bail-update.html) on the Free Mechele site, the prosecution does not contest the property bond offered (http://www.adn.com/2010/05/05/1265416/motel-club-owner-offers-property.html) by the local dance club owner, so they are just awaiting Judge Volland's approval. I'm assuming Linehan should be released relatively soon.

I think the source of the bond money will clearly add to the sensationalism of the case, detracting from the defense's objective to distance Linehan from her brief history as an exotic dancer. Right or wrong, accepting money from this source will definitely keep the "stripper" headlines in the foreground.

ETA: It looks like the strip club owner, Terry Stahlman stood trial (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=skAdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Y6cEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2487,2826855&dq=terry+stahlman&hl=en) for burglarizing pharmacies with the intent to sell narcotics in the 70's and was acquitted (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1828&dat=19791117&id=s0AdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Y6cEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3840,2949929). From what I'm reading, the trial looked messy and Stahlman claimed he was being set up and wrongfully accused, so maybe this has motivated his generous offer to offer Linehan's bond money. Note: Stahlman has quite an extensive legal history and I'm reading about various criminal charges, but that's the only one I confirmed outcome for so far.

darnudes
05-07-2010, 06:18 PM
I also apologize for my contribution to the disintigration of this thread. I'm excited to move forward and think the coming weeks should contain a lot of new developments.

According to today's update (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/bail-update.html) on the Free Mechele site, the prosecution does not contest the property bond offered (http://www.adn.com/2010/05/05/1265416/motel-club-owner-offers-property.html) by the local dance club owner, so they are just awaiting Judge Volland's approval. I'm assuming Linehan should be released relatively soon.

I think the source of the bond money will clearly add to the sensationalism of the case, detracting from the defense's objective to distance Linehan from her brief history as an exotic dancer. Right or wrong, accepting money from this source will definitely keep the "stripper" headlines in the foreground.

Hi Nancy and Ladybug99 - It's great to have the thread back and I'd like to say sorry to Tricia for contributing to the mess this thread became. Sorry Trish. I'd also like to thank Tricia for cleaning and putting the thread back up. I will definitely use the alert button in the future.

Thank You Tricia :blowkiss:

****************

I think you may well be right Nancy on the source of the bond money. Who needs that sort of attention or sensationalism when going into a second murder trial? I don't think that is the sort of publicity Linehan needs at this stage before a new trial begins but I imagine she is desperate to get out of jail and will use any means to do that. Much like she used many people in her earlier life in Alaska when she was stripping.

I wanted to thank you for posting the links to her police interviews. I'm not sure if they are still intact in the thread. If they're not I'll see if we can re-post them. They give a fascinating insight into Mechele and how she reacted to being told Kent was deceased, not the reaction of an innocent person in my opinion.

darnudes
05-07-2010, 06:30 PM
The Alaska Daily News has posted audio from Linehan's May 3, 1996 interview with law enforcement. It's posted within 7 clips under the related audio content accompanying this article:

http://www.adn.com/2010/04/28/1254851/linehan-may-be-released-to-third.html

Okay, here it is for anyone that has not listened to it.

The LE officer seems incredulous when Linehan is trying to explain about her boyfriend and then, oh yeah, my finance Kent. He's not the only one.

No getting away from the fact that she plainly stated in emails she wanted to be married to him but in the police interview she was trying to make out like she was doing him a favour and pretending for the sake of his family. She is lying and if she is lying then she is trying to cover something up. Truthful people don't need to lie and make up elaborate stories.

darnudes
05-07-2010, 06:46 PM
In fact in the interview where she learns of his death she sounds belligerent and angry.

She says "he's very sneaky and he lies a lot."

So, after learning that he died a violent death, she makes (to me) an unsuccessful attempt to cry and the first words she has for him are not kind ones.

nancy botwin
05-07-2010, 07:22 PM
Okay, here it is for anyone that has not listened to it.

The LE officer seems incredulous when Linehan is trying to explain about her boyfriend and then, oh yeah, my finance Kent. He's not the only one.

No getting away from the fact that she plainly stated in emails she wanted to be married to him but in the police interview she was trying to make out like she was doing him a favour and pretending for the sake of his family. She is lying and if she is lying then she is trying to cover something up. Truthful people don't need to lie and make up elaborate stories.

I agree-- the whole "sham marriage" cover-up theory doesn't seem to square with the emails-- I think I posted one which got deleted or else I just can't find it-- one which indicates Mechele was getting angry because Leppink's family wouldn't pay for the wedding dress she wanted or something and Kent was scrambling to appease her. But this email segment from Mechele to Kent seems to confirm the prosecution theory that Mechele was clearly stringing Kent along into believing she wanted to be his actual wife and wanted to make him a "happy husband."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877731/

Coupled with the nasty email she sent her mom about the marriage--
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877752/

I don't see how the defense can get around that. Being nasty and manipulative (in tricking Leppink into believing she wanted to marry him) doesn't necessarily translate into being guilty of murder. I don't understand why the defense didn't just admit Mechele was nasty and manipulative in stringing Kent along-- creating the strange sham marriage story just makes everything else in Mechele's story seem highly suspect.

nancy botwin
05-07-2010, 07:25 PM
In fact in the interview where she learns of his death she sounds belligerent and angry.

She says "he's very sneaky and he lies a lot."

So, after learning that he died a violent death, she makes (to me) an unsuccessful attempt to cry and the first words she has for him are not kind ones.

I agree-- I almost wondered if the audio had been edited or something because it was jarring how quickly she went from sobbing to plaintitively stating "he was very sneaky and lies a lot." Like within seconds of learning he's dead.

I really wish the inteview had been video recorded because I'd like to see what the sobbing looked like, her facial expressions etc. To me, it didn't sound believable.

nancy botwin
05-07-2010, 07:37 PM
The teen complained to his father, not to authorities, so it wasn't a set up. Leppink's attorney said Leppink contacted him and wanted to sue the facility they admitted the boy to after he tried to kill himself; Leppink was upset over something to do with the boy's counseling session or sessions. Again, the others weren't responsible for that weird behavior. In fact, what continues to come across to me is that John Carlin III was protecting young Carlin, and that both of them were not forthcoming about something that happened to young Carlin. I had wondered if it had something to do with young Carlin doing something because he felt defensive for Linehan. However, after I read where young Carlin said he complained to his father about Kent making sexual gestures and saying sexual things to him, and when he was asked how many times did it happen, he said he couldn't remember but it was "less than 20;" and a reference to something about Kent being like that in an email Carlin wrote, and then Mechele telling Leppink to stay away from the facility young Carlin was in, it was inappropriate of him and to leave the boy alone, I realized that whatever they were not being completely open about may have had something to do with that. It was Leppink skulking around the facility they put young Carlin in because he'd become so depressed he tried to hurt himself that makes me suspect something went down between Leppink and young Carlin, and perhaps shame is keeping him from being completely forthcoming.

...

Again, going from what was testified in open court:

"When asked under direct examination by prosecutor Pat Gullufsen if Leppink had made sexual advances to him, Carlin IV said no.

Leppink made lewd gestures but never advances, he said. The younger Carlin testified he told his father about the gestures.

"Were you ever threatened by him with regards to being sexually molested or assaulted?" Gullufsen asked.
"No sir. Not at all," Carlin IV said.

Source: http://www.theolympian.com/2007/10/02/232372/killers-son-offers-details-at.html

I do wonder if Carlin IV will testify in the new trial and if his testimony will be the same.

darnudes
05-07-2010, 07:43 PM
I agree-- the whole "sham marriage" cover-up theory doesn't seem to square with the emails-- I think I posted one which got deleted or else I just can't find it-- one which indicates Mechele was getting angry because Leppink's family wouldn't pay for the wedding dress she wanted or something and Kent was scrambling to appease her. But this email segment from Mechele to Kent seems to confirm the prosecution theory that Mechele was clearly stringing Kent along into believing she wanted to be his actual wife and wanted to make him a "happy husband."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877731/

Coupled with the nasty email she sent her mom about the marriage--
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877752/

I don't see how the defense can get around that. Being nasty and manipulative (in tricking Leppink into believing she wanted to marry him) doesn't necessarily translate into being guilty of murder. I don't understand why the defense didn't just admit Mechele was nasty and manipulative in stringing Kent along-- creating the strange sham marriage story just makes everything else in Mechele's story seem highly suspect.

Thanks Nancy, I have been spending some time on the net today looking for evidence that came out in the trials. I hadn't had much luck finding the emails. You're a life saver :)

nancy botwin
05-07-2010, 07:45 PM
Also: John Carlin's take on Mechele & Leppink's relationship:


"Leppink gave Linehan money, hoping to win her affections. Early on, he proposed to her, Carlin said.

"T.T. wrote on a check, 'Will you marry me?' and I think the diamond ring went into an ice cream sundae. ... Mechele told everybody about the check. Everybody, everybody, knew that T.T. had proposed to Mechele. And, during all that time ... Scott and Mechele are boyfriend, girlfriend. Part of his masochistic ways, T.T. is serving them breakfast in bed on the vacation that he tracks them down on."

T.T. ironed Mechele and Scott's clothes, Carlin said.

"Both her and Scott treated T.T ... like a fool, a jester," Carlin said. "They both would talk about T.T. and say how dumb he was. But T.T. wasn't dumb at all. He had a very high I.Q. I think that's where his masochistic personality would come out, where he would allow himself to be abused by them. ... The errand boy type of stuff."

T.T. believed that she had come around, though, and agreed to marry him. "I think Mechele was just conning him for that $2,300 or whatever it was for the wedding dress, that's what the whole thing was about," Carlin said."


Source:
http://www.adn.com/2007/10/19/117335_man-convicted-of-killing-leppink.html

ADN has added a 4 part audio interview with John Carlin in the "related audio" column next to the article.

flourish
05-07-2010, 08:59 PM
Hi guys! I'm glad the thread is back and also apologize for my part in the trouble. I plan to transcribe some of the emails and maybe recordings so they are easier to read and/or can be read instead of heard. I emailed Tricia just to make sure that's okay, so more later!

Again, glad to have the thread back!

TigerBalm
05-07-2010, 09:03 PM
Judge rejects Linehan bail offer (http://www.adn.com/2010/05/07/1268470/judge-rejects-linehan-bail-offer.html)

Anchorage Daily News
Published: May 7th, 2010 04:29 PM
Last Modified: May 7th, 2010 04:30 PM

A Superior Court judge today turned down a request from a strip club and hotel owner to put up some of his property as bail to free accused killer Mechele Linehan.

Judge Philip Volland, in an order issued this afternoon, denied the offer from Terry Stahlman to put up his Big Timber Hotel as assurance that Linehan wouldn't flee. Volland didn't elaborate on his reasoning in the one-sentence order.

<snipped>

darnudes
05-07-2010, 09:09 PM
Hi guys! I'm glad the thread is back and also apologize for my part in the trouble. I plan to transcribe some of the emails and maybe recordings so they are easier to read and/or can be read instead of heard. I emailed Tricia just to make sure that's okay, so more later!

Again, glad to have the thread back!

Hi Flourish and TigerBalm

TigerBalm thanks for the link about the Judge denying her bond request - wonder what his reasons were?

Personally I'm quite satisfied if she remains in jail until the trial as she is alleged and charged with killing someone. I do however feel very sorry for her husband and child, they have done nothing wrong.

Flourish, that would be great if you could do some transcribing! I was going to do that as well. And don't worry, looks like we all made some mistakes.

darnudes
05-07-2010, 09:19 PM
Now very interesting listening to John Carlin's interviews

Carlin talks about why he says he's innocent. First tape.

He says -you got the right plan but the wrong man. I ain't there

I've wondered before if this could be the case as he said Mechele ends up with the insurance money and Scott and what does John get? - No Mechele.

We know that Scott failed his poly but the police didn't seem overly concerned with that and add to this that the one and only person Mechele sees when she moves on to her new life is Scott, who she had an affair with when her poor husband is serving his country in Iraq.

Only problem with this is the gun evidence but I'm wondering if Mechele put the gun back after the murders and John was scared that his son had touched it so he cleaned it. This does make sense to me as it could be reasonable behaviour. What father wouldn't want to protect their child.

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2007/10/19/117335_man-convicted-of-killing-leppink.html#ixzz0nIO91Ofc

LadyL
05-07-2010, 10:22 PM
I agree-- the whole "sham marriage" cover-up theory doesn't seem to square with the emails-- I think I posted one which got deleted or else I just can't find it-- one which indicates Mechele was getting angry because Leppink's family wouldn't pay for the wedding dress she wanted or something and Kent was scrambling to appease her. But this email segment from Mechele to Kent seems to confirm the prosecution theory that Mechele was clearly stringing Kent along into believing she wanted to be his actual wife and wanted to make him a "happy husband."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877731/

Coupled with the nasty email she sent her mom about the marriage--
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877752/

I don't see how the defense can get around that. Being nasty and manipulative (in tricking Leppink into believing she wanted to marry him) doesn't necessarily translate into being guilty of murder. I don't understand why the defense didn't just admit Mechele was nasty and manipulative in stringing Kent along-- creating the strange sham marriage story just makes everything else in Mechele's story seem highly suspect.

that letter to her mom is disgusting

and just exactly why would she tell his parents she didn't know her own mother's phone #?

LadyL
05-07-2010, 10:26 PM
darnudes - I'm pretty sure those astericks indicate that is a blog we are not allowed to link to

darnudes
05-07-2010, 10:48 PM
Sorry about that, didn't know we couldn't link there. I do try and link where I am getting information from but I realise it is an opinion site. Does anyone know why we can't link to there?

Seychelles Letter transcribed

From Linehan to Carlin

“I have to say I am wondering what did he say when you said I was 2 1/2 hours away and he would have to come get me. Is he reading our mail? Did he leave with his pop? So they spent the night there, call me I have been up for about 2 hours. I am wide awake and my throat hurts still. It will go away soon. The mornings are always hard on me. I love you very much I miss you and I can’t wait to go on our getaway. Did you know that you could buy citisenship in the Saycheles for around 10 mill and no matter what crimes you have committed they will not extri. They are the only country that won’t send you back to the U.S. I found that out yesterday. I think I am going to walk to the library. It is down the road about 30 min and be back in 1 hour. I am not calling the house. I hope you like these long letters they are not easy. Have you given any thought to where you want to go?….Learn to dive maybe????..Cancun..Cabo…Anywhere
Love you”……………

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877646/

flourish
05-07-2010, 11:05 PM
I'm going to quote/trascribe the first part of this undated(?) email, labeled, "Deleted Message0004," and found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877752/. It is part of a bigger article on msnbc, entitled "The Stripper and the Steel Worker," which "originally aired on Dateline NBC," and can be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25876168/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports//.

The only changes I have made to the email is to hit "return" twice after each sentence or phrase (sometimes defined by Mechele's punctuation, other times by me, you can tell the difference by the presence or lack of punctuation, as I am not adding my own punctuation, just spacing). Additionally, I have not changed the spelling or grammar). I apologize in advance for any transcription errors on my part, if there are any.



i love you so much mom

so are you going to be able to make our wedding? ????

i sure hope so because it would mean so much to both of us.

T.T. parents have been asking if you would be able to make it

i told them you would probably be in Mexico

i told them my mother never loved me like she loved my sister

i explained to them that i wasnt your real daughter and that you were forced to take me on as your daughter because your third cousin had me when she was only 13 and that the whole family suffered because it was her brother that fathered the baby( me).

so i think they understood

i also explained that a deal you made had gone sour because of my lack of talents and that is how i ended up in alaska

naturally they begged for more so with a little sobbing on the phone i told them the rest.More to come.

flourish
05-07-2010, 11:11 PM
Sorry about that, didn't know we couldn't link there. I do try and link where I am getting information from but I realise it is an opinion site. Does anyone know why we can't link to there?

Seychelles Letter transcribed

From Linehan to Carlin

“I have to say I am wondering what did he say when you said I was 2 1/2 hours away and he would have to come get me. Is he reading our mail? Did he leave with his pop? So they spent the night there, call me I have been up for about 2 hours. I am wide awake and my throat hurts still. It will go away soon. The mornings are always hard on me. I love you very much I miss you and I can’t wait to go on our getaway. Did you know that you could buy citisenship in the Saycheles for around 10 mill and no matter what crimes you have committed they will not extri. They are the only country that won’t send you back to the U.S. I found that out yesterday. I think I am going to walk to the library. It is down the road about 30 min and be back in 1 hour. I am not calling the house. I hope you like these long letters they are not easy. Have you given any thought to where you want to go?….Learn to live maybe????..Cancun..Cabo…Anywhere
Love you”……………

Thanks!
For some reason I think I've seen one of the last lines quoted as "Learn to dive maybe????" as well as "Learn to live maybe????"

*shrug*

:)

Salem
05-07-2010, 11:16 PM
Respectfully snipped ~
Sorry about that, didn't know we couldn't link there. I do try and link where I am getting information from but I realise it is an opinion site. Does anyone know why we can't link to there?



Hi darnudes - you are supposed to provide links for your information. However, when the link comes up as asteriks, it means for any number of reasons it is not allowed here and we do not send our posters to that site.

Hope that helps,

Salem

darnudes
05-07-2010, 11:28 PM
Thanks!
For some reason I think I've seen one of the last lines quoted as "Learn to dive maybe????" as well as "Learn to live maybe????"

*shrug*

:)

Sorry you're right...should have been dive. Have edited my post to show correction.

darnudes
05-07-2010, 11:29 PM
Respectfully snipped ~

Hi darnudes - you are supposed to provide links for your information. However, when the link comes up as asteriks, it means for any number of reasons it is not allowed here and we do not send our posters to that site.

Hope that helps,

Salem

Thanks Salem, no probs.

flourish
05-07-2010, 11:30 PM
I'm going to quote/trascribe this email, labeled, "Toshiba/Zip Disk1/C/AOL25A/ORGANIZE/AKMEWELL," and found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877731/. It is part of a bigger article on msnbc, entitled "The Stripper and the Steel Worker," which "originally aired on Dateline NBC," and can be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25876168...rime_reports// (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25876168/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports//).

The only changes I have made to the email is to hit "return" twice after each sentence or phrase (sometimes defined by Mechele's punctuation, other times by me, you can tell the difference by the presence or lack of punctuation, as I am not adding my own punctuation, just spacing). Additionally, I have not changed the spelling or grammar). I apologize in advance for any transcription errors on my part, if there are any.



[lots of weird random characters/code or something] 03/31/96 [more code] you and me [more code]

hello

you got it you want a response and here is one

what to say

i want you to know that the time we are spending apart is healthy although it may hurt a bit

it will make everything stronger

i am not trying to procrastinate our wedding i am just conserned that everything will be rushed and it worries me because i will only have one and you know i want it to be perfect and well like you

you are so wonderful to me

you have given me a love that no one else could ever do

you give me a unbinding love that is truly from your heart and everyone can see it

many saw it way before i really knew i knew you cared but i didnt know how much

i didnt know it had no boundries and i hope i can make you a happy husband i will try my hardest to keep our family strong lovin
More to come

darnudes
05-07-2010, 11:50 PM
Melissa Hughes (Sister of Linehan) Testifies at John Carlin trial

Hughes was called as a prosecution witness at Carlin's trial. She testified that Linehan asked her shortly after Leppink's death to wipe clean a laptop computer she shared with him.

She also told jurors that her sister said "it was too bad someone didn't torture him first."

http://www.adn.com/2007/03/24/117435/stripper-asked-sister-to-wipe.html

flourish
05-08-2010, 12:08 AM
I'm going to quote/trascribe this email, which appears to be part of a bigger email and is unlabeled and undated, and can be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877695/. It is part of a bigger article on msnbc, entitled "The Stripper and the Steel Worker," which "originally aired on Dateline NBC," and can be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25876168...rime_reports// (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25876168/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports//).

The only changes I have made to the email is to hit "return" twice after each sentence or phrase (sometimes defined by John Carlin III's punctuation, other times by me, you can tell the difference by the presence or lack of punctuation, as I am not adding my own punctuation, just spacing). Additionally, I have not changed the spelling or grammar. I apologize in advance for any transcription errors on my part, if there are any.



could .... i have thought i could before and now well look by giving you what i could i have only hurt you because you wont take it anymore."

Again, we are alike.

You are not less of a person for this, just a human being with needs.

You will when you find the happiness and needs you are looking for.

You are beautiful and wonderful.

I love you very much.

You are everything to me and you will always be.

I really appreciate you giving me what you could.

I am sorry that I feel it is not enough.

I can not support you while you live with Scott.

It is not that I do not want to.

I just can not afford to support you while you do this.

I can not financially afford to put thousands of dollars into Scotts home, pay for your tickets to go see him and give you spending money to have fun with him while you are there.

I don't have the money to do that.

I wish that I did.

Things would probally be different if I had the money.

I would keep you happy by traveling all over having fun with you and you would forget Scott.

I just don't have the money.

I am sorry for that.

Please forgive me.



More to come

nancy botwin
05-11-2010, 01:42 AM
Thanks to flourish and darnudes for transcribing the emails!

I finally found some of the old emails I knew I had saved somewhere. Linehan tended to use the email identity akmewell (an anagram for "make me well" perhaps?) and Leppink's email identity was TangoPI.

Here (http://s975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/nancybotwin2010/?action=view&current=moneyemail.jpg) is an email in which Mechele is asking Kent for money and appears to be trying to get his bank routing numbers or something.

Here (http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/nancybotwin2010/emailleppink.jpg) is an email in which Leppink apologizes to Mechele for not having enough money (or as much money as he may have tried to make her believe he had). The tone and content of this email also shows that Leppink very much believed he and Linehan were really going to be married-- that they were in love and that they would start a family, IMO. I can't square this email with the whole "gay sham marriage" narrative spun by the defense.


Here (http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/nancybotwin2010/leppinktocarlin-1.jpg) is an email Leppink sent to Carlin, explaining his feelings for Mechele and his desire to marry Mechele.

(If you open the image by clicking the link, you can click on the image to zoom in to make the print more legible.)

nancy botwin
05-11-2010, 01:48 AM
I'm going to quote/trascribe this email, which appears to be part of a bigger email and is unlabeled and undated, and can be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877695/. It is part of a bigger article on msnbc, entitled "The Stripper and the Steel Worker," which "originally aired on Dateline NBC," and can be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25876168...rime_reports// (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25876168/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports//).

The only changes I have made to the email is to hit "return" twice after each sentence or phrase (sometimes defined by John Carlin III's punctuation, other times by me, you can tell the difference by the presence or lack of punctuation, as I am not adding my own punctuation, just spacing). Additionally, I have not changed the spelling or grammar. I apologize in advance for any transcription errors on my part, if there are any.




More to come

Here (http://s975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/nancybotwin2010/?action=view&current=carlintomechele-1.jpg) is the top portion of the email you transcribed. My version cuts off the end, but shows the opening paragraphs. I'm not as awesome as you are-- so I'm not transcribing it, but I thought people might like to have a look :-)

nancy botwin
05-11-2010, 02:02 AM
Sorry about that, didn't know we couldn't link there. I do try and link where I am getting information from but I realise it is an opinion site. Does anyone know why we can't link to there?

Seychelles Letter transcribed

From Linehan to Carlin

“I have to say I am wondering what did he say when you said I was 2 1/2 hours away and he would have to come get me. Is he reading our mail? Did he leave with his pop? So they spent the night there, call me I have been up for about 2 hours. I am wide awake and my throat hurts still. It will go away soon. The mornings are always hard on me. I love you very much I miss you and I can’t wait to go on our getaway. Did you know that you could buy citisenship in the Saycheles for around 10 mill and no matter what crimes you have committed they will not extri. They are the only country that won’t send you back to the U.S. I found that out yesterday. I think I am going to walk to the library. It is down the road about 30 min and be back in 1 hour. I am not calling the house. I hope you like these long letters they are not easy. Have you given any thought to where you want to go?….Learn to dive maybe????..Cancun..Cabo…Anywhere
Love you”……………

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877646/

Thanks for transcribing this! Also,
Here (http://s975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/nancybotwin2010/?action=view&current=mecheletocarlin427.jpg) is an email Linehan sent Carlin the evening before the Seychelle's email was sent.
It's hard to understand what Linehan is talking about, but she says it would be a "good idea" to tell Leppink she wants to "meet him alone, maybe tomorrow night" and then says "oh that is if I can get that flight out tomorrow."
To me, this fills in some gaps between the Seychelles email and the Hope note and lends credence to the idea Mechele was complicit in luring Leppink to his demise. Why else would she try to get Leppink to meet with her alone when she really planned to be on a flight elsewhere??

(Note: All these emails I'm posting were at one point posted online to append various articles about Linehan's case. I saved them to my hard drive for reference, as I knew the articles were likely to be modified, archived or deleted. The emails to which I've linked were exhibits in either Carlin or Linehan's trials and most still show the official page numbers. These are public documents.)

nancy botwin
05-11-2010, 02:18 AM
Also, Mechele's mother briefly posted in the forums at PrisonTalk. Rolena alleged that Mechele received inadequate medical care in prison and Mechele's mother discusses this briefly and also alleges that Mechele was drugged against her will prior to sentencing.

"My daughter is in South Hiland Mountain Correctional Center in Eagle Mountain Alaska. SHe has a harrington rod in her spine from surgery as a child. She has also been on antidepressendants. They refuse to give her even an aspirin and have requested her medical records and xrays. They seem to keep "losing" these. Her husband is a doctor and has given to them several times. They also gave her a drug without her consent before transporting her for sentencing. I think the drug was thoraxine (?)* I believe there was a lawsuit which resulted in that being illegal. Can anyone help?"

Source: medcial attention and med - Prison Talk

SentencingHere is the video of Mechele speaking at sentencing.

*I think Mechele's mother may be referring to Thorazine.

nancy botwin
05-11-2010, 02:35 AM
Now very interesting listening to John Carlin's interviews

Carlin talks about why he says he's innocent. First tape.

He says -you got the right plan but the wrong man. I ain't there

I've wondered before if this could be the case as he said Mechele ends up with the insurance money and Scott and what does John get? - No Mechele.

We know that Scott failed his poly but the police didn't seem overly concerned with that and add to this that the one and only person Mechele sees when she moves on to her new life is Scott, who she had an affair with when her poor husband is serving his country in Iraq.

Only problem with this is the gun evidence but I'm wondering if Mechele put the gun back after the murders and John was scared that his son had touched it so he cleaned it. This does make sense to me as it could be reasonable behaviour. What father wouldn't want to protect their child.

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2007/10/19/117335_man-convicted-of-killing-leppink.html#ixzz0nIO91Ofc

I think the you got the right plan but the wrong man. I ain't there quote was really interesting too!
I've also wondered if Carlin III washed the gun simply because he assumed it had been used in the murder, even if he himself didn't participate. It's very strange.

Also, I do remember reading in the ADN coverage that Mechele did have further interaction with both Carlins after she left Alaska. She left Alaska weeks after the murder and took Carlin IV with her. Carlin III met up with them later. And Carlin IV came and stayed with Mechele in Washington (2005) while her husband was deployed in Iraq.
Source: http://www.adn.com/2007/10/02/117382/carlin-iv-testifies-linehan-saw.html

marilhicks
05-11-2010, 10:07 AM
These emails are so revealing of the sick dynamics that existed between the parties: Leppink's hopeless infatuation with Mechele and her willingness to use it with such coldness (i.e. her demand for money).

I've been fascinated by the story because I believe she was complicit in his murder, but the legal 'clincher' seems to be missing. The details between his first visit to Hope and his murder days later are murky. I hope the prosecution can sort this out in the retrial.

Incidentally, this article:

http://www.adn.com/2009/04/11/756965/officials-didnt-protect-carlin.html

presents some reasons why Carlin was killed in prison. One of the attackers claimed he was a 'racist bully', a 'snitch' and a 'rat'. It has occasionally been suggested that there was some conspiracy to silence Carlin, but it may have been nothing more than prison 'dynamics'. I recall reading elsewhere that Carlin's troubles started when he arbitrarily changed the channel when a group of inmates were watching TV.

Carlin, like Leppink, struck me as a man who was extremely inept in managing his life and probably had the same difficulties in navigating prison life.

Blondie in Spokane
05-11-2010, 12:38 PM
Welcome to Websleuths Marilhicks...

and thank you Nancy for the emails....they certainly are telling.

I fail to see how anyone can give Mechele any type of support after reading how this woman conversed back and forth with these men, all the while manipulating them in every possible way. The emails are telling in that they show her true nature as she continues to take advantage of anyone who comes within her path.

I truly am still amazed that her husband continues to support her.... after hearing her phoney reaction to Kent's death....and to ever utter that he should have been tortured first?? After reading these emails where she basically is extorting money from these men for her own greed?? How does this man not see her true character?? I just don't get it.

I still stand by my original perception of this woman's character, and to me she is nothing more than a manipulative ***** who clearly expected to monetarily gain from Kent's death. Oh how I wish I could have seen the look on her face when she learned that Kent had taken her name off as the life insurance beneficiary!

P.S. I also wonder to this day about Hilke, if he was just given a cursory "glance", cleared by LE, and then the prosecution latched onto Carlin as the shooter. He was the more obvious choice but it still seems like Hilke should have been looked at much more carefully. It seems that nobody involved in this love triangle is above suspicion.

marilhicks
05-11-2010, 01:32 PM
Thank you for the welcome.

I was so impressed by Nancy's knowledge of the case. Aside from the documentaries, hard facts surrounding the case are hard to come by. I ordered the book by Fred Rosen, Deadly Angel, (hasn't arrived yet) hoping it might provide copies of the emails. I may be disappointed though - I have since read very negative reviews about the book.

I am also surprised by her husband's continued support, especially given testimony of her affairs during their marriage. But she seems to attach herself to men of a certain type - men who are willing to be used as doormats.

flourish
05-11-2010, 03:35 PM
Thank you for the welcome.

I was so impressed by Nancy's knowledge of the case. Aside from the documentaries, hard facts surrounding the case are hard to come by. I ordered the book by Fred Rosen, Deadly Angel, (hasn't arrived yet) hoping it might provide copies of the emails. I may be disappointed though - I have since read very negative reviews about the book.

I am also surprised by her husband's continued support, especially given testimony of her affairs during their marriage. But she seems to attach herself to men of a certain type - men who are willing to be used as doormats.

Hello and welcome:)
Just a quickie as I'm at work on a break:

Out of boredom and lack of availability of other sources of information and/or entertainment, I downloaded the book on my amazon kindle this past weekend. The "author" cannot write well at all and I am surprised that he has several books published.

[Incidentally, after downloading this book, I saw the cover of on of his other books and realized that I had picked one up at a thrift store last year and couldn't make it through the first chapter.]

However, the book does offer some emails which I hadn't seen before. Because the author doesn't include footnotes or clear citation, it's difficult to tell where he got his information. I hesitate to post anything about the other emails until I have more information about them and their validity, etc.

Interesting note: The amazon reviews for the book are anything but stellar...however, the overall score is skewed due to the author writing a review of his own book and giving it 5 stars. Seriously. Oh, and the review wasn't all that well-written, either! :loser:

Belinda
05-11-2010, 03:52 PM
Well, as they say, anyone can write a book. Doesn't mean it's a good book.....

nancy botwin
05-11-2010, 09:11 PM
Thank you for the welcome.

I was so impressed by Nancy's knowledge of the case. Aside from the documentaries, hard facts surrounding the case are hard to come by. I ordered the book by Fred Rosen, Deadly Angel, (hasn't arrived yet) hoping it might provide copies of the emails. I may be disappointed though - I have since read very negative reviews about the book.

I am also surprised by her husband's continued support, especially given testimony of her affairs during their marriage. But she seems to attach herself to men of a certain type - men who are willing to be used as doormats.

Welcome to WS!!

I read the Fred Rosen book too. And, like Flourish, I found it very disappointing. I was SO excited I even downloaded it the day it was released :loser: haha. I'm bitter that Rosen burned a great case for other true crime writers out there to have taken up. grrr.

I can understand how you and Blondie in Spokane are perplexed by Dr. Linehan's support. That said, I'm going to go out on a perhaps awkward limb and say I think the man is a prince. I'm pretty convinced of Linehan's guilt, but there ARE major holes in the evidence and I can easily see how Mechele could have presented a sympathetic and believable story to make those around her believe in her innocence. I can't fault her husband for wanting to believe in his wife and the mother of his child. I think he believes she's 100% innocent (of murder) and accepts she was once guilty of being a less kindhearted and wholesome woman than the woman he sees her as today. He's written a few posts (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/search/label/from%20Colin) on the Free Mechele site.

nancy botwin
05-11-2010, 09:25 PM
Welcome to Websleuths Marilhicks...

and thank you Nancy for the emails....they certainly are telling.

I fail to see how anyone can give Mechele any type of support after reading how this woman conversed back and forth with these men, all the while manipulating them in every possible way. The emails are telling in that they show her true nature as she continues to take advantage of anyone who comes within her path.

I truly am still amazed that her husband continues to support her.... after hearing her phoney reaction to Kent's death....and to ever utter that he should have been tortured first?? After reading these emails where she basically is extorting money from these men for her own greed?? How does this man not see her true character?? I just don't get it.

I still stand by my original perception of this woman's character, and to me she is nothing more than a manipulative ***** who clearly expected to monetarily gain from Kent's death. Oh how I wish I could have seen the look on her face when she learned that Kent had taken her name off as the life insurance beneficiary!

P.S. I also wonder to this day about Hilke, if he was just given a cursory "glance", cleared by LE, and then the prosecution latched onto Carlin as the shooter. He was the more obvious choice but it still seems like Hilke should have been looked at much more carefully. It seems that nobody involved in this love triangle is above suspicion.

I'm also curious about the Hilke connection. I wish there was more information about there about him!

And I am also fascinated by the stark contrast between the "two Mecheles."
I could understand if her supporters would acknowledge that she was once a pretty terrible person who manipulated others for her own gain, etc. but had since reformed and transformed. I think whitewashing her past makes the entire defense less credible.

Early in the case, the ADN published some interesting articles about Mechele's past. Interestingly, while rolena and other Mechele supporters constantly insist that Mechele stripped for a very brief period of time in Alaska, she actually stole her sister's ID when she ran away to NJ as a teen (where she worked as an exotic dancer, according to the prosecution) and she also worked as an exotic dancer when she returned to New Orleans after Leppink's murder. (She allegedly danced in at least two clubs on Bourbon Street and quit before marrying Dr. Linehan). (sources below)

The ADN companionate piece on Mechele's past:
ADN: Femme Fatale or PTA Mom? (http://www.adn.com/2007/09/16/117424/linehan-femme-fatale-or-is-she.html)
ADN: Murder Suspect Became Cookie-baking Volunteer (http://www.adn.com/2007/09/17/117415/murder-suspect-became-cookie-baking.html).

wanttohelp
05-12-2010, 03:01 AM
you know i have wondered before if any studies have been done on effects of people's voices. i have seen so many times people with her voice tone have people attracted to them and wondered why. sorry that was a random thought.

my opinion though, she is sooooo guitly! i mean and her favorite video????in the interveiw, the 2 hr one, i seriously thought the interviewer was going to have to quit. i mean you could tell she wanted to smack her. just like me!

"i feel like im being attacked"http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs42/f/2009/156/c/8/_sickscream__by_MenInASuitcase.gifhttp://fc02.deviantart.net/fs29/f/2008/049/b/a/_crazy__by_Dumnezeu.gifhttp://fc05.deviantart.net/fs11/i/2006/240/5/9/Luke_Puke_by_CRWPitman.gif

marilhicks
05-12-2010, 05:55 AM
Hello and welcome:)

Interesting note: The amazon reviews for the book are anything but stellar...however, the overall score is skewed due to the author writing a review of his own book and giving it 5 stars. Seriously. Oh, and the review wasn't all that well-written, either! :loser:

I saw that - what a hoot. I wish I could have graded my term papers or done my own job performance assessments.
I ordered my copy from abebooks.com - they have the book for a dollar used, and a couple of dollars new.

marilhicks
05-12-2010, 06:11 AM
Welcome to WS!!

I read the Fred Rosen book too. And, like Flourish, I found it very disappointing. I was SO excited I even downloaded it the day it was released :loser: haha. I'm bitter that Rosen burned a great case for other true crime writers out there to have taken up. grrr.

I can understand how you and Blondie in Spokane are perplexed by Dr. Linehan's support. That said, I'm going to go out on a perhaps awkward limb and say I think the man is a prince. I'm pretty convinced of Linehan's guilt, but there ARE major holes in the evidence and I can easily see how Mechele could have presented a sympathetic and believable story to make those around her believe in her innocence. I can't fault her husband for wanting to believe in his wife and the mother of his child. I think he believes she's 100% innocent (of murder) and accepts she was once guilty of being a less kindhearted and wholesome woman than the woman he sees her as today. He's written a few posts (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/search/label/from%20Colin) on the Free Mechele site.

He’s not only a prince, but a saint to be able to proclaim how wonderful she is in spite of her infidelities with a former lover (bringing her daughter along) and with a family friend. I see him as a one of her victims - bankrupted, a million in debt and cuckolded to boot. I also think he honestly believes she is innocent of the murder.

Thanks for the links. Here’s one I found interesting.

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/archive.php?ac=t&forumid=124593&date=05-16-2009&t=1703625-1

Highlights of the trial are presented (news reports) along with a transcript of the CBS documentary.

There’s not much new for those familiar with the case but there is a nugget here and there. For instance, the prosecutors wanted to put an unnamed woman on the stand who claimed to have seen Mechele and Carlin steal money from Leppink’s wallet while he was in the shower!

nancy botwin
05-12-2010, 02:14 PM
He’s not only a prince, but a saint to be able to proclaim how wonderful she is in spite of her infidelities with a former lover (bringing her daughter along) and with a family friend. I see him as a one of her victims - bankrupted, a million in debt and cuckolded to boot. I also think he honestly believes she is innocent of the murder.

Thanks for the links. Here’s one I found interesting.

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/archive.php?ac=t&forumid=124593&date=05-16-2009&t=1703625-1

Highlights of the trial are presented (news reports) along with a transcript of the CBS documentary.

There’s not much new for those familiar with the case but there is a nugget here and there. For instance, the prosecutors wanted to put an unnamed woman on the stand who claimed to have seen Mechele and Carlin steal money from Leppink’s wallet while he was in the shower!

I hadn't seen that info -- thanks!!
Very interesting!

nancy botwin
05-12-2010, 02:16 PM
Linehan was released on bail late last night.
Apparently an unnamed benefactor from "the lower 48" donated the $25,000 necessary to pay the bail bondsman. I was sort of expecting some video coverage of her exiting the jail or something-- but apparently this happened with little fanfare.

ADN: Linehan Out On Bond (http://www.adn.com/2010/05/12/1274765/linehan-out-on-bail.html)

Belinda
05-12-2010, 02:26 PM
I believe with every fiber of my being that this woman is guilty and I hope her new found freedom is short lived.

flourish
05-12-2010, 08:34 PM
Since the only four posts of Rolena's which are left here are aimed at, or in response to, my postings, I'm going to respond. I am not arguing and am simply going to answer her inquiries in case anyone else was wondering the same things she was. Hope that makes sense.


Yes, if she were dangerous or circumstances were different, probably all Alaskans would agree with you. The reasoning some have expressed in their local board posts though isn't quite that simple. It is a position a lot of people would argue with, but what I've read is that those who've included something like that in their arguments do so because there isn't enough evidence against her, there wasn't before and now there is even less, the state already spent God knows how much money on trying to get her and failed, so since she is no threat to Alaskans and doesn't even have any ties to here, it is more waste to pursue prosecuting her.

Again, I will repeat that it's not only my opinion, but also that of the SA, that there is sufficient evidence to re-try her. Her conviction was overturned, but the indictment still exists.

While the politics, law, and processes of Alaska's courts may be considered unfair by some, IMO a more appropriate venue for those arguments would be through the Alaska legislature process.


What aspect of the "laptop" evidence is an issue for you? Can you explain in a little more detail what you've read that you find compelling about it?

I believe I was pretty clear about my concerns with the laptop, as I stated in my posts, here:



Can you address the laptop computer issue? Why go to such pains to erase someone else's computer if you've nothing to hide or worry about?

and here:

If my friend supposedly had himself killed, and I'm being questioned about it, I would probably want the cops to examine said friend's computer so they could find evidence about the assisted suicide. Destroying the computer seems counterintuitive for an innocent party, IMO.

Mechele seemed to go out of her way to ship Kent's laptop to her sister immediately after the murder, wanting the laptop wiped. I find that hinky to the nth degree.


Are you not aware that Wikipedia is open to the public to write on and edit? Anyone can post an article and can make edits. That's why there is incorrect information in the article you refer to.

It isn't the gospel.

I am well aware of the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of Wikipedia. Hence the additional link which was provided in my original post, but Rolena snipped it out when quoting my post when she posted the above question. Please see my original post, in its entirety, below:


According to the pro-Mechele blog, which I'm trying to not click on but did anyway, this was a "female-related" issue and she's healing well.

I hope they don't offer a plea bargain...so far they've stated they're going back to trial...I don't know the specific laws about that who process anyway:)

Yeah, the sister thing is sooo disturbing. According to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechele_Linehan

and this article:

http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=7096234

the sister testified at Carlin's trial, then took off and hid in the Czech Republic until after Mechele's trial, when she was held in an Atlanta jail for a week.

Yeah, that doesn't really cast an innocent light on Mechele. At all. Not sure how anyone gets past this part.

Thank you for your time.

nancy botwin
05-13-2010, 01:53 AM
...
Mechele seemed to go out of her way to ship Kent's laptop to her sister immediately after the murder, wanting the laptop wiped. I find that hinky to the nth degree.

...


I agree! If one just wanted to innocently wipe out their computer, wouldn't they just go to CompUSA or some other business which specializes in that sort of thing? I think it's odd Mechele busted all the way to Utah for some routine harddrive maintenance :waitasec:

Thanks for flushing out the info in your previous posts! Without rolena, it seems we're all essentially situated on the same side of the fence-- I wish we had a counterpoint to work from.

Also, FWIW, I think Mechele's sister conducted herself admirably throughout this process. Despite some popular media coverage to the contrary, she did cooperate with authorities and testify when property subpoenaed (at Carlin's trial). Her sister put her in a rather untenable situation, IMO.

nancy botwin
05-13-2010, 01:58 AM
The ADN has updated their most recent story (http://www.adn.com/2010/05/12/1274765/linehan-out-on-bail.html) on Linehan's release and identified the benefactor who supplied the $25,000 necessary to secure bond. Brian Watt is a CFO from Pennsylvania. From the article:


Watt has never met the Linehans or been to Alaska, he said. He became interested in the case after watching a TV show about it. He then started researching it. "The narrative that was being told, in the media, on blogs, and reader commentary on the Internet, took on a life of its own. It appeared to me to be impossible for Mrs. Linehan to escape that pre-assembled story," he said.
...

The prosecution's version of events outshined the truth both in the courtroom and outside it, Watt said.

"It was as if the Internet hyenas had gathered at the watering hole, and they were going to rip the flesh from her bones, no matter what she said or did," Watt said.


As I recall, Watt posts with some frequency in the comments on the Free Mechele site and other blogs which discuss the case.

Belinda
05-13-2010, 02:05 AM
Thanks Nancy. I guess there is a sucker born every minute and Mechele seems to have a direct line to all of them. While I do think some things have been sensationalized, I also think there is more than adequate evidence of her participation in this murder. If they cut a deal with her and give her time served, I will have a cow.

nancy botwin
05-13-2010, 02:26 AM
Thanks Nancy. I guess there is a sucker born every minute and Mechele seems to have a direct line to all of them. While I do think some things have been sensationalized, I also think there is more than adequate evidence of her participation in this murder. If they cut a deal with her and give her time served, I will have a cow.

lol! have a cow! I haven't heard that one in ages :-) love it.

I've thought about the prospect of a deal too. If she got off with time served that would be FAR too lenient, IMO. I think I remember reading that she was initially offered a 12 year deal but opted instead to go to trial. I can't remember where I read that though, so this might not be true.

I hope the State takes it to trial. I think she's guilty (of 1st degree murder, I'm not entirely certain), but I would like a chance to see this play out at trial. I hope the retrial is televised-- I wonder if that's a possibility.

The internet has been AFIRE with various pro-guilt verdict commenters who have purported to know Linehan or have interactions with her in jail etc. If there's any veracity to their statements, I hope the prosecution is investigating new potential witnesses and will bring them out at the retrial.

nancy botwin
05-13-2010, 03:40 AM
Brief video accompanying KTUU story (http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=12473059) contains soundbites from various players regarding bail issue. Notably, Linehan's current bail bondsman inadvertently likens Linehan to Charles Manson. That probably didn't go over well. :snooty:

marilhicks
05-13-2010, 07:25 AM
I agree! If one just wanted to innocently wipe out their computer, wouldn't they just go to CompUSA or some other business which specializes in that sort of thing? I think it's odd Mechele busted all the way to Utah for some routine harddrive maintenance :waitasec:

Thanks for flushing out the info in your previous posts! Without rolena, it seems we're all essentially situated on the same side of the fence-- I wish we had a counterpoint to work from.



That's because logic forces one in the direction of her possible guilt. I suspended judgment until I read everything available on the case. Mechele's supporters are unimpressive in their lack of substantive arguments for her innocence - just vague statements of support or positing the incredible suggestion that Leppink had himself killed. I thought Rolena's comments were the first I'd seen that presented a logical argument for the other side. However, I wasn't able to digest her posts before they were pulled.

Because of the notoriety the case has received since the first trial, there has been time for hard positions to be developed on both sides. I think this will have an effect on the retrial (if it takes place).

Blondie in Spokane
05-13-2010, 09:15 AM
Brief video accompanying KTUU story (http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=12473059) contains soundbites from various players regarding bail issue. Notably, Linehan's current bail bondsman inadvertently likens Linehan to Charles Manson. That probably didn't go over well. :snooty:


Whoops!!!.......open mouth.........insert foot!!!!............


(I can't say I'm terribly impressed with the ex-strip club owner either, but then these people are just typical of Mechele's associations......not much has changed from what I can tell.

As the old saying goes...."you are who your friends are......." very appropriate here, I would say.

Blondie in Spokane
05-13-2010, 09:36 AM
I do have to admit that Rolena's (or whatever her name was) "hard stance" made me very much more interested in the facts of this story and I really do want to know much more. I must admit that really, for the most part, all I knew before about this story was from the Dateline and 48 Hours news programs.

Just a few questions for all of you who are light years ahead of me....

1. where do you guys find all of this information? It's amazing when you look at everything contained in this thread....that's why I feel like I should just read and keep quiet...I really need to learn so much more on this. I have googled these topics but apparently I am missing the boat here. Have you guys saved volumes of this info from the beginning of this case?

2. if Kent were to have "set them up" and killed himself, how could he have done it? His car was not found at the scene IIRC. There was no gun found at the scene. Did he possibly ask someone to kill him and then pay them off with life insurance money for killing him? (after removing Mechele as beneficiary, so kind of an after-death double cross?) I really can't get that scenario to work in my mind yet. I guess I need it spelled out for me.

As I was reading through all of this info I came up with so many questions but failed to write them down. Will try to ask them later if you guys don't mind.....I just find this case fascinating to the nth degree.

Also, I just caught the info that the computer that was "cleaned" was Kent's, not Mechele's, so that was a surprise. That definitely looks like guilt to me...I don't see how that can be construed any other way.

You guys all amaze me with your knowledge of this case and thank you so much for sharing it here. I've learned more about it in the past month than I had in that past two years!

Belinda
05-13-2010, 09:48 AM
You guys all amaze me with your knowledge of this case and thank you so much for sharing it here. I've learned more about it in the past month than I had in that past two years!

Respectfully snipped for space.

I too am amazed at the stuff you guys get a hold of. I'm getting pretty good at finding sentencing and court information, but other than that I'm still floundering with everyone else, trying to figure out where all the information comes from. You guys are awesome researchers!

marilhicks
05-13-2010, 01:30 PM
1. where do you guys find all of this information?

2. if Kent were to have "set them up" and killed himself, how could he have done it? His car was not found at the scene IIRC. There was no gun found at the scene. Did he possibly ask someone to kill him and then pay them off with life insurance money for killing him? (after removing Mechele as beneficiary, so kind of an after-death double cross?) I really can't get that scenario to work in my mind yet. I guess I need it spelled out for me.




1. This is a good place to start:

http://www.adn.com/linehan/

The coverage is quite complete. For instance there is a very different portrayal of Kent Leppink from his friends here

http://www.adn.com/2007/10/01/117386/reason-offered-for-prints-on-weapon.html.

Mechele’s claim that he was gay is certainly questionable after reading this.

But clicking through these news stories will give you a good background on the case.

2. On the FreeMechele website you’ll find many comments suggesting the scenario that Kent set up his own suicide. It obviously makes no sense. (That site is difficult to navigate.)

nancy botwin
05-13-2010, 07:05 PM
I do have to admit that Rolena's (or whatever her name was) "hard stance" made me very much more interested in the facts of this story and I really do want to know much more. I must admit that really, for the most part, all I knew before about this story was from the Dateline and 48 Hours news programs.

Just a few questions for all of you who are light years ahead of me....

1. where do you guys find all of this information? It's amazing when you look at everything contained in this thread....that's why I feel like I should just read and keep quiet...I really need to learn so much more on this. I have googled these topics but apparently I am missing the boat here. Have you guys saved volumes of this info from the beginning of this case?

This case has always really interested me-- and my initial exposure was on 48 Hours too :-) I saw the episode and then started following it as closely as I could. And I'm a little ocd, so I saved documents and emails I found along the way-- I'm glad I did because lots of stuff has been deleted over the years. Ironically, in the begining I was leaning more toward Linehan's innocence than toward her guilt, but the more I've read, the more convinced I've become of her guilt. I think at minimum, Linehan knew what was going to happen to Kent before it happened and did nothing to stop it; or in the alternative, she found out right afterward and for whatever reason failed to tell authorities. To me, she clearly bears a degree of moral responsibility for Kent's murder-- I'm still confused as to the degree of legal responsibility. So I remain fascinated.





2. if Kent were to have "set them up" and killed himself, how could he have done it? His car was not found at the scene IIRC. There was no gun found at the scene. Did he possibly ask someone to kill him and then pay them off with life insurance money for killing him? (after removing Mechele as beneficiary, so kind of an after-death double cross?) I really can't get that scenario to work in my mind yet. I guess I need it spelled out for me.


Like Marlihicks says, it's hard to find a plausible scenario for the arranged suicide/murder frame-up. You're right-- no car was found with Leppink's body and I think his car was found parked back at his house-- 90+ miles away. So, someone had to have driven Leppink to Hope or driven Leppink's car back to the house after his death. At the time of his death, I'm pretty sure Leppink had little money left. Linehan supporters are quick to point to the fact he was generally supported by his parents and that he had outstanding gambling debts. Linehan stated in her 1996 police interview that Leppink had made no money during the past 1-2 fishing seasons. I get the impression he was always on financially shaky ground and that courting Linehan essentially bankrupted him. And insurance beneficiary was changed from Mechele to Leppink's own family (mother, father, brother) so I don't think the killer was paid with the life insurance payout. So if Leppink had contracted his own suicide, I don't know how he could have paid that individual. IMO if Leppink had found someone shady enough to agree to kill him for a fee or for free, that kind of person would likely have had future brushes with the legal system within the last decade. Wouldn't they have offered up information to solve one of Alaska's most notorious unsolved cold cases in the hopes of getting some sort of deal? Or told someone about it in the intervening years??



Also, I just caught the info that the computer that was "cleaned" was Kent's, not Mechele's, so that was a surprise. That definitely looks like guilt to me...I don't see how that can be construed any other way.

You guys all amaze me with your knowledge of this case and thank you so much for sharing it here. I've learned more about it in the past month than I had in that past two years!

Yes!-- and she shipped the laptop away to her sister only AFTER investigators asked her for it and Mechele herself tried to delete things from the computer, according to testimony of investigators at trial. If Mechele really had nothing to do with any of this and had no idea what happened, wouldn't she have wanted investigators to comb through his computer to possibly find evidence to show what really happened? Especially as the investigators were clearly zeroing in on her as a suspect??:waitasec:

And thanks! I wish we had more info to look at -- there's so much more to see! I guess we'll have to wait for the retrial.

nancy botwin
05-13-2010, 07:14 PM
1. This is a good place to start:

http://www.adn.com/linehan/

The coverage is quite complete. For instance there is a very different portrayal of Kent Leppink from his friends here

http://www.adn.com/2007/10/01/117386/reason-offered-for-prints-on-weapon.html.

Mechele’s claim that he was gay is certainly questionable after reading this.

But clicking through these news stories will give you a good background on the case.

2. On the FreeMechele website you’ll find many comments suggesting the scenario that Kent set up his own suicide. It obviously makes no sense. (That site is difficult to navigate.)

And I still don't understand how the gay thing even squares with the rest of the defense's theory. If Leppink was gay, why was he frequenting strip clubs and sexually obsessed with Mechele? Also, it seems Mechele made a bit of a habit telling each of her paramours that the others were gay and "not a threat." The Dateline episode featured a flowchart, complete with a big red arrow and the word "GAY," to break down how she had alternately told each man that either Hilke, Carlin or Leppink were gay at some point. :waitasec:

LadyBug99
05-14-2010, 01:19 PM
Hi guys! I'm back after giving myself a little break from all this. I see Mechele is out on bail. I can't say that I'm surprised. I've been catching back up and I love all your posts. They echo my sentiments exactly. I know this is a circumstantial case so it is a million times harder, but do you guys think they will retry her? Will they win? If the emails and scenario were put in front of me, as a juror I would convict her. However, what else can the prosecution do this time around? They do not have concrete evidence that she planned his death. I realize this. I wish they were able to come with some additional evidence this time around. I feel in my heart she is guilty, the circumstantial evidence points to her being "in the know". That said if they do not retry her or get a conviction this time, I feel better knowing that she did in fact have to spend 2.5 years in prison. I think she deserves the black cloud that will hang over her head for the rest of her life.


Reading the Free Mechele Blog is truly frustrating!!! I don't understand their take on the same emails and information that we have. Rolena stated that there was sooo much more, but what? Even on the site they don't talk about more information that the public is not privy to. They are just rehashing the same info and putting their unique spin on it. (which I find laughable). They go to hell and back pointing the finger at Alaska and the prosecutors for making up a sensational story to get a conviction. Well aren't they doing the same thing? They are telling a tale to show Mechele in a better light. None of their explanations make any sense. Mechele tells them one story and their stickin to it. Well I ain't buying it!!!

LadyBug99
05-14-2010, 01:25 PM
http://innocentmechele.blogspot.com/


This is an example of their interpretation of the same letter that we all read.....really???

marilhicks
05-14-2010, 01:41 PM
And I still don't understand how the gay thing even squares with the rest of the defense's theory. If Leppink was gay, why was he frequenting strip clubs and sexually obsessed with Mechele? Also, it seems Mechele made a bit of a habit telling each of her paramours that the others were gay and "not a threat." The Dateline episode featured a flowchart, complete with a big red arrow and the word "GAY," to break down how she had alternately told each man that either Hilke, Carlin or Leppink were gay at some point. :waitasec:

You’re right - the gay claim doesn’t hold up in light of his behavior and especially the emails you posted recently. Kent was looking forward to having children and clearly envisioned a normal marriage - evidently not the bizarre ‘business arrangement’ she described.

Guilty or not, it’s a fascinating study in deviousness and chicanery and the idiocy of a group of sappy, middle aged men and their fantasies.

However I think the prosecution will need to come up with more evidence than is currently known to get a conviction this time. People have had a lot of time to mull over the holes in the case.

nancy botwin
05-15-2010, 04:17 AM
The Anchorage Daily News sat down with Mechele Linehan for a two-hour interview about her life in prison.



Now Free, Linehan Sets Up a New Life (ADN, 5-14-10) (http://www.adn.com/2010/05/14/1279009/now-free-linehan-sets-up-a-new.html)

http://media.thenewstribune.com/smedia/2010/05/14/23/754-5223294.65503.original.standalone.prod_affiliate.5 .jpg

Photo Accompanying Article, reprinted by http://www.thenewstribune.com/, Credit: Marc Lester / © Anchorage Daily News

flourish
05-15-2010, 04:21 AM
http://www.adn.com/2010/05/14/1279009/now-free-linehan-sets-up-a-new.html

"Now Free, Linehan Sets up a New Life" article published at adn.com, see link above. Includes a photo of Mechele carrying out some personal belongings from the prison.

A couple of quotes from the article:

She learned how to work the inmate black market, where everything from hard drugs to lip gloss is bartered or sold. She mostly sought out fresh fruit and vegetables.
She learned she could avoid prison food by ordering from Costco, an inmate privilege, and use an iron to make ham and cheese croissant paninis. [my bold added] :waitasec::angel:


She ended up in the "hole" a couple of times for breaking the rules, including having chewing tobacco -- she had it for bartering.and then there's this gem, with the bold added by me:


Asked what she thought of the strangers who have come forward giving her money to help -- Brian Watt, an East Coast executive, donated $25,000 for bail money and Anchorage strip club owner and businessman Terry Stahlman put up his motel as collateral for the bail -- she expressed gratitude.
But at first, she admitted, she was leery. "I've taken presents from men before that didn't want anything and it didn't get me in a good place."
:eek::eek::eek:

flourish
05-15-2010, 04:22 AM
LOL, jinx Nancy:)

nancy botwin
05-15-2010, 04:43 AM
LOL, jinx Nancy:)

lol!

Thanks for pulling out the interesting parts! And for emboldening HAM :dance: hehe.

I think it's interesting Linehan admits she was in "the hole" and says it was because she had chewing tobacco so she could barter for fresh fruits. Mechele's mother posted on the Free Mechele blog-- (entry since deleted, I'm pretty sure) that Mechele got in trouble for having tweezers that the prison gave her. She posted a very lengthy entry about this and how unfair it was, especially bc Mechele would be in the hole during her birthday. So is Mechele omitting some of her disciplinary infractions or just lying? :waitasec:

nancy botwin
05-15-2010, 06:19 AM
The new ADN interview's (http://www.adn.com/2010/05/14/1279009/now-free-linehan-sets-up-a-new.html)revelations about Mechele being put in "the hole" for trying to blackmarket barter for fresh fruit piqued my interest because it was interesting Mechele acknowledged her rumored disciplinary record in the interview at all.

As previously mentioned, there have been a number of online comments alleging Mechele got into trouble for a number of actually unsavory or illegal activities behind bars. I've mentioned before (and above) that the Free Mechele site posted about Mechele being put in solitary for possessing prison-issued tweezers. And then the entry strangely disappeared, as did numerous subsequent references to the alleged tweezer fiasco. Why would Mechele be placed in "the hole" for weeks simply because she was in possession of something the prison gave her?? And why would the entry and subsequent comments referencing it mysteriously disappear? The wholesome fresh fruit bartering story revived my interest in the deleted tweezer post.

And we all know nothing ever really goes away on the internet. So I found the deleted entry. (Thanks to RSS Feed manipulation and my ocd-tendencies.:loser:)
The bad thing is that Mechele's mom posted at length in the comments section to the entry, paragraphs detailing the injustice of tweezergate, how she thought the ACLU should get involved etc. but I can't access the comments to the deleted entry or the related comments deleted from other entries.

Why does tweezergate (possibly) matter? My theory is the whole tweezer story was a big lie Mechele told her family to cover up the fact she actually got into trouble for something big. She was, afterall, kept in solitary for 3+ weeks. Because of tweezers?? Really?? So, if my theory is right, this is precisely the sort of thing that fits with the prosecution's narrative about Mechele-- do something bad and then completely lie about it and blame everyone else, insisting you've been set up. Then delete the computer evidence.
http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/nancybotwin2010/tweezers-2.jpg

so, the 9-26-09 entry is the deleted entry (without the more detailed woe-is-mechele story in the comments). I did make one edit, whiting out the name of Linehan's daughter.

marilhicks
05-15-2010, 08:52 AM
The new ADN interview's (http://www.adn.com/2010/05/14/1279009/now-free-linehan-sets-up-a-new.html)revelations about Mechele being put in "the hole" for trying to blackmarket barter for fresh fruit piqued my interest because it was interesting Mechele acknowledged her rumored disciplinary record in the interview at all.

.

You are a WIZ at ferreting out stuff on the web! Aside from the infractions she discussed, I wonder if , like so many inmates, she shared details of the events with someone. But since she said she tried hard to avoid them, the prosecution may not get this advantage.

I guess she thought she was better than the rest, though I think they had a lot in common - Hilke claimed she stole items from his house and her activities with her male harem were very close to scams - if not outright scams.

(I want to register my appreciation of some posts but it doesnt’ take - I’m clicking on the Thanks button - is that correct? Nothing happens when I do.)

Blondie in Spokane
05-15-2010, 11:15 AM
Marilhicks:

I agree with your post.... I, too have wondered about the "tweezer" story - definitely sounds like a cover! Am quite sure Mechele wasn't the most popular gal around the cellblock as she has does give off that snooty attitude, IMO.

adn.com is the most amazing sitefor this case, so thanks a bunch for pointing me in that direction! It's going to take a while for me to get up to speed on this case with all the info they have there!

I have no idea why your "thanks" won't work....all I can think of to try is to hit refresh...I've never had that happen to me that I recall....sorry.

marilhicks
05-15-2010, 12:47 PM
Marilhicks:


I have no idea why your "thanks" won't work....all I can think of to try is to hit refresh...I've never had that happen to me that I recall....sorry.

Finally figured it out - it was browser related. The Thanks button doesn't work with Firefox - I have to use Internet Explorer.

flourish
05-15-2010, 05:47 PM
So leaving at night with no fanfare wasn't good enough...nope, not enough drama there...let's return in daylight to get that little Amazon box and the handmade prison blanket...WAY better photo op

jmo

flourish
05-15-2010, 06:03 PM
Anyone know what exactly "sight and sound" means in Alaska in this situation? I've worked in group home situations that required a "sight and sound" supervision situation, and while some people had their own "studio" apartments adjacent to the main house, the requirements varied as to individual official exceptions made for people whose situations required differing levels of supervision (ie: adjacent door unlocked vs. locked, studio entry through interior vs. exterior of main house, etc.).

I'm not implying that this particular situation is or isn't in compliance with the applicable laws. I'm just asking if anyone has any specific information. :)

nancy botwin
05-15-2010, 07:26 PM
Hi guys! I'm back after giving myself a little break from all this. I see Mechele is out on bail. I can't say that I'm surprised. I've been catching back up and I love all your posts. They echo my sentiments exactly. I know this is a circumstantial case so it is a million times harder, but do you guys think they will retry her? Will they win? If the emails and scenario were put in front of me, as a juror I would convict her. However, what else can the prosecution do this time around? They do not have concrete evidence that she planned his death. I realize this. I wish they were able to come with some additional evidence this time around. I feel in my heart she is guilty, the circumstantial evidence points to her being "in the know". That said if they do not retry her or get a conviction this time, I feel better knowing that she did in fact have to spend 2.5 years in prison. I think she deserves the black cloud that will hang over her head for the rest of her life.


Reading the Free Mechele Blog is truly frustrating!!! I don't understand their take on the same emails and information that we have. Rolena stated that there was sooo much more, but what? Even on the site they don't talk about more information that the public is not privy to. They are just rehashing the same info and putting their unique spin on it. (which I find laughable). They go to hell and back pointing the finger at Alaska and the prosecutors for making up a sensational story to get a conviction. Well aren't they doing the same thing? They are telling a tale to show Mechele in a better light. None of their explanations make any sense. Mechele tells them one story and their stickin to it. Well I ain't buying it!!!

I don't know much about retrial after successful appeal. To me, the State has a much better shot at conviction if they allow the jury to consider some lesser charges (Linehan was only charged with first degree murder in the original indictment). I think if jurors were allowed more options, the probability of some form of conviction would be higher.

I also wonder if the State is forever barred from using any aspect of Leppink's letter at trial. The Appeals Court Opinion (http://media.adn.com/smedia/2010/02/05/09/Linehan.50006.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf) discusses various conditions in which evidence like Leppink's letter could have been permissibly admitted at trial. If parts of that letter were admitted at retrial, I think this would also help solidify the State's case and/or thwart the defense argument that Leppink arranged his own "suicide," was fearful of others due to his "gambling debts" or other problematic relationships etc.

I'm unclear about those issues, so I posted the question in the Verified Lawyers thread.

And Ladybug, I agree with your assessment of the Free Mechele line of logic. Without any evidence to support their version of events, it just resonates as spin to me. :waitasec:

nancy botwin
05-15-2010, 07:39 PM
You are a WIZ at ferreting out stuff on the web! Aside from the infractions she discussed, I wonder if , like so many inmates, she shared details of the events with someone. But since she said she tried hard to avoid them, the prosecution may not get this advantage.

I guess she thought she was better than the rest, though I think they had a lot in common - Hilke claimed she stole items from his house and her activities with her male harem were very close to scams - if not outright scams.

(I want to register my appreciation of some posts but it doesnt’ take - I’m clicking on the Thanks button - is that correct? Nothing happens when I do.)

Thank you! I hate it when things disappear from the internet and I'm left thinking "I KNOW I read that somewhere..." :banghead:

I wonder if , like so many inmates, she shared details of the events with someone. But since she said she tried hard to avoid them, the prosecution may not get this advantage.

Among the comments alleging bad behavior in prison were statements that she did discuss Leppink and said things that tended to point to her guilt-- so part of my interest in these comments is trying to form an opinion as to whether the commenters are credible. Of course anyone could get on the internet and pretend to have firsthand knowledge of Mechele in jail, but if the allegations about drug posession/use are proven true, I'd be more inclined to believe the other parts of the commenters posts.

There have been so many different comments from different people saying the same thing (Mechele was somewhat notorious for manipulation and bad behavior in prison) that I tend to believe them. I wish 48 Hours would do an update and interview people who were with Mechele in prison-- I think that would be very interesting.

nancy botwin
05-15-2010, 07:42 PM
So leaving at night with no fanfare wasn't good enough...nope, not enough drama there...let's return in daylight to get that little Amazon box and the handmade prison blanket...WAY better photo op

jmo

I thought the Amazon box was funny. In reading the Free Mechele blog, I was struck by the volume of people who sent her things from her Amazon wishlist. Of course the wishlist has now been deleted after allegations that it was "hacked" :waitasec: Does anyone know anything about that?

flourish
05-15-2010, 08:17 PM
LadyBug99, I have most respectfully snipped and bolded your post, for emphasis:)


That said if they do not retry her or get a conviction this time, I feel better knowing that she did in fact have to spend 2.5 years in prison. I think she deserves the black cloud that will hang over her head for the rest of her life.

Agreed.


They go to hell and back pointing the finger at Alaska and the prosecutors for making up a sensational story to get a conviction. Well aren't they doing the same thing? They are telling a tale to show Mechele in a better light. None of their explanations make any sense. Mechele tells them one story and their stickin to it. Well I ain't buying it!!!

Exactly. This latest story is a wonderful example of that. And "Tweezergate," [Nancy, again, good gosh you are hilarious:)].

*Sigh* it's incredible.

marilhicks
05-17-2010, 09:22 AM
Among the comments alleging bad behavior in prison were statements that she did discuss Leppink and said things that tended to point to her guilt-- so part of my interest in these comments is trying to form an opinion as to whether the commenters are credible. Of course anyone could get on the internet and pretend to have firsthand knowledge of Mechele in jail, but if the allegations about drug posession/use are proven true, I'd be more inclined to believe the other parts of the commenters posts.

There have been so many different comments from different people saying the same thing (Mechele was somewhat notorious for manipulation and bad behavior in prison) that I tend to believe them. I wish 48 Hours would do an update and interview people who were with Mechele in prison-- I think that would be very interesting.

I too have noticed how consistent the former inmates’ comments are. Currently there are comments on ADN from someone who claims to have been her cellmate for a time. They are damning but have the ring of truth. (Sounds like a plot for prison movie!)

Since the defense was able to present testimony to her character since the murder, I would imagine that the prosecution could do the same with the inmate testimony .

(See comments of absintheminded907 at:

http://www.adn.com/2010/05/14/1279009/now-free-linehan-sets-up-a-new.html)

nancy botwin
05-17-2010, 05:35 PM
I too have noticed how consistent the former inmates’ comments are. Currently there are comments on ADN from someone who claims to have been her cellmate for a time. They are damning but have the ring of truth. (Sounds like a plot for prison movie!)

Since the defense was able to present testimony to her character since the murder, I would imagine that the prosecution could do the same with the inmate testimony .

(See comments of absintheminded907 at:

http://www.adn.com/2010/05/14/1279009/now-free-linehan-sets-up-a-new.html)

It's very interesting!! And I agree that if the defense opens the door to Linehan's character at trial, these kinds of witnesses are likely to be called by the prosecution. After reading comments about this case all over the internet for years, I find absintheminded very credible. I found the two women she named as Mechele's paramours when I searched the Alaska court case index, found other things online etc.

I think Mechele's camp is bracing for this kind of testimony. Dr. Linehan posted (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/03/hey-all.html) on the Free Mechele blog in March:

"He (the prosecutor) will bring any witness to the stand that will help him “win” the case. I predict right now that he will try to pull a “jail house confession” from some girl who met Mechele at Hiland Mountain Correctional Center. It is almost a given. He will bring anyone up to the witness stand, regardless of their credibility or veracity. It’s coming, and I am not looking forward to it. More importantly, nor is my wife. However… bring it on."

I think the defense is going to have a problem though, because if these allegations are true, the prison disciplinary records are going to verify the inmates' testimony. And Linehan will just be left saying, yet again, "no, this isn't true. everyone is lying but me. I was set up."

Is any of this evidence she's guilty of murder? No. But if I were wrongfully convicted of murdering someone and then ripped away from my husband and daughter, I don't think I'd be doing the kinds of things Linehan was allegedly doing behind bars. This kind of stuff makes me think the prosecution's take on Mechele seems more credible than the Free Mechele's version. And again, I feel very badly for his husband if this is true.

flourish
05-18-2010, 12:23 AM
Troopers say they'll push Carlin murder investigation

http://www.adn.com/2010/05/17/1282333/troopers-say-theyll-push-carlin.html


[Alaska State Trooper Col. Audie]Holloway confirmed that troopers have been waiting on DNA evidence in the case. He explained that because of the backlog in DNA sampling at the crime lab, troopers and district attorneys constantly prioritize what gets processed. "For some reason we didn't do that as well in this case, or as well as we should have," he said. "Whether we didn't put enough emphasis on it to the D.A., or the D.A. didn't put enough emphasis on it to the lab."

The Alaska Supreme Court is considering whether to invalidate Carlin's guilty verdict because he's dead and his appeal was pending when he died.
State prosecutors want it upheld. They have a strong incentive. If it is overturned, they may not be able to use their theory that Linehan convinced Carlin to do the shooting.

nancy botwin
05-18-2010, 12:55 AM
Troopers say they'll push Carlin murder investigation

http://www.adn.com/2010/05/17/1282333/troopers-say-theyll-push-carlin.html






Interesting! I thought the ADN had previously stated that Carlin's conviction had ALREADY been set aside? That the Supreme Court is still deciding on that issue makes a lot more sense to me. I wonder how far he and his attorneys got in developing his appeal. I hope there's a way to have his appeal reviewed even though he's dead-- the attorneys wrote the briefs, will do the oral argument, etc.

The more I think about everything, the more I've started to wonder if Carlin really was the shooter. What if he was duped by Mechele too?

According to the Dateline episode, Carlin's defense attorneys argued that prosecution witnesses verified Carlin's alibi at the time of the murder-- that he was on the phone/computer/at his son's school. All these things could be easily verified or disproved. I wish we could see the evidence on that. I bet it's contained in Carlin's points of appeal.

Also, why would Carlin use his own rare gun in the murder and then put it back in his own closet? IMO Carlin seemed like an intelligent man (interactions with Mechele notwithstanding), and as Carlin's son said about the gun in the Dateline interview, "he was just too smart to do that."

I think Carlin's death (and the possible setting aside of his conviction) was a great boon to Mechele's defense. And the paranoid part of me can't help but wonder if Mechele didn't find a way to contract his death (especially in light of the recent revelations about Mechele's alleged manipulative behavior behind bars).

I hope Carlin's son will testify at the retrial and tell EVERYTHING he knows. No matter what, Mechele is at least partially responsible for Carlin being put in the prison where he ultimately was killed. I hope Carlin IV does not try to protect Linehan this time around.

nancy botwin
05-18-2010, 01:22 AM
Also, today Judge Volland invalidated the grand jury indictment of a man accused of murdering his wife. He invalidated the indictment because the prosecution asked an investigator (Gifford) to offer his opinion that the defendant (Wease) was guilty of the murder. Volland discussed the Linehan reversal in today's decision:

"In his ruling, Volland cited the recently won appeal by Mechele Linehan, who was convicted in 2007 of murdering Kent Leppink. In that case, the state Court of Appeals concluded a letter Leppink wrote to his family before his death fingering Linehan as his killer should not have been allowed as evidence.

Gifford's testimony that Wease is guilty is more convincing than Leppink's letter, Volland wrote. And though both cases are circumstantial, the case against Linehan is stronger than the case against Wease, the judge wrote."

Looks like the Appellate Court's reversal has made a lasting impression on Judge Volland. :waitasec:

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2010/05/17/1282173/murder-charge-against-anchorage.html#ixzz0oFpyme00

flourish
05-18-2010, 01:44 PM
Carlin gives his views of Linehan



http://www.adn.com/2007/10/18/213023/carlin-gives-his-views-of-linehan.html


Carlin was recently widowed and had temporarily relocated to Alaska from New Jersey. He had just won a $1.2 million lawsuit when he met Linehan in the summer of 1995 at the Great Alaskan Bush Company strip club.
She approached him and started talking. In idle conversation, he mentioned he was going on vacation to Amsterdam with a friend and she said she had always wanted to go there. He invited her. To his surprise, she said yes.

flourish
05-18-2010, 03:56 PM
Interesting! I thought the ADN had previously stated that Carlin's conviction had ALREADY been set aside? That the Supreme Court is still deciding on that issue makes a lot more sense to me. I wonder how far he and his attorneys got in developing his appeal. I hope there's a way to have his appeal reviewed even though he's dead-- the attorneys wrote the briefs, will do the oral argument, etc.

The more I think about everything, the more I've started to wonder if Carlin really was the shooter. What if he was duped by Mechele too?

According to the Dateline episode, Carlin's defense attorneys argued that prosecution witnesses verified Carlin's alibi at the time of the murder-- that he was on the phone/computer/at his son's school. All these things could be easily verified or disproved. I wish we could see the evidence on that. I bet it's contained in Carlin's points of appeal.

Also, why would Carlin use his own rare gun in the murder and then put it back in his own closet? IMO Carlin seemed like an intelligent man (interactions with Mechele notwithstanding), and as Carlin's son said about the gun in the Dateline interview, "he was just too smart to do that."

I think Carlin's death (and the possible setting aside of his conviction) was a great boon to Mechele's defense. And the paranoid part of me can't help but wonder if Mechele didn't find a way to contract his death (especially in light of the recent revelations about Mechele's alleged manipulative behavior behind bars).

I hope Carlin's son will testify at the retrial and tell EVERYTHING he knows. No matter what, Mechele is at least partially responsible for Carlin being put in the prison where he ultimately was killed. I hope Carlin IV does not try to protect Linehan this time around.

Most respectfully bolded by me, Nancy:)
It sure makes a person wonder, doesn't it? The one person who probably knows as much as Mechele turns up dead...

I, too hope Carlin IV tells what he knows. It's interesting, in the (very poorly written) Fred Rosen book, Carlin IV is quoted as saying that he and Mechele had a falling out when he was staying with her in ~2004. Supposedly the falling out was regarding how much money he was getting paid (or not getting paid) for babysitting and housework, etc. He also says that "she stole my dog." Something to do with him having to leave the dog to fly home to New Jersey...I don't know if they had previously arranged something different and it got changed due to their argument or what the deal was with that. It would be interesting to hear more.

nancy botwin
05-18-2010, 11:29 PM
Most respectfully bolded by me, Nancy:)
It sure makes a person wonder, doesn't it? The one person who probably knows as much as Mechele turns up dead...

I, too hope Carlin IV tells what he knows. It's interesting, in the (very poorly written) Fred Rosen book, Carlin IV is quoted as saying that he and Mechele had a falling out when he was staying with her in ~2004. Supposedly the falling out was regarding how much money he was getting paid (or not getting paid) for babysitting and housework, etc. He also says that "she stole my dog." Something to do with him having to leave the dog to fly home to New Jersey...I don't know if they had previously arranged something different and it got changed due to their argument or what the deal was with that. It would be interesting to hear more.

ooh! I got so annoyed by the Rosen book I feel like my mind glazed over and I totally missed those interesting details!!! I didn't know any of that. Very interesting!
I hope he testifies about everything he knows, with no agenda. Who knows, maybe he doesn't really know anything else. But I'm sure he does. It's strange so many people on ADN like to suggest HE is the mystery shooter and Carlin was covering for him. I guess that's possible, but I don't see any evidence for that. I've always viewed him sympathetically, so I can't see it anyway. He used to post sometimes on the ADN boards (handle = something like scarlito), as did his girlfriend (mandy -something). I wish they would return and offer more insight.

nancy botwin
05-18-2010, 11:33 PM
The discussion board (http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=55155870302&topic=15330) on the Free Mechele FB site indicates there's some trouble with the current third-party custodian arrangement.

"Mechele's attorneys requested a rewriting of her third-party custodian requirements because as they are written, her third- party is basically under house arrest and cannot conduct her own life, despite the agreement to be with Mechele 24/7 and the $250,000 bail bond, both of which are to better ensure she shows up for her trial, and the judge saying he did not consider her a flight risk.

The third party was not considered at all, treated as an appendage after being willing to help make the system work. Mechele had more freedom to move around outside of her house when she was in Washington.

Currently, both Mechele and her third-party may never sleep at her third-party's home and have an 8:00 PM curfew every night of the week. During the day, except for Mechele's legal and medical appointments, both women must be either in Mechele's apartment or at her third-party's home every day all day except for two four-hour passes a week. That means her third-party can never spend nights with her husband, will see him very little M-F, cannot take care of her own necessities of life, or even take her dog for a walk any time none of Mechele's other third-parties can be in Alaska.

The law does not allow for putting third-parties under house arrest, and it is not reasonable or even humane to expect a third-party to cease existing for the most part for up to a year.

The third-party has agreed to be tied at the hip with Mechele 24/7, but has requested the ability to have them sleep at either residence (which Mechele could do in Washington), and to let them move about town as long as they are always together.

First Prosecutor Pat Gullufsen refused any accommodations, followed by Judge Volland's refusal. The Judge's refusal is confusing given his thoughtful and reasoned explanations as to why Mechele is less of a flight risk than before, she is in Anchorage instead of Washington State, she paid bail, authorities have her third-party's address and phone number for contact at any time, and Mechele proved herself reliable last time while out of the state. It is confusing why this time the requirements are so much more stringent, even when there is only one third-party in the state during periods. It is confusing enough that the third-party is beginning to wonder if
she is now a target of vindictiveness at least on the part of the prosecutor."

hmmm!:waitasec:

sorry, can't help it:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6eonppuEMEo/SKXyyXM4FQI/AAAAAAAABgU/hrM8NJ8_dHA/s320/PADILLA.jpg

flourish
05-19-2010, 12:31 AM
Wow, Nancy, thanks for that info! Very interesting indeed! So...
1) Who picks the 3rd parties? I mean, everyone involved knew where everyone lived before this agreement was made, right?
2) Was everyone aware that these were going to be the circumstances of the release before they agreed to this? If so, did they object/protest or mention this as a problem beforehand? Are they bound to it as part of the whole release agreement? Is it even really negotiable?

nancy botwin
05-19-2010, 05:49 AM
Wow, Nancy, thanks for that info! Very interesting indeed! So...
1) Who picks the 3rd parties? I mean, everyone involved knew where everyone lived before this agreement was made, right?
2) Was everyone aware that these were going to be the circumstances of the release before they agreed to this? If so, did they object/protest or mention this as a problem beforehand? Are they bound to it as part of the whole release agreement? Is it even really negotiable?

I don't know that much about the third-party custodian thing. It's not something that happens in my state. Interestingly, 33 states afford for third-party custodians as a condition of pretrial release, but Alaska uses it substantially more often than any other state-- perhaps because of geography?? and its visual proximity to Russia ??
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/8/Q/2/palin-dancing-snl.gif
(sorry, I couldn't control myself)

I read something about this phenomenon somewhere-- can't remember exactly where. But in AK, well over half of the individuals on pretrial release have to have a third-party custodian in addition to monetary bail-- and in some jurisdictions 80-90% have to have a third-party custodian, so it's not weird in Alaska. (I'm pulling an all-nighter and have consumed a pot of coffee ps so this threatens to be ambling & verbose :-)

I think this Free Mechele FB missive seems like more of an objection to the home confinement requirement than an objection to the custodial terms. IDK-- but yes it's weird to be taking issue with the requirements now. I think this seems like a case of someone being unwilling/unable to accept that rules apply to them.:snooty:

So to address your points/answer your questions-- those were the things I thought when I read the post too-- my thoughts:

1) Mechele had to find her own third parties and then the court had to approve them. Technically she could have just one-- and I'm assuming she could have several more than 3. Probably a good idea since 2/3 live FAR away. And the the judge had to intensely screen the custodians, their living situations, criminal histories, etc. before they could be approved.

2) And yes, per statute, the judge has to inform the custodians of all conditions and duties "personally and in writing" because if the custodian violates those terms they may be criminally liable for the violation (in addition to the bond being revoked and/or forfeited). So everyone knew what was expected before Mechele was released. And everyone agreed. Including, and perhaps crucially, the bail bondsman. In agreeing to guarantee Mechele's bond, he likely considered the third-party custodian condition + home confinement as an additional reason to agree to secure Mechele's bail because that combo substantially reduces Mechele's flight risk, thereby securing his investment. (if she flees, he's out $225,000 minus the old strip club/motel offered up as collateral). And the local strip club owner who offered up his property as collateral also likely considered the custodian/house arrest condition in his decision to offer up his property.

So, even though Mechele can move for a hearing to ask Judge Volland to reconsider the conditions of her release and Judge Volland could change them, that doesn't mean the bondsman and strip club owner would agree to keep securing her release.

I think it's understandable the prosecution and Judge Volland refused to change the restrictions-- I think her conditions are fair since she stands to lose nothing personally if she flees, has a history of forging identification/ assuming false names, and is again facing life in prison, etc. Personally I think she needs to find some additional custodians to off-set the burden placed on the one local custodian. What do you think?

Here's the statute (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/akstatutes/12/12.30./12.30.020.) that generally governs pretrial release conditions, if anyone is interested :-)

flourish
05-19-2010, 06:35 PM
I don't know that much about the third-party custodian thing. It's not something that happens in my state. Interestingly, 33 states afford for third-party custodians as a condition of pretrial release, but Alaska uses it substantially more often than any other state-- perhaps because of geography?? and its visual proximity to Russia ??
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/8/Q/2/palin-dancing-snl.gif
(sorry, I couldn't control myself)

I read something about this phenomenon somewhere-- can't remember exactly where. But in AK, well over half of the individuals on pretrial release have to have a third-party custodian in addition to monetary bail-- and in some jurisdictions 80-90% have to have a third-party custodian, so it's not weird in Alaska. (I'm pulling an all-nighter and have consumed a pot of coffee ps so this threatens to be ambling & verbose :-)

I think this Free Mechele FB missive seems like more of an objection to the home confinement requirement than an objection to the custodial terms. IDK-- but yes it's weird to be taking issue with the requirements now. I think this seems like a case of someone being unwilling/unable to accept that rules apply to them.:snooty:

So to address your points/answer your questions-- those were the things I thought when I read the post too-- my thoughts:

1) Mechele had to find her own third parties and then the court had to approve them. Technically she could have just one-- and I'm assuming she could have several more than 3. Probably a good idea since 2/3 live FAR away. And the the judge had to intensely screen the custodians, their living situations, criminal histories, etc. before they could be approved.

2) And yes, per statute, the judge has to inform the custodians of all conditions and duties "personally and in writing" because if the custodian violates those terms they may be criminally liable for the violation (in addition to the bond being revoked and/or forfeited). So everyone knew what was expected before Mechele was released. And everyone agreed. Including, and perhaps crucially, the bail bondsman. In agreeing to guarantee Mechele's bond, he likely considered the third-party custodian condition + home confinement as an additional reason to agree to secure Mechele's bail because that combo substantially reduces Mechele's flight risk, thereby securing his investment. (if she flees, he's out $225,000 minus the old strip club/motel offered up as collateral). And the local strip club owner who offered up his property as collateral also likely considered the custodian/house arrest condition in his decision to offer up his property.

So, even though Mechele can move for a hearing to ask Judge Volland to reconsider the conditions of her release and Judge Volland could change them, that doesn't mean the bondsman and strip club owner would agree to keep securing her release.

I think it's understandable the prosecution and Judge Volland refused to change the restrictions-- I think her conditions are fair since she stands to lose nothing personally if she flees, has a history of forging identification/ assuming false names, and is again facing life in prison, etc. Personally I think she needs to find some additional custodians to off-set the burden placed on the one local custodian. What do you think?

Here's the statute (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/akstatutes/12/12.30./12.30.020.) that generally governs pretrial release conditions, if anyone is interested :-)

OMG that Palin vid is classic hilarious! That woman...sheesh she's dumb.
Anyway, thanks for the further information regarding the third-party thing. I agree that finding one or more additional custodians would be prudent. I guess I'd envisioned something where Mechele would stay in someone's house or her studio would be attached to the custodian's house or something like that.

It is very interesting to think how the bond/bail guy would have input into this...makes sense, I mean, they're on the line here. And you make a great point that Mechele has shown herself to be the kind of person to gather more than one identity (just ask her sister), and, knowing exactly what prison is like now, she's possibly even more likely to run than she was before.

I still can't believe they let a first-degree murder suspect out on bail at all. I can't wait to hear what more comes of this!

flourish
05-19-2010, 11:58 PM
Hmm...seems that post on Facebook was updated a couple of hours ago and appears the same EXCEPT FOR IT'S MISSING THE LAST LINE NOW. V e r y interesting, no?



The discussion board (http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=55155870302&topic=15330) on the Free Mechele FB site indicates there's some trouble with the current third-party custodian arrangement.

"Mechele's attorneys requested a rewriting of her third-party custodian requirements because as they are written, her third- party is basically under house arrest and cannot conduct her own life, despite the agreement to be with Mechele 24/7 and the $250,000 bail bond, both of which are to better ensure she shows up for her trial, and the judge saying he did not consider her a flight risk.

The third party was not considered at all, treated as an appendage after being willing to help make the system work. Mechele had more freedom to move around outside of her house when she was in Washington.

Currently, both Mechele and her third-party may never sleep at her third-party's home and have an 8:00 PM curfew every night of the week. During the day, except for Mechele's legal and medical appointments, both women must be either in Mechele's apartment or at her third-party's home every day all day except for two four-hour passes a week. That means her third-party can never spend nights with her husband, will see him very little M-F, cannot take care of her own necessities of life, or even take her dog for a walk any time none of Mechele's other third-parties can be in Alaska.

The law does not allow for putting third-parties under house arrest, and it is not reasonable or even humane to expect a third-party to cease existing for the most part for up to a year.

The third-party has agreed to be tied at the hip with Mechele 24/7, but has requested the ability to have them sleep at either residence (which Mechele could do in Washington), and to let them move about town as long as they are always together.

First Prosecutor Pat Gullufsen refused any accommodations, followed by Judge Volland's refusal. The Judge's refusal is confusing given his thoughtful and reasoned explanations as to why Mechele is less of a flight risk than before, she is in Anchorage instead of Washington State, she paid bail, authorities have her third-party's address and phone number for contact at any time, and Mechele proved herself reliable last time while out of the state. It is confusing why this time the requirements are so much more stringent, even when there is only one third-party in the state during periods. It is confusing enough that the third-party is beginning to wonder if
she is now a target of vindictiveness at least on the part of the prosecutor."

hmmm!:waitasec:

sorry, can't help it:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6eonppuEMEo/SKXyyXM4FQI/AAAAAAAABgU/hrM8NJ8_dHA/s320/PADILLA.jpg

nancy botwin
05-20-2010, 07:40 PM
Hmm...seems that post on Facebook was updated a couple of hours ago and appears the same EXCEPT FOR IT'S MISSING THE LAST LINE NOW. V e r y interesting, no?

Interesting! So even though it doesn't now explicitly state "the third-party is beginning to wonder if she is now a target of vindictiveness at least on the part of the prosecutor," that's still glaringly obvious within the rest of the diatribe. Personality disorders and the criminal justice system just don't mix well. :snooty:

I noted that sometime between the original posting and whenever the deletion occurred, someone posted comments to the entry saying they should at least be glad Mechele survived prison, given what happened to Carlin. They said something about how precautions should be taken to make sure she is safe now that she's free. The original poster agreed. Then the commenter asked "and may I ask just who you are to Mechele exactly?" --I imagine trying to get the original poster to cop to the fact that she's Mechele Linehan's resident third-party custodian (B. Sheridan), or just out of generalized curiosity. The commenter's posts were swiftly deleted, though she remains in the Free Mechele FB group.

I google searched the deleted commenter's name and found a record indicating she once owned or transferred property to one of Kent Leppink's brothers. Interesting. I imagine the Free Mechele camp could have interpreted her comment as a threat or something. IMO it totally wasn't at all.

Also! Mechele herself has posted (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/from-mechele.html) on the Free Mechele blog:

"Hello my Dear Friends and Family: I am truly blessed. I am so sorry that it’s taken me almost a week to sign on here. I have been shell shocked. Im going full force today. Set up a facebook account, twitter and email. Its difficult to express my gratitude to all, because words aren’t enough. I know that I wouldn’t be sitting here with my daughter if it weren’t for all of you and your strength. You all worked so hard for my release. I should say rescue. You not only rescued me, physically, but spiritually. I love you all!
I will post a lengthy update this evening

May 19, 2010 5:11 P"

She has indeed set up a twitter account and a facebook account, though she hasn't yet delivered on her promise to write that lengthy update. She has tweeted a few times, though. I hate twitter and would prefer she blog. Hopefully my wishes will come true. :woohoo:

Twitter: http://twitter.com/MecheleLinehan

nancy botwin
05-25-2010, 04:36 PM
Just posting an update for those who are still interested in following this case-- no big developments in the news lately.

Mechele has, however, blogged three times in the Free Mechele site (the three most recent entries here) (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/) and continues to twitter (http://twitter.com/MecheleLinehan) about her leisure activities. Does anyone have an opinion about Mechele's use of social media while out on bond?

Someone has created a fake Mechele account on Facebook (using the name Mechele Hughes Linehan) and has apparently been bombarding the Free Mechele FB site with comments about Mechele's guilt. It's strange. Thanks to Flourish for pointing this out to me! :-)

Here's an older blog entry (http://mylifeofcrime.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/48-hours-mystery-a-murder-in-alaska-is-solved-after-11-years-and-a-doctors-wife-is-brought-to-justice/) about the case from My Life of Crime-- the comments and their authors are interesting:
some old comments from the man who would ultimately provide Mechele's bail $; comments from a woman who claims Mechele dated her son as a teen; Mechele's sister; a woman who says she danced with "Bobby Jo" at the Bush Co.; a man who says he dated Mechele when she was in her 20's; a woman who says she is friends with Scott Hilke etc.

cluciano63
05-25-2010, 05:17 PM
Considering that some prison inmates seem to have internet access to post on dating/pen pal sites...I don't see why she should not be able to use social sites while she is out on bail...

flourish
05-25-2010, 09:06 PM
I don't think there should be any restrictions on her social networking, and I don't think that is what Nancy was implying (?) I thought she was just asking what we thought about it happening, not whether or not we thought it should be allowed to happen :)

I can see how Mechele would be so excited to be out of there that she'd want to talk about it and communicate and interact with people and the world at large. Since she's still restricted physically, it makes sense that she'd want to get online.

However, and the same goes for Mechele and all the Free Mecheleans, that all this talk about how innocent she is only goes so far. There continues to be nothing new being put out there as far as evidence. Supposedly there's alllll this evidence and what-not that will set us all straight. Well where the he!! is it, then? I can see why Mechele herself wouldn't want to directly discuss her case and maybe she's not even supposed to talk about it. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THEM???

You can talk and talk and talk about how everyone has their facts wrong until you're blue in the face, but it's not going to be very effective until you actually put that information out there. ALL TALK AND NO WALK is what it sure looks like.

The person who has been posting on the facebook site using Mechele's name is so obviously not her if for no other reason than they MISSPELLED her name (Mechelle instead of Mechele). And, no surprise, their posts were all removed within hours of posting them.

Speaking of the facebook, I saw on the discussion board on the Free Mechele page (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=55155870302&v=app_2373072738#!/topic.php?uid=55155870302&topic=13554 (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=55155870302&v=app_2373072738#%21/topic.php?uid=55155870302&topic=13554)) that one person posted a link to Kent's findagrave site comments. Considering the topic of the discussion is "Does Anyone want to help me with investigational work on the internet?" it makes me wonder if they are "investigating" people who leave comments on Kent's findagrave site...??? I would really hope not, because that is some seriously offensive trolling if that's their plan!

I hope all this makes sense as I am frantically typing away on a break at work.

flourish
05-26-2010, 11:18 PM
Here's an older blog entry (http://mylifeofcrime.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/48-hours-mystery-a-murder-in-alaska-is-solved-after-11-years-and-a-doctors-wife-is-brought-to-justice/) about the case from My Life of Crime-- the comments and their authors are interesting:
some old comments from the man who would ultimately provide Mechele's bail $; comments from a woman who claims Mechele dated her son as a teen; Mechele's sister; a woman who says she danced with "Bobby Jo" at the Bush Co.; a man who says he dated Mechele when she was in her 20's; a woman who says she is friends with Scott Hilke etc.

Nancy-snipped for emphasis:)

Holy cow, that link has some interesting stuff! Thanks for the linky, Nancy!

nancy botwin
05-27-2010, 01:31 AM
Nancy-snipped for emphasis:)

Holy cow, that link has some interesting stuff! Thanks for the linky, Nancy!

Thanks! I thought it was interesting too!
I just typed out a big post responding to your last one, but my browser froze and now I'm too annoyed :snooty: to retype it right now. grrr.


However! If you find the mylifeofcrime comments interesting, there's another interesting chunk of comments on the Eyes for Lies site. I can't directly link to the entry. But it's the March 11 entry with 84 comments.

The gang is all there on that comment section too (it spans multiple pages)-- Scott Hilke comments; Mechele's mom has some interesting comments for Scott Hilke; Mechele's sister comments; Tina Brady from the 48 Hours episode comments; Brian Watt, Mechele's bail benefactor is there; a couple of women who purport to have known Mechele in prison; some people who say they worked with/dated Mechele in the past; MandyK (John Carlin IV's girlfriend); and even the person who started the fake "Mechelle Hughes Linehan" FB account (the top, like, 5 comments are from that person). It's all very interesting!

Also, Mechele's third-party custodian has blogged (http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=55155870302&topic=15391) on the Free Mechele FB site, apparently responding to a comment about how Mechele's former private attorneys will no longer represent her pro bono:

"It is not true that Mechele's previous attorneys refused to represent her this time. Online posts stating it is so are merely made up by person/s who do not know any of the parties involved. (If they Do professionally know the defense attorneys despite not knowing anyone else involved, then shame on them because it means they are hoping to once again manipulate public perception long before her trial in order to convict a second time with only innuendo and drama rather than real evidence.)

Many attorneys want this case because of the notoriety and/or because of what it represents regarding justice and civil rights, but how Mechele chooses her representation is more complicated than who wants the case..."

I don't know what the overarching point of this entry is (or why I'm interested :woohoo:) but I found it noteworthy because it seems to be a bit of a misconstruction of the truth. Mechele's mother had previously blogged about how Mechele's private attorneys would be representing her for free until she was finally acquitted. Mechele's trial attorneys said as much in the 48 Hours/Dateline episodes. And Mechele's mom posted an entry (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/04/thanks-to-all-you.html) awhile ago when she was upset because those attorneys had apparently reneged on that promise:

"... I am tired of the red tape of legal strings that has bound my child into captivity. I feel bad for attorneys that only care about how much money they make representating this case. What ever happened about just doing it because it is the right thing? Where are the attorneys that took a vow about representing justice? Is is just about the money for you?..."

It makes sense that no attorney could work on this case for years without getting paid. And it also makes sense that Mechele's mother finds that reality upsetting and frustrating. So I don't know what the third party custodian is aiming at in the new FB blog, but I found it interesting.

And thanks for your thoughts on my social media use question! I was just wondering if it resonated in poor taste with anyone else. I have an anti-twitter bias because I think twitter's interface tends to make everyone seem rather narcissistic and annoying ("I'm eating stinky cheese" (http://twitter.com/MecheleLinehan/status/14608214264) :hand: and watching DVD box sets, etc.). I do agree with you about Linehan's desire to use the internet to connect with others and think her blog entries seem like a cool way to connect with her supporters/show her human side etc. I just hate the Twitter/ think it could be a poor choice when one is awaiting a retrial on first degree murder, etc.

Belinda
05-27-2010, 01:56 AM
I just hate the Twitter/ think it could be a poor choice when one is awaiting a retrial on first degree murder, etc. Respectfully snipped.

One never knows what will come back and bite you in the butt.

darnudes
05-27-2010, 02:54 AM
Also! Mechele herself has posted (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/from-mechele.html) on the Free Mechele blog:

"Hello my Dear Friends and Family: I am truly blessed. I am so sorry that it’s taken me almost a week to sign on here. I have been shell shocked. Im going full force today. Set up a facebook account, twitter and email. Its difficult to express my gratitude to all, because words aren’t enough. I know that I wouldn’t be sitting here with my daughter if it weren’t for all of you and your strength. You all worked so hard for my release. I should say rescue. You not only rescued me, physically, but spiritually. I love you all!
I will post a lengthy update this evening

May 19, 2010 5:11 P"



Respectfully snipped

Trying out my terrible 'Statement Analysis' skills, here goes nothing.

Look at the order of things she tells us she does first, this can also be what are the most important things to her:

Set up - Facebook, twitter, Email

Gratitude for herself first then her daughter, nil mention of husband.

Then the talk returns back to herself.

Oh yeah, and she addresses the post to friends (first) family (last).

My bet is that she will quickly drop the 'freemechele' people. I do firmly believe it is still all about Mechele.

Blondie in Spokane
05-27-2010, 08:00 AM
Hey there everyone...I just want to thank all of you for all of the info and links that you contribute here. I sometimes just sit here and read about this woman's antics and am in awe....almost have to pick my jaw up off the floor!

Nancy, thanks for the info re My Life of Crime....reading those comments were interesting, to say the least! Acquaintances from Mechele's past were certainly left with an indelibile impression of her character! I have read the Eyes for Lies site but not the comments...will spend time today on that....should be interesting.

I'm not surprised that Mechele latched onto social networking/Twitter immediately and I guess she does have that right....but anything and everything she does is blatantly self-serving.

I also want to add that someone was kind enough to point me in the direction of Anchorage Daily News for all of their past coverage and I was astounded at the depth of the information there. I apologize that I can't remember exactly which one of you wonderful sleuthers helped me out on that but thanks so much!

Anyway, just want to say thanks for all of the info all of you contribute here...I don't post often but I read everything and appreciate all of your efforts.

marilhicks
05-27-2010, 09:35 AM
I’ve been gobbling up all the commentaries on the sites you recommended and all of it has been fascinating reading. One comment grabbed my attention because I had read about it elsewhere. At the time I wasn’t bookmarking the case and I couldn’t find the reference.

On the 48 Hour website someone noted that Colin and Mechele were found with $700 worth of merchandise in a baby stroller while in a department store. My recollection of the news report is that it occurred in Maryland and Colin’s explanation was that the baby started screaming and he wanted to get the child out of the store quickly, forgetting about the stuff in the carriage. They were not charged. Does anyone have a link to this news story?

Thanks so much for keeping us informed on this tantalizing case.

flourish
05-27-2010, 04:31 PM
I’ve been gobbling up all the commentaries on the sites you recommended and all of it has been fascinating reading. One comment grabbed my attention because I had read about it elsewhere. At the time I wasn’t bookmarking the case and I couldn’t find the reference.

On the 48 Hour website someone noted that Colin and Mechele were found with $700 worth of merchandise in a baby stroller while in a department store. My recollection of the news report is that it occurred in Maryland and Colin’s explanation was that the baby started screaming and he wanted to get the child out of the store quickly, forgetting about the stuff in the carriage. They were not charged. Does anyone have a link to this news story?

Thanks so much for keeping us informed on this tantalizing case.

Shoot I totally remember reading that within the last couple of weeks. I remember thinking, "Wow, $700 worth of clothes at Nordstroms? Must be nice to be able to afford that!" Anyway, I'll look and see if I can find that when I'm not at work.


On a very snotty note, ever since I read Mechele's blog entry it's been bugging me: She still hasn't resolved her issues with pseudo-homonyms, as she wrote "bazaar" instead of "bizarre" in her entry (I think she even misspelled bazaar, too). Kinda reminded me of her "expected" vs. "accepted" mistakes in her emails from back in the day. Her spelling and grammar has absolutely nothing to do with her guilt or innocent status, I am just being a nerd and had to point it out.

Nancy, I agree that Twitter is simply an abomination in general. Maybe I'm getting too old, but I don't see the point of informing everyone you know about your mundane activities. I don't mean this about Mechele's posts specifically, just that I agree Twitter is lame.

One last thing: earlier, I was listening to a cd in my car and caught a line of a song that totally made me think of Mechele and her men:


Beware of pretty faces that you find
A pretty face can't hide an evil mind.
Be careful what you say
Or you'll give yourself away
Odds are you won't live to see tomorrow. --"Secret Agent Man" sung by many people, I don't know who wrote it (Johnny Rivers, maybe?) I was listening to The Ventures.

Hmm...reminds me of Casey Anthony and Karla Homolka, too...that just might have to be my new signature here:)

marilhicks
05-27-2010, 05:23 PM
Shoot I totally remember reading that within the last couple of weeks. I remember thinking, "Wow, $700 worth of clothes at Nordstroms? Must be nice to be able to afford that!" Anyway, I'll look and see if I can find that when I'm not at work.


On a very snotty note, ever since I read Mechele's blog entry it's been bugging me: She still hasn't resolved her issues with pseudo-homonyms, as she wrote "bazaar" instead of "bizarre" in her entry (I think she even misspelled bazaar, too). Kinda reminded me of her "expected" vs. "accepted" mistakes in her emails from back in the day. Her spelling and grammar has absolutely nothing to do with her guilt or innocent status, I am just being a nerd and had to point it out.



Thanks - my reaction to the Nordstrom's story was wonderment that someone could forget $700 worth of purchases in a stroller. (Scratching head.)

I haven't been following her tweets since I find that venue shallow and pointless. But I find it interesting that someone with a master's degree is so lacking in basic skills of spelling, grammar and English expression. It would be hoped that she had developed some skills since those appallingly written emails of 15-16 years ago.

nancy botwin
05-27-2010, 10:06 PM
Yay! More people are posting on this thread again!! :woohoo: !!


Respectfully snipped

Trying out my terrible 'Statement Analysis' skills, here goes nothing.

Look at the order of things she tells us she does first, this can also be what are the most important things to her:

Set up - Facebook, twitter, Email

Gratitude for herself first then her daughter, nil mention of husband.

Then the talk returns back to herself.

Oh yeah, and she addresses the post to friends (first) family (last).

My bet is that she will quickly drop the 'freemechele' people. I do firmly believe it is still all about Mechele.
I agree with your statement analysis! I'm on board.
I also noted her failure to mention her husband. I was always very impressed by him-- his 18 pg sentencing letter (http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/647250/colin-s-sentencing-letter-61k?dn=y), interviews, and blog posts reveal him to be a very articulate and loyal man. Hopefully he just doesn't want to be mentioned in the blog or something? It IS odd though, IMO, since she posts the name of her young daughter online etc.
I also agree it appears to still be 'all about Mechele' and I hope a bunch of people (especially her husband!) aren't left feeling used/disappointed when all is said and done.

I am impressed by the number of steadfast strangers who have rallied to Mechele's side. While I don't necessarily agree with their perspective/position, it is cool to see that a lot of people do care about perceived injustice. There definitely ARE many rather obviously innocent people in prison and they do need support, so it's just curious to me that so many have lobbed onto Mechele vs. more obviously innocent/sympathetic people or causes. $25k from a stranger, etc!

Also, Mechele did post three more entries, which I'll link to in case you didn't get to see them yet:
Blog 1 (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/from-mechele_21.html)
Blog 2 (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/from-mechele_4513.html)
Blog 3 (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/from-mechele_9493.html)
:woohoo:


Hey there everyone...I just want to thank all of you for all of the info and links that you contribute here. I sometimes just sit here and read about this woman's antics and am in awe....almost have to pick my jaw up off the floor!

Nancy, thanks for the info re My Life of Crime....reading those comments were interesting, to say the least! Acquaintances from Mechele's past were certainly left with an indelibile impression of her character! I have read the Eyes for Lies site but not the comments...will spend time today on that....should be interesting.

I'm not surprised that Mechele latched onto social networking/Twitter immediately and I guess she does have that right....but anything and everything she does is blatantly self-serving.


Yay! I'm glad you also enjoyed the comments-- I found them so interesting!
I agree about the self-serving internet use. It's a double-edged sword, IMO, though. For example, her most recent tweet (http://twitter.com/MecheleLinehan/status/14781412834):
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss

To me this smacks of a sort of defiant narcissistic obliviousness. I imagine a lot of people might mind that she's lazing about and twittering inanely while a lot of people firmly believe she belongs in prison-- for example Kent Leppink's family probably minds. Potential jurors and the prosecutor might mind. All of those people certainly matter. :waitasec:



I’ve been gobbling up all the commentaries on the sites you recommended and all of it has been fascinating reading. One comment grabbed my attention because I had read about it elsewhere. At the time I wasn’t bookmarking the case and I couldn’t find the reference.

On the 48 Hour website someone noted that Colin and Mechele were found with $700 worth of merchandise in a baby stroller while in a department store. My recollection of the news report is that it occurred in Maryland and Colin’s explanation was that the baby started screaming and he wanted to get the child out of the store quickly, forgetting about the stuff in the carriage. They were not charged. Does anyone have a link to this news story?

Thanks so much for keeping us informed on this tantalizing case.

Yay! I'm glad you're back-- I found the shoplifting info! Initially I thought this was just a rumor, but I see a few sources indicate the shoplifting accusation was brought up at trial. Here's one article. (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4PUSnBglfbUJ:www.theolympian.com/2006/10/17/45920/linehan-in-jail-after-bail-review.html+Colin+Linehan+of+concealing+about+%247 00+of+Nordstrom's+merchandise&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari) Apparently, the Linehans maintained it was a misunderstanding, the charges were dropped and he wasn't prosecuted. If it wasn't a misunderstanding, I'd definitely put my bet on Mechele being the culprit and not her husband.



...

On a very snotty note, ever since I read Mechele's blog entry it's been bugging me: She still hasn't resolved her issues with pseudo-homonyms, as she wrote "bazaar" instead of "bizarre" in her entry (I think she even misspelled bazaar, too). Kinda reminded me of her "expected" vs. "accepted" mistakes in her emails from back in the day. Her spelling and grammar has absolutely nothing to do with her guilt or innocent status, I am just being a nerd and had to point it out.

Nancy, I agree that Twitter is simply an abomination in general. Maybe I'm getting too old, but I don't see the point of informing everyone you know about your mundane activities. I don't mean this about Mechele's posts specifically, just that I agree Twitter is lame.

One last thing: earlier, I was listening to a cd in my car and caught a line of a song that totally made me think of Mechele and her men:

--"Secret Agent Man" sung by many people, I don't know who wrote it (Johnny Rivers, maybe?) I was listening to The Ventures.

Hmm...reminds me of Casey Anthony and Karla Homolka, too...that just might have to be my new signature here:)

Oooh interesting! And I'm glad that you also find twitter to be an "abomination in general" haha! Love it. I also noted the grammar/diction struggles that appear to have endured, despite that much-toted Master's Degree. I'd feel badly about being snide, but I'm annoyed by the way this degree is toted in the media and by her supporters-- as if she'd stopped world hunger or become a nun or something.

That reminds me-- I've always been a bit curious about whether it's been alleged that she or the other parties in this case were involved in drug use when the crime occurred. Her emails are painful to read and essentially devoid of punctuation etc. And of course her behavior points to some other sort of serious malfunction... I've always wondered if it was possible she was using a lot of drugs at the time or something? Does anyone know if this has ever been discussed??

Also, an update:
Mechele's mother is apparently visiting Mechele and her daughter in Alaska and has blogged (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/happy-happy-mom.html) briefly about it:

"Hi to all!!! Arrived in Anchorage last night and I cannot tell you the joy I felt in seeing my child free!! There are no words to describe how wonderful it was to hug her and know she did not have to be put back in a cell! Audrey is drinking in her mother's love and trying to make up for lost moments. Thanks to all of you for helping in making this come about. You support got us here. Mechele and I will both post later...just wanted to share the excitement of FINALLY getting here and being with Mechele and *****.

A very excited mom!!

sandangel
05-27-2010, 10:52 PM
Yay! More people are posting on this thread again!! :woohoo: !!


I agree with your statement analysis! I'm on board.
I also noted her failure to mention her husband. I was always very impressed by him-- his 18 pg sentencing letter (http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/647250/colin-s-sentencing-letter-61k?dn=y), interviews, and blog posts reveal him to be a very articulate and loyal man. Hopefully he just doesn't want to be mentioned in the blog or something? It IS odd though, IMO, since she posts the name of her young daughter online etc.
I also agree it appears to still be 'all about Mechele' and I hope a bunch of people (especially her husband!) aren't left feeling used/disappointed when all is said and done.

I am impressed by the number of steadfast strangers who have rallied to Mechele's side. While I don't necessarily agree with their perspective/position, it is cool to see that a lot of people do care about perceived injustice. There definitely ARE many rather obviously innocent people in prison and they do need support, so it's just curious to me that so many have lobbed onto Mechele vs. more obviously innocent/sympathetic people or causes. $25k from a stranger, etc!

Also, Mechele did post three more entries, which I'll link to in case you didn't get to see them yet:
Blog 1 (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/from-mechele_21.html)
Blog 2 (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/from-mechele_4513.html)
Blog 3 (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/from-mechele_9493.html)
:woohoo:



Yay! I'm glad you also enjoyed the comments-- I found them so interesting!
I agree about the self-serving internet use. It's a double-edged sword, IMO, though. For example, her most recent tweet (http://twitter.com/MecheleLinehan/status/14781412834):
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss

To me this smacks of a sort of defiant narcissistic obliviousness. I imagine a lot of people might mind that she's lazing about and twittering inanely while a lot of people firmly believe she belongs in prison-- for example Kent Leppink's family probably minds. Potential jurors and the prosecutor might mind. All of those people certainly matter. :waitasec:




Yay! I'm glad you're back-- I found the shoplifting info! Initially I thought this was just a rumor, but I see a few sources indicate the shoplifting accusation was brought up at trial. Here's one article. (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4PUSnBglfbUJ:www.theolympian.com/2006/10/17/45920/linehan-in-jail-after-bail-review.html+Colin+Linehan+of+concealing+about+%247 00+of+Nordstrom's+merchandise&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari) Apparently, the Linehans maintained it was a misunderstanding, the charges were dropped and he wasn't prosecuted. If it wasn't a misunderstanding, I'd definitely put my bet on Mechele being the culprit and not her husband.



Oooh interesting! And I'm glad that you also find twitter to be an "abomination in general" haha! Love it. I also noted the grammar/diction struggles that appear to have endured, despite that much-toted Master's Degree. I'd feel badly about being snide, but I'm annoyed by the way this degree is toted in the media and by her supporters-- as if she'd stopped world hunger or become a nun or something.

That reminds me-- I've always been a bit curious about whether it's been alleged that she or the other parties in this case were involved in drug use when the crime occurred. Her emails are painful to read and essentially devoid of punctuation etc. And of course her behavior points to some other sort of serious malfunction... I've always wondered if it was possible she was using a lot of drugs at the time or something? Does anyone know if this has ever been discussed??

Also, an update:
Mechele's mother is apparently visiting Mechele and her daughter in Alaska and has blogged (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/happy-happy-mom.html) briefly about it:

"Hi to all!!! Arrived in Anchorage last night and I cannot tell you the joy I felt in seeing my child free!! There are no words to describe how wonderful it was to hug her and know she did not have to be put back in a cell! Audrey is drinking in her mother's love and trying to make up for lost moments. Thanks to all of you for helping in making this come about. You support got us here. Mechele and I will both post later...just wanted to share the excitement of FINALLY getting here and being with Mechele and *****.

A very excited mom!!

I really do not mean to sound or be mean but what her mother has quoted makes me want to puke! Just the way Mechele has treated her mother in the past is disgusting. It seems to me that Mechele's mother is living in a state of denial of the sick behavior of her own daughter. YUCK!!

flourish
05-28-2010, 02:09 AM
My input in green:)


Yay! More people are posting on this thread again!! :woohoo: !!

I know! I love it when more people post!


I agree with your statement analysis! I'm on board. Agree. Kinda highlights her priorities, I guess:)
I also noted her failure to mention her husband. I was always very impressed by him-- his 18 pg sentencing letter (http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/647250/colin-s-sentencing-letter-61k?dn=y), interviews, and blog posts reveal him to be a very articulate and loyal man. Hopefully he just doesn't want to be mentioned in the blog or something? It IS odd though, IMO, since she posts the name of her young daughter online etc.
I also agree it appears to still be 'all about Mechele' and I hope a bunch of people (especially her husband!) aren't left feeling used/disappointed when all is said and done.

Yes, sometimes absence speaks louder than anything else.

I am impressed by the number of steadfast strangers who have rallied to Mechele's side. While I don't necessarily agree with their perspective/position, it is cool to see that a lot of people do care about perceived injustice. There definitely ARE many rather obviously innocent people in prison and they do need support, so it's just curious to me that so many have lobbed onto Mechele vs. more obviously innocent/sympathetic people or causes. $25k from a stranger, etc!

I know! Seeing such passion in people has been amazing! This hits a very personal spot for many people, it seems. Some of those spots are more...ahem...personal than others, IYKWIM :angel:

Also, Mechele did post three more entries, which I'll link to in case you didn't get to see them yet:
Blog 1 (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/from-mechele_21.html)
Blog 2 (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/from-mechele_4513.html)
Blog 3 (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/from-mechele_9493.html)
:woohoo:



Yay! I'm glad you also enjoyed the comments-- I found them so interesting!
I agree about the self-serving internet use. It's a double-edged sword, IMO, though. For example, her most recent tweet (http://twitter.com/MecheleLinehan/status/14781412834):
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss

To me this smacks of a sort of defiant narcissistic obliviousness. I imagine a lot of people might mind that she's lazing about and twittering inanely while a lot of people firmly believe she belongs in prison-- for example Kent Leppink's family probably minds. Potential jurors and the prosecutor might mind. All of those people certainly matter. :waitasec:


As always, you say it so well, friend:)

Yay! I'm glad you're back-- I found the shoplifting info! Initially I thought this was just a rumor, but I see a few sources indicate the shoplifting accusation was brought up at trial. Here's one article. (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4PUSnBglfbUJ:www.theolympian.com/2006/10/17/45920/linehan-in-jail-after-bail-review.html+Colin+Linehan+of+concealing+about+%247 00+of+Nordstrom%27s+merchandise&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari) Apparently, the Linehans maintained it was a misunderstanding, the charges were dropped and he wasn't prosecuted. If it wasn't a misunderstanding, I'd definitely put my bet on Mechele being the culprit and not her husband.

bbm, ITA! Although, I actually can see how this could be a misunderstanding, as some people panic and get embarrassed when their babies are crying, as babies are wont to do, and sometimes other people are less than gracious about being around said crying baby and make parents feel more embarrassed than they should.

However... aren't doctors poor during med school? I mean, Colin's letter to the judge discusses how during that time Mechele was working as a waitress and he was paying for school with the military program. I wonder how many waitresses shop at Nordstrom's. The Rack, maybe, but...$700.00??

Oooh interesting! And I'm glad that you also find twitter to be an "abomination in general" haha! Love it. I also noted the grammar/diction struggles that appear to have endured, despite that much-toted Master's Degree. I'd feel badly about being snide, but I'm annoyed by the way this degree is toted in the media and by her supporters-- as if she'd stopped world hunger or become a nun or something.

LOL, seriously! I'll be done with my Master's degree in approx. 4 weeks :woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:and I don't feel like I'm getting more superior and trustworthy by the second...but I'll report after I actually confer...maybe it's like a super time-sensitive kind of effect and it just hasn't kicked in yet.

That reminds me-- I've always been a bit curious about whether it's been alleged that she or the other parties in this case were involved in drug use when the crime occurred. Her emails are painful to read and essentially devoid of punctuation etc. And of course her behavior points to some other sort of serious malfunction... I've always wondered if it was possible she was using a lot of drugs at the time or something? Does anyone know if this has ever been discussed??

I have never heard anything about her doing drugs ever, of even drinking really. The only thing (that I can recall) related to drugs and this case has been some vague mentions of Kent possibly smoking pot at one point in his life or another, and some possible hints at Mechele getting mad at him for it because she didn't approve.

If it's true that she left home at 14, stealing her sister's ID and stripping in New Jersey before going to Alaska, or even with of the "official" story of going to New York at 16 to model, then that would mean she had about what... a ninth or tenth grade education at best? Even if that included some quality private school, if she was a rebellious girl troubled by the loss of her father and quickly learning about the power of seduction, she may not have paid much attention to academics. I've also wondered if she has struggled with a learning disability, but I don't know enough except just to wonder. I suspect the desire for higher education was something that grew out of a feeling of wanting to change her image and better attract and fit into the lifestyle she had honed her lofty aspirations in on.


Also, an update:
Mechele's mother is apparently visiting Mechele and her daughter in Alaska and has blogged (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/happy-happy-mom.html) briefly about it:

"Hi to all!!! Arrived in Anchorage last night and I cannot tell you the joy I felt in seeing my child free!! There are no words to describe how wonderful it was to hug her and know she did not have to be put back in a cell! Audrey is drinking in her mother's love and trying to make up for lost moments. Thanks to all of you for helping in making this come about. You support got us here. Mechele and I will both post later...just wanted to share the excitement of FINALLY getting here and being with Mechele and *****.

A very excited mom!!

It is going to be so interesting seeing how this case progresses.

And, I AM SO GLAD TOMORROW IS FRIDAY!

LadyBug99
05-28-2010, 11:11 AM
SNIPPED...





That reminds me-- I've always been a bit curious about whether it's been alleged that she or the other parties in this case were involved in drug use when the crime occurred. Her emails are painful to read and essentially devoid of punctuation etc. And of course her behavior points to some other sort of serious malfunction... I've always wondered if it was possible she was using a lot of drugs at the time or something? Does anyone know if this has ever been discussed??






Great point! I don't remember any discussion of drug use. I will see if I can find anything about that. I DO NOT want to make this about her being a stripper at the time (because I honestly don't care) BUT it is not unusual for the girls working in the clubs as well as some of the regulars to be drug users/dealers. It would be a great avenue to explore!

cluciano63
05-28-2010, 11:51 AM
I doubt drug use was a factor as I am certain the prosecution would have presented anything at all they could find to put Mechele in an even worse light. I think they looked and probably were disappointed they could not add "drug addict" or "coke XXX" to "stripper."

nancy botwin
05-28-2010, 06:20 PM
I really do not mean to sound or be mean but what her mother has quoted makes me want to puke! Just the way Mechele has treated her mother in the past is disgusting. It seems to me that Mechele's mother is living in a state of denial of the sick behavior of her own daughter. YUCK!!

How has Mechele treated her mother in the past? I feel like I remember reading something about the two being estranged at some point? But I can't remember details. Do you know more about their history?

nancy botwin
05-28-2010, 06:52 PM
Although, I actually can see how this could be a misunderstanding, as some people panic and get embarrassed when their babies are crying, as babies are wont to do, and sometimes other people are less than gracious about being around said crying baby and make parents feel more embarrassed than they should.

However... aren't doctors poor during med school? I mean, Colin's letter to the judge discusses how during that time Mechele was working as a waitress and he was paying for school with the military program. I wonder how many waitresses shop at Nordstrom's. The Rack, maybe, but...$700.00??


Ooh good point! If they were really struggling financially and had a new baby, etc. it's sort of perplexing to imagine they were walking around with 700$ worth of merchandise they intended to purchase. Hmmmm :waitasec:
I totally think Mechele crammed it in the stroller (unbeknownst to her husband) and was confident that no one would suspect him as he wheeled the baby stroller out of the store. Sort of symbolic of the 'two-mecheles" narrative-- use a wholesome facade to deflect suspicion and conceal bad acts.



If it's true that she left home at 14, stealing her sister's ID and stripping in New Jersey before going to Alaska, or even with of the "official" story of going to New York at 16 to model, then that would mean she had about what... a ninth or tenth grade education at best? Even if that included some quality private school, if she was a rebellious girl troubled by the loss of her father and quickly learning about the power of seduction, she may not have paid much attention to academics. I've also wondered if she has struggled with a learning disability, but I don't know enough except just to wonder. I suspect the desire for higher education was something that grew out of a feeling of wanting to change her image and better attract and fit into the lifestyle she had honed her lofty aspirations in on.

Good points! I also wonder about a learning disability-- seems possible fwiw.
Also, I'm assuming she ended up getting her GED? I wonder when/where that happened?
Also I reread Colin Linehan's sentencing letter last night and noted that he said Mechele was acting upon her abiding sense of ethics when she quit the modeling agency receptionist job. According to Dr. Linehan, she felt the agency was unfairly capitalizing on the hopes and dreams of young girls. :doh: Now, maybe that's true. But it never ceases to amaze me how quick her supporters are to recast Mechele's actions in a positively perfect and noble light. Like, they have a saintly explanation for EVERYTHING, even things that really don't require any explanation.

Also! An early congratulations to you on the completion of your Master's Degree!


:woohoo::partyguy::balloons::star1::applause: :woohoo:

nancy botwin
05-28-2010, 07:01 PM
Great point! I don't remember any discussion of drug use. I will see if I can find anything about that. I DO NOT want to make this about her being a stripper at the time (because I honestly don't care) BUT it is not unusual for the girls working in the clubs as well as some of the regulars to be drug users/dealers. It would be a great avenue to explore!

Let me know if you do find anything about drug use! I'm interested. And I agree re: not caring about the stripping. It's weird because it seems like NO ONE CARES about the stripping-- except for Mechele's defenders? :waitasec:


I doubt drug use was a factor as I am certain the prosecution would have presented anything at all they could find to put Mechele in an even worse light. I think they looked and probably were disappointed they could not add "drug addict" or "coke XXX" to "stripper."
You think so? Personally, if I knew she was a drug addict at the time, I would extend a little more 'benefit of the doubt' to Mechele's story and I would also look upon her more sympathetically. Of course drug abuse wouldn't be an excuse for murder, but it could help explain the somewhat incoherent communications, the exceedingly strange behavior, the duplicity, contradictory statements, strange relationships, etc. Also, drug abuse can severely compromise a person's ability to empathize and/or contemplate the real consequences of their actions. A drug addict can stop using drugs and recover their ability to empathize and think rationally. I think revelations of drug abuse could actually be helpful to the defense.

Blondie in Spokane
05-28-2010, 07:28 PM
Wow, Nancy and everyone else...I just got back from reading Eyes for Lies, March 11th blog comments....what interesting info!! Eye-opening to say the least.

What did you think of Sadie's theory? The idea that Kent and MEchele (I love that) were planning on faking his death in order to "make all her dreams come true", only to fear he was being double-crossed at the last minute makes a lot of sense.

I don't recall this particular motive being discussed earlier, just the idea that Kent had planned/paid for his own murder which I just can't see happening.

Thanks for pointing me in that direction (Eyes for Lies), as well. There's so much info there that I think I'll be up all night trying to take it all in!

marilhicks
05-28-2010, 09:05 PM
To Flourish: Your suggestion of learning disabilities sounds like a very reasonable explanation of her English expression difficulties, especially since her mother and sister seem to be able to write well enough. Still, I wonder how she managed to get through a master's program with such problematic skills.

And congratulations on the upcoming completion of your degree!


One detail has been bothering me - according to the book by Rosen, an investigator went to the house in Wasilla on May 3, a day after Kent's body was found. There he encountered Carlin and Mechele. She explained they were retrieving stuff from Kent's car and storage area that belonged to them. The investigator was surprised since they had not been officially informed of the murder.

Apparently they were not concerned that Kent would appear on the scene and felt free to rummage through his belongings. I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this.

Blondie in Spokane
05-28-2010, 09:34 PM
If that's true you would think they would have found the "Hope note" and discarded it....wasn't it left in Kent's car?....I thought it had been left in the glove box but I could be wrong. That behavior screams guilt to me and I can't believe the prosecution didn't mention that at their trials!

nancy botwin
05-29-2010, 02:32 AM
Wow, Nancy and everyone else...I just got back from reading Eyes for Lies, March 11th blog comments....what interesting info!! Eye-opening to say the least.

What did you think of Sadie's theory? The idea that Kent and MEchele (I love that) were planning on faking his death in order to "make all her dreams come true", only to fear he was being double-crossed at the last minute makes a lot of sense.

I don't recall this particular motive being discussed earlier, just the idea that Kent had planned/paid for his own murder which I just can't see happening.

Thanks for pointing me in that direction (Eyes for Lies), as well. There's so much info there that I think I'll be up all night trying to take it all in!

Hmm. I don't know how I feel about the mutual plot to fake Kent's death. I suppose it's possible. If they had been planning this together, they would have been planning it for months because Kent and Mechele applied for the life insurance policies in February 1996. On April 9, 1996 (weeks before his death), Kent sent Mechele this email which, IMO, suggests that they didn't have any grand plan to make themselves rich. To me, it sounds like Kent's trying to cajole Mechele into accepting that they'll be starting a rather ordinary life together and they'll have to work hard to make the money necessary to live the kind of lifestyle she wants.

http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/nancybotwin2010/emailleppink-1.jpg

Also, I believe Mechele was responding to this email or subsequent related emails when she assured Kent "I need a simple life. I have never had a simple life and I want that life now. You can give me that life." (http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=7192085) So I don't know. I guess I would expect to see some sort of email trail or something if they were really planning something like that together.

So, basically I don't really see any evidence to support that kind of mutual plot (beyond the life insurance). Following Sadie's logic, it seems her hypothesis could just as easily be applied to any case of domestic homicide where one partner had expressed fear of the other shortly before death.:waitasec:

nancy botwin
05-29-2010, 02:36 AM
...

One detail has been bothering me - according to the book by Rosen, an investigator went to the house in Wasilla on May 3, a day after Kent's body was found. There he encountered Carlin and Mechele. She explained they were retrieving stuff from Kent's car and storage area that belonged to them. The investigator was surprised since they had not been officially informed of the murder.

Apparently they were not concerned that Kent would appear on the scene and felt free to rummage through his belongings. I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this.


If that's true you would think they would have found the "Hope note" and discarded it....wasn't it left in Kent's car?....I thought it had been left in the glove box but I could be wrong. That behavior screams guilt to me and I can't believe the prosecution didn't mention that at their trials!

Very interesting marilhicks! Another piece of information I failed to retain from Rosen's book-- I should have paid more attention :blushing:

I agree, Blondie in Spokane, that does seem very incriminating indeed. Disturbing.

nancy botwin
05-29-2010, 03:14 AM
Also, I checked the online docket and it looks like there's going to be a hearing regarding Mechele's request to alter her conditions of release. As I recall, she was objecting to the house arrest/third-party custodian provisions. Let us pause and reflect on her third-party custodian's Facebook rant regarding the unfairness of it all. :boohoo:

So, according to the court calendar, Mechele filed the Motion to Alter Conditions of Release on May 14 and the State filed its Response May 19. The hearing is set for June 2.

I also discovered that the third-party custodian augmented her aformentioned Facebook rant and turned it into a bit of a tirade in the comments section (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2886453948518019548&postID=797040932583079529) of the Free Mechele blog:

"Judge V thoughtfully explained he did not consider Mechele a flight risk this time, reminding the prosecution that she presented no problems while on bail in WA state; she'd already proven her reliability once. Also, she provided bail which accomplishes the same things as a third party (begging the ? why both were imposed).

Yet, after making those reasonable observations, he imposed a more restrictive situation than when she was thousands of miles away in Washington.

In WA there were no stipulations as to where she could go during the day or where she could sleep at night, as long as she was with one of her third parties, of whom she had several. She even went to work each day.

This time, Mechele is restricted to the Anchorage bowl, with only one third party in the entire state for long stretches when her family cannot be here, she is under house arrest, allowed only two outings a week for four hours each. She must be in her own apartment by 8:00 pm, seven nights a week.

In imposing more severe restrictions, Judge V allowed Gullufsen to put her third-party custodian under house-arrest herself so that she is unable to function in her own life. There is no provision for her own dctr appts, to take her dog to the vet or groomer, to take care of household duties, even grocery shopping, for personal errands, to take her husband to medical appts requiring her presence without them using one of Mechele's four hour weekly outings, and seven nights a week she is not allowed to sleep in her own home with her husband of almost 26 years. Monday-Friday, she and her husband will rarely see each other, and will only see each other during the days on weekends. There are no provisions for her third-party and Mechele to even take her third-party's dogs for a walk.

Gullufsen has thus far refused to compromise on allowing Mechele to sometimes sleep at her third- party's house so that she may sleep in her own home with her husband at least part of the time. Gullufsen stated "he needs to know where Mechele is every night." He does have both addresses and phone numbers for both, and Mechele must call her bail bondsman every day as well.

Her third party feels this is unreasonable, and as a responsible citizen who stepped forward to make the system work, Gullufsen is being intentionally unreasonable and she can see no reason for it other than either to be vindictive toward Mechele and a member of the public for whom he works as a public servant, or that he hopes her third-party will abandon her due to the stress, and she will be forced to go back to prison. Given this situation is so much more severe than the last, before Mechele proved her trustworthiness, what other explanation can there be?

If Judge V is going to continue to allow Prosecutor Pat to make the decisions and run the show much like he did Mechele's last trial, then I do not agree he should be her judge. Because while what he said in court was fair and reasonable, as judge he does not owe it to the prosecution to be unjust, unfair, or unreasonable, but thus far, Pat is still the one all parties are answering to, even when he does not offer logical, relevant, justifications for his refusals to compromise.

Thus far, Mechele's local third party has expressed no interest in abandoning her commitment to Mechele, but instead the opposite. Having the unnecessary vindictiveness extended to her as well merely for stepping-up has strengthened her resolve and she intends to seek her own legal counsel if necessary because the law does not provide the prosecution the authority to put third party custodians under house arrest, nor may the court; and to contact her representatives in government with a request for judiciary committee examination of this system by looking at her own involvement and what has happened to her for merely attempting to be a responsible citizen doing no one any harm but responsibly keeping the defendant where she belongs until her trial date."



***
I seriously hope Judge Volland doesn't loosen her conditions of release. They need to find an additional third-party custodian so this woman doesn't have to be with Mechele 24/7. It's not the Court's problem that Mechele's conditions of release are burdensome to the woman who VOLUNTEERED for the job. It's like becoming a plumber and then getting all offended when someone asks you to take a look at their toilet. :waitasec:

The third-party custodian is a bit unhinged, IMO. It's kind of amazing. Can you believe this lady?

flourish
05-29-2010, 04:18 AM
Also, I checked the online docket and it looks like there's going to be a hearing regarding Mechele's request to alter her conditions of release. As I recall, she was objecting to the house arrest/third-party custodian provisions. Let us pause and reflect on her third-party custodian's Facebook rant (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5200378&postcount=157) regarding the unfairness of it all. :boohoo:

So, according to the court calendar, Mechele filed the Motion to Alter Conditions of Release on May 14 and the State filed its Response May 19. The hearing is set for June 2.

I also discovered that the third-party custodian augmented her aformentioned Facebook rant and turned it into a bit of a tirade in the comments section (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2886453948518019548&postID=797040932583079529) of the Free Mechele blog:

"Judge V thoughtfully explained he did not consider Mechele a flight risk this time, reminding the prosecution that she presented no problems while on bail in WA state; she'd already proven her reliability once. Also, she provided bail which accomplishes the same things as a third party (begging the ? why both were imposed).

Yet, after making those reasonable observations, he imposed a more restrictive situation than when she was thousands of miles away in Washington.

In WA there were no stipulations as to where she could go during the day or where she could sleep at night, as long as she was with one of her third parties, of whom she had several. She even went to work each day.

This time, Mechele is restricted to the Anchorage bowl, with only one third party in the entire state for long stretches when her family cannot be here, she is under house arrest, allowed only two outings a week for four hours each. She must be in her own apartment by 8:00 pm, seven nights a week.

In imposing more severe restrictions, Judge V allowed Gullufsen to put her third-party custodian under house-arrest herself so that she is unable to function in her own life. There is no provision for her own dctr appts, to take her dog to the vet or groomer, to take care of household duties, even grocery shopping, for personal errands, to take her husband to medical appts requiring her presence without them using one of Mechele's four hour weekly outings, and seven nights a week she is not allowed to sleep in her own home with her husband of almost 26 years. Monday-Friday, she and her husband will rarely see each other, and will only see each other during the days on weekends. There are no provisions for her third-party and Mechele to even take her third-party's dogs for a walk.

Gullufsen has thus far refused to compromise on allowing Mechele to sometimes sleep at her third- party's house so that she may sleep in her own home with her husband at least part of the time. Gullufsen stated "he needs to know where Mechele is every night." He does have both addresses and phone numbers for both, and Mechele must call her bail bondsman every day as well.

Her third party feels this is unreasonable, and as a responsible citizen who stepped forward to make the system work, Gullufsen is being intentionally unreasonable and she can see no reason for it other than either to be vindictive toward Mechele and a member of the public for whom he works as a public servant, or that he hopes her third-party will abandon her due to the stress, and she will be forced to go back to prison. Given this situation is so much more severe than the last, before Mechele proved her trustworthiness, what other explanation can there be?

If Judge V is going to continue to allow Prosecutor Pat to make the decisions and run the show much like he did Mechele's last trial, then I do not agree he should be her judge. Because while what he said in court was fair and reasonable, as judge he does not owe it to the prosecution to be unjust, unfair, or unreasonable, but thus far, Pat is still the one all parties are answering to, even when he does not offer logical, relevant, justifications for his refusals to compromise.

Thus far, Mechele's local third party has expressed no interest in abandoning her commitment to Mechele, but instead the opposite. Having the unnecessary vindictiveness extended to her as well merely for stepping-up has strengthened her resolve and she intends to seek her own legal counsel if necessary because the law does not provide the prosecution the authority to put third party custodians under house arrest, nor may the court; and to contact her representatives in government with a request for judiciary committee examination of this system by looking at her own involvement and what has happened to her for merely attempting to be a responsible citizen doing no one any harm but responsibly keeping the defendant where she belongs until her trial date."



***
I seriously hope Judge Volland doesn't loosen her conditions of release. They need to find an additional third-party custodian so this woman doesn't have to be with Mechele 24/7. It's not the Court's problem that Mechele's conditions of release are burdensome to the woman who VOLUNTEERED for the job. It's like becoming a plumber and then getting all offended when someone asks you to take a look at their toilet. :waitasec:

The third-party custodian is a bit unhinged, IMO. It's kind of amazing. Can you believe this lady?

Um, yeah, I'm gonna go puke now, hang on...:sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick:

Pardon me, I don't know what came over me...perhaps it was something to do with reading yet another letter from a man apologizing to Mechele for not having enough money for her.

The follow-up with the New Enhanced Director's Cut of the third-party rant just tipped it over the edge.

I think I shall go to bed now lest I go completely crazy first, simply from trying to wrap my head around the sheer audacity of these people. Maybe when I awaken, they will have, too. :angel:

flourish
05-29-2010, 02:55 PM
It appears the entire rant discussion has evaporated from the facebook page...h m m m backpedaling down the crazy, maybe?

flourish
05-29-2010, 03:04 PM
New post from Mechele on the blog http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/from-mechele_29.html

includes the following snippet:


Today I am thankful to men who do hair and stop signs.

O k a y

nancy botwin
05-29-2010, 07:04 PM
It appears the entire rant discussion has evaporated from the facebook page...h m m m backpedaling down the crazy, maybe?

haha! Good catch!

I enjoy how the rant was initially edited to sound a little less crazed :rage: and now it's been deleted?!
Narcissism is my favorite spectator sport. As an avid fan, I instinctively preserve records. So, I maintain a screencap (http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/nancybotwin2010/fbrantreconditionsofrelease5-18hraf.jpg) of the original post. :woohoo:

This makes me feel a solidarity with Kent Leppink-- you know how Free Mecheleans are quick to insist that he was deranged/creepy/obsessed/ "sneaky" because he kept records of things related to Mechele & co.? IMO, that's the prudent thing to do when you're dealing with shady people who don't feel they should be held accountable for their actions!

nancy botwin
05-29-2010, 07:41 PM
Um, yeah, I'm gonna go puke now, hang on...:sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick:

Pardon me, I don't know what came over me...perhaps it was something to do with reading yet another letter from a man apologizing to Mechele for not having enough money for her.

The follow-up with the New Enhanced Director's Cut of the third-party rant just tipped it over the edge.

I think I shall go to bed now lest I go completely crazy first, simply from trying to wrap my head around the sheer audacity of these people. Maybe when I awaken, they will have, too. :angel:

Audacity is right! The persecutory delusions within this rant are amazing. Using this logic, should a defense attorney feel personally attacked when the judge orders his/her client held without bail? Because then the attorney is going to have to truck it to the jail whenever the attorney meets with the client. And that's going to take a lot more time and energy. I bet the Hold Without Bail has nothing to do with the offender/offense and has everything to do with the judge or prosecutor's personal vendetta against the defense attorney. :waitasec:
I also enjoy the delusions of grandeur. Clearly the pretrial release conditions have been crafted as a way to thwart the third-party custodian's noble civic crusade. :waitasec:

Also, bringing it down to logistics-- and ignoring the fact that the entire situation could be remedied by finding additional third-party custodians who do not live and work thousands of miles away from the defendant--
Under the current conditions, Mechele is entitled to TWO 4-hour periods to do whatever she needs/wants to do outside her home every week. IMO many people (who are not wards of the criminal justice system) do not enjoy a guaranteed 8 hrs to run personal errands, bike ride, see movies etc. outside of their home every week. People have jobs, school, kids to take care of and shuttle around, etc.

Mechele doesn't have a job. She doesn't have kids, family members, friends or pets to take care of in Anchorage. She doesn't have a house or car to maintain. She only needs to buy groceries and domestic supplies for one person. Visits with her attorney or any other individual directly associated with her legal representation do NOT count as part of those 8 free hours/week. So IMO the 8 hrs of free/leisure time condition is MORE than fair. I know there are many weeks when I don't have a guaranteed 8 hours of purely personal time to do whatever I want outside of my home.

And, since Mechele is apparently a deeply generous and considerate person now, wouldn't you think she would use a few of those 8 hours to allow the third-party custodian to do what she needs to do? Couldn't they walk the dogs together? If the dogs really needed to go to the vet or get their nails buffed and polished, couldn't animal-loving Mechele give up one of those hours to come along? Couldn't the third-party custodian and Mechele do their necessary shopping together?

So, IMO, this indignant rant is not only logistically unreasonable but also extremely disrespectful. This isn't sleep-away camp?! Mechele is awaiting trial for first degree murder. And she was fortunate enough to have perfect strangers PAY HER WAY out of prison. This indignation sort of reminds me of being a college freshman and listening to fellow dorm residents rage angrily about the oppressive RA's who wouldn't allow them to bring beer into the dorm. Never-mind that they were 18! They were in college now and an adult, etc.

When you're awaiting trial for first degree murder motivated by pecuniary gain, it's probably not a good idea to flagrantly demonstrate that you continue to be a person who believes the rules should not apply to you and that you are entitled to whatever you want. :waitasec::waitasec:

flourish
05-29-2010, 07:46 PM
haha! Good catch!

I enjoy how the rant was initially edited to sound a little less crazed :rage: and now it's been deleted?!
Narcissism is my favorite spectator sport. As an avid fan, I instinctively preserve records. So, I maintain a screencap (http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/nancybotwin2010/fbrantreconditionsofrelease5-18hraf.jpg) of the original post. :woohoo:

This makes me feel a solidarity with Kent Leppink-- you know how Free Mecheleans are quick to insist that he was deranged/creepy/obsessed/ "sneaky" because he kept records of things related to Mechele & co.? IMO, that's the prudent thing to do when you're dealing with shady people who don't feel they should be held accountable for their actions!

Bold: Hilarious!

Yeah, it's obviously a good choice to keep records and confirm things in general and particularly when dealing with anything related to Mechele!

cluciano63
05-29-2010, 07:51 PM
I am not taking up for Mechele, but just hope her second jury comes into the case with an open mind. Whatever you think of her, the justice system has granted her a new trial and she is no different from anyone else in having rights. If she is so obviously guilty and treacherous, I am sure the jury will see that, I just hope that the jurors, whoever they turn out to be, have not already made up their minds. JMO.

flourish
05-29-2010, 07:55 PM
Could this whole third-party nonsense been because they were all assuming she'd get to go back to Olympia and didn't bother to plan ahead for an Alaskan release? Can the third-party's husband apply to be a third-party, too?

I'm wondering why Mechele isn't just living with the third-party.

Oh, and delusions of grandeur I agree...it's baffling.

nancy botwin
05-29-2010, 10:20 PM
I am not taking up for Mechele, but just hope her second jury comes into the case with an open mind. Whatever you think of her, the justice system has granted her a new trial and she is no different from anyone else in having rights. If she is so obviously guilty and treacherous, I am sure the jury will see that, I just hope that the jurors, whoever they turn out to be, have not already made up their minds. JMO.

I agree that she definitely deserves a fair trial. And from what I've seen, the evidence isn't that clear-cut, IMO, so I could see a jury going either way?? Personally, I think she's guilty, but if I were a juror (seeing only the evidence we've been able to see through the media thus far) I don't know if I could vote guilty.

It just seems unwise, IMO, for the defense to be quibbling about the conditions of her release while posting inflammatory accusations and insinuations about the judge and the prosecutor. Personally, I find it entertaining. But if I were close to Mechele, I would find it upsetting and problematic because these antics certainly aren't going to help her prevail at the retrial.

nancy botwin
05-29-2010, 10:34 PM
Could this whole third-party nonsense been because they were all assuming she'd get to go back to Olympia and didn't bother to plan ahead for an Alaskan release? Can the third-party's husband apply to be a third-party, too?

I'm wondering why Mechele isn't just living with the third-party.

Oh, and delusions of grandeur I agree...it's baffling.

That's a good question! I don't know. You would think that would be a good solution? Maybe there's something about the third-party's living situation that isn't conducive/acceptable? I know pretrial release conditions prohibit a defendant from being within a certain vicinity of airports etc? Maybe it's a location thing? Maybe the husband cannot be qualified as a third-party custodian for some reason? Maybe Mechele just wants to maintain her own apartment for the times her family is able to visit? Whatever the case, after reading the third-party custodian's rants, I'm quite certain we aren't getting the WHOLE story and I'd bet there are a number of solutions that could be worked out, short of loosening the actual conditions of Mechele's release.

I browsed around and discovered that it's quite common for defendants to have a third-party custodian AND house arrest conditions in addition to monetary bond-- people convicted of drunk driving, etc.

I think the third-party custodian is refusing to acknowledge the obvious-- as it stands now, Mechele would lose NOTHING (from the Court's perspective) if she jumped bond and fled. The money that would be forfeited would come from the strip club owner and the benefactor. So, IMO, restraints on her personal movement are necessary to ensure she doesn't flee. When she was awaiting her first trial in Olympia, the bond amount was 150,000$ CASH. They were able to post the full amount in cash by securing a loan against their home. The 150,000$ would be returned to her after she appeared for her trial. So, she stood to lose 150,000$ of her own money and her home if she fled last time. I do think the circumstances are different and that the current conditions are reasonable-- 25,000$ cash + a few more restrictions vs. 150,000$ ? Doesn't sound like a strange vindictive campaign to me??

But I did love the blog entry about the haircut. hehehe. And how she enjoyed her 4 hours of "bliss." :angel:

darnudes
05-30-2010, 02:20 AM
IMO, Mechele is definitely a flight risk. I would not be surprised if she just vanishes one day on one of those 4 hour trips.

marilhicks
05-31-2010, 09:19 AM
Nancy, thanks for keeping us so well informed on this case.

If ML is retried and acquitted, can she sue the state for wrongful conviction and/or imprisonment?

Blondie in Spokane
05-31-2010, 10:28 AM
She sounds like a freakin 5-year-old..."I'm thankful for stop signs!" LOL!....sorry, I couldn't help it!

nancy botwin
05-31-2010, 08:18 PM
Nancy, thanks for keeping us so well informed on this case.

If ML is retried and acquitted, can she sue the state for wrongful conviction and/or imprisonment?

She could, but in reviewing the applicable law, IMO she wouldn't prevail.

In 27 states and the District of Columbia, an acquitted person (upon a showing of "actual innocence") is entitled to monetary compensation under state Wrongful Conviction statutes. The payout varies significantly among states. Texas provides $50,000/year incarcerated & $100,000/year incarcerated on death row, whereas Louisiana provides $15,000/year and caps the total payout at $150,000$, regardless of the actual number of years spent incarcerated. Some states include benefits for lost wages and other considerations etc. However, Alaska is one of the states that lacks this kind of statute. In states without these statutes, the wrongfully convicted person can petition the state legislature to consider awarding financial compensation for the wrongful conviction/incarceration. These rewards tend to be infrequently granted and also generally require the person to demonstrate actual innocence (vs. just being found "not guilty"). So, she'd likely have to sue which brings me to your question :)

She could try to bring a tort claim in civil court. However, Alaska statutes grant immunity from civil liability to state agents for negligence torts, intentional torts and punitive damages, explicitly immunizing them from any of the claims she could conceivably raise against them:

Alaska Statute 9.50.250 (http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title09/Chapter50/Section250.htm) provides:

"... An action may not be brought if the claim arises out of... false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit..."

Prosecutors are generally and absolutely immunized from allegations stemming from actions performed in their official capacities as state agents. Police officers are also protected by immunity privileges. Police officers who commit perjury on the stand are protected; prosecutors who have proffered perjured testimony or fabricated exhibits at trial have been protected by absolute immunity, etc. :eek:.

If the state agents were acting outside the scope of their roles/duties as state agents, they can still be protected by a more limited immunity provision-- qualified immunity. Generally, qualified immunity shields government officials who perform discretionary governmental functions from civil liability unless their conduct was "so obviously wrong, in the light of pre-existing law, that only a plainly incompetent officer or one who was knowingly violating the law would have done such a thing." In this case (unless Mechele can provide evidence to prove investigators intentionally fabricated/concealed crucial evidence to secure an indictment), the decision to arrest and prosecute will not be construed as "so obviously wrong" because the prosecutor can make a clear showing he did have probable cause to prosecute her. The original Grand Jury Indictment conferred probable cause as a matter of law. Similarly, conviction at the first trial would also demonstrate probable cause. These immunity provisions would apply in suits brought at either the State or Federal level.

Since she doesn't appear to have a claim under state law, she could try to bring a 1983 claim in Federal Court, alleging that false arrest, malicious prosecution, etc. violated her constitutional rights. She's again going to have trouble here because the state agents are likely to be given absolute or qualified immunity. The one applicable caveat to prosecutorial immunity could be the his statements to media/press conferences but I also don't see that going anywhere.

IMO the only way she could win is if she can show the troopers acted with actual malice and fabricated/concealed evidence or did something else similarly egregious to knowingly, purposely and wrongfully secure a conviction. Like, for example, Linda Branchflower has been deviously sitting on the murder weapon because it had someone else's fingerprints on it, etc.

I tried to find a case in Alaska where someone had successfully sued for wrongful conviction/malicious prosecution etc. and couldn't find any. I think these kinds of suits are very hard to win. This law review article (http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/pilj/vol18no2/documents/18-2AverySymposium.pdf) goes into some detail about the difficulties involved in these suits.

Mechele's supporters seem very convinced that she'll successfully sue the state of Alaska when this is all over, so maybe they have some trick up their sleeve I haven't thought of? :waitasec:

ETA: This is sort of muddled in the middle re: my discussion of absolute/qualified immunity so if you want to know more about those concepts you should definitely look them up because my explanation leaves something to be desired. :rubberducky:

nancy botwin
06-01-2010, 12:54 AM
I thought I'd post this case update info here because I think some of you are fellow 48 Hours-watchers & this case had some similarities to Linehan's, IMO.

The episode, Lady in the Harbor (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/48hours/main4749440.shtml), focused on the murder of Barbara Mullenix and the ensuing first degree murder trials of her daughter, Rachael Mullenix and Rachel's boyfriend Ian Allen.
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/01/23/image4749439g.jpg
© CBS

Both cases involved male and female co-defendants charged with first degree murder. Both involved subjective interpretations of electronic communications as evidence of a conspiracy between the two defendants. Neither defendants' DNA or fingerprints were found on murder weapons in either case. Both cases involved the introduction of extraneous allusions to movies allegedly "connected" to the crimes. The prosecutors used the victims' hearsay statements against the accused as evidence in both trials. The co-defendants blamed each other in both trials. Both cases involved allegations that the prosecutors' dramatics sensationalized the proceedings/affected the verdict. The female defendants' trials received substantially more publicity than the males' trials in both cases. Both defendants were found guilty of first degree murder and received identical sentences in both cases, etc.

Anyway, Rachael Mullenix appealed her conviction and the California Appeals Court decision came back earlier this month-- she lost. The appellate decision is published here. (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/G041068.PDF) The Opinion is an interesting read and provides a lot of additional details about the trial. It's especially interesting in light of Mechele's appellate victory. In both cases, hearsay statements/accusations of the deceased victims were used as evidence against the defendants. However, unlike Mechele's attorneys, Rachael Mullenix's trial attorney failed to object to the hearsay statements as Confrontation Clause violations, so she couldn't raise that issue on appeal.

It's interesting to see how cases with similar fact patterns can have very different outcomes simply (and arguably) because one trial attorney made an objection and the other didn't.

Anyway, I just thought I'd post the update/info for anyone who might be interested.
Here's the full episode link for anyone who hasn't seen it and would like to:
Lady In The Harbor - 48 Hours - CBS News

It was a good episode! If you've watched it, do you see similarities between the Mullenix case and Mechele Linehan's?

bmg1112
06-02-2010, 12:34 PM
I thought I'd post this case update info here because I think some of you are fellow 48 Hours-watchers & this case had some similarities to Linehan's, IMO.

The episode, Lady in the Harbor (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/48hours/main4749440.shtml), focused on the murder of Barbara Mullenix and the ensuing first degree murder trials of her daughter, Rachael Mullenix and Rachel's boyfriend Ian Allen.
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/01/23/image4749439g.jpg
© CBS

Both cases involved male and female co-defendants charged with first degree murder. Both involved subjective interpretations of electronic communications as evidence of a conspiracy between the two defendants. Neither defendants' DNA or fingerprints were found on murder weapons in either case. Both cases involved the introduction of extraneous allusions to movies allegedly "connected" to the crimes. The prosecutors used the victims' hearsay statements against the accused as evidence in both trials. The co-defendants blamed each other in both trials. Both cases involved allegations that the prosecutors' dramatics sensationalized the proceedings/affected the verdict. The female defendants' trials received substantially more publicity than the males' trials in both cases. Both defendants were found guilty of first degree murder and received identical sentences in both cases, etc.

Anyway, Rachael Mullenix appealed her conviction and the California Appeals Court decision came back earlier this month-- she lost. The appellate decision is published here. (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/G041068.PDF) The Opinion is an interesting read and provides a lot of additional details about the trial. It's especially interesting in light of Mechele's appellate victory. In both cases, hearsay statements/accusations of the deceased victims were used as evidence against the defendants. However, unlike Mechele's attorneys, Rachael Mullenix's trial attorney failed to object to the hearsay statements as Confrontation Clause violations, so she couldn't raise that issue on appeal.

It's interesting to see how cases with similar fact patterns can have very different outcomes simply (and arguably) because one trial attorney made an objection and the other didn't.

Anyway, I just thought I'd post the update/info for anyone who might be interested.
Here's the full episode link for anyone who hasn't seen it and would like to:
Lady In The Harbor - 48 Hours - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5069257n)

It was a good episode! If you've watched it, do you see similarities between the Mullenix case and Mechele Linehan's?

I am new to websleuths, but had heard of Mechele's case on a previous crime show here in Australia. I have read all the posts that everyone wrote and I find this case really interesting, especially the passion exhibited by both those for and against her guilt. I agree with many that she is probably guilty, but should not have been found guilty with the limited evidence produced at the trial.

thank you nancy botwin for all your posts and all the work you've done in providing the information for those of us who need it. I find your posts to be realistic and to have a common sense angle to them - you don't go off on some witch hunt and you take an open-minde view to things. you seem like you're an intelligent person and of all the psoters I respect yours the most because of the logic that goes with your views. Thanks for adding that other case, as it happens I had just watched that episode "lady in the lake" the other day - The daughter is defenitely similiar to Mechele and the daughter is / looks guilty with the evidence presented in the case. Even in her crying interigation she says she was woken up by her mum screaming her name, yet in court she says she met her boyfriend at the door when he came over, then went into her room just as her boyfriend started to commit the crime. It's funny to how these type of women always seem to be pretty, it's as if they have learnt to use their looks to manipulate men.

Anyway Thanks for all your work Nancy Botwin. I don't suppose you know where the Morgan Harrington threads are hidden do you? It is because of Morgan's case I came to this website, but for the life of me cannot find where people have posted on her case. I hope you know who I'm talking about.

Maznblu1
06-02-2010, 02:14 PM
The latest Morgan Harrington thread is here:

Found Deceased VA - Morgan Dana Harrington, 20, Charlottesville, 17 Oct 2009 - #14 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

flourish
06-02-2010, 04:00 PM
I do believe there's a hearing scheduled today regarding a request to adjust the third-party custodian and Mechele's bond situation. ADN doesn't have anything up on their site yet, but it's still early, so I'll keep my eye out and let you know what I learn when I learn it:) Although Nancy will probably beat me to it;) Love ya, Nanc!

nancy botwin
06-02-2010, 05:51 PM
I am new to websleuths, but had heard of Mechele's case on a previous crime show here in Australia. I have read all the posts that everyone wrote and I find this case really interesting, especially the passion exhibited by both those for and against her guilt. I agree with many that she is probably guilty, but should not have been found guilty with the limited evidence produced at the trial.

thank you nancy botwin for all your posts and all the work you've done in providing the information for those of us who need it. I find your posts to be realistic and to have a common sense angle to them - you don't go off on some witch hunt and you take an open-minde view to things. you seem like you're an intelligent person and of all the psoters I respect yours the most because of the logic that goes with your views. Thanks for adding that other case, as it happens I had just watched that episode "lady in the lake" the other day - The daughter is defenitely similiar to Mechele and the daughter is / looks guilty with the evidence presented in the case. Even in her crying interigation she says she was woken up by her mum screaming her name, yet in court she says she met her boyfriend at the door when he came over, then went into her room just as her boyfriend started to commit the crime. It's funny to how these type of women always seem to be pretty, it's as if they have learnt to use their looks to manipulate men.

Anyway Thanks for all your work Nancy Botwin. I don't suppose you know where the Morgan Harrington threads are hidden do you? It is because of Morgan's case I came to this website, but for the life of me cannot find where people have posted on her case. I hope you know who I'm talking about.

Welcome! And thank you so much for your kind words. I'm glad to see another person interested in this case and I look forward to even more of your thoughts and insights! I'll respond to your post more/ in greater detail when I have some time later but I just wanted to say thanks and welcome!



I do believe there's a hearing scheduled today regarding a request to adjust the third-party custodian and Mechele's bond situation. ADN doesn't have anything up on their site yet, but it's still early, so I'll keep my eye out and let you know what I learn when I learn it:) Although Nancy will probably beat me to it;) Love ya, Nanc!

Thank you for reminding me! I totally forgot!
Looks like the hearing occurred today and Mechele's Motion to Alter Release Conditions was DENIED this afternoon. This means she will still have to remain on virtual home confinement (with 8 free hours outside the home/week) and will still have to be in the sight&sound of her third-party custodian 24/7.

nancy botwin
06-03-2010, 02:23 AM
As previously noted, Mechele Linehan's motion to loosen her current bail restrictions was denied today. As previously mentioned, Linehan's third-party custodian found her duties too onerous, so apparently Mechele's mom Sandy McWilliams is going to share the burden. Incidentally, I believe today was Sandy McWilliams' birthday. Here's a brief article about today's bail hearing.


Linehan's Mother Is Now Added As Third-Party Custodian, ADN 6-2-10 (http://www.adn.com/2010/06/02/1305192/linehans-mother-is-now-added-as.html)

http://media.adn.com/smedia/2010/06/02/22/5268328.68137.original.standalone.prod_affiliate.7 .jpg
© Erik Hill, Anchorage Daily News

bmg1112
06-03-2010, 02:03 PM
The latest Morgan Harrington thread is here:

Found Deceased VA - Morgan Dana Harrington, 20, Charlottesville, 17 Oct 2009 - #14 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99997)

Thank you Maznblu1

bmg1112
06-03-2010, 02:06 PM
As previously noted, Mechele Linehan's motion to loosen her current bail restrictions was denied today. As previously mentioned, Linehan's third-party custodian found her duties too onerous, so apparently Mechele's mom Sandy McWilliams is going to share the burden. Incidentally, I believe today was Sandy McWilliams' birthday. Here's a brief article about today's bail hearing.


Linehan's Mother Is Now Added As Third-Party Custodian, ADN 6-2-10 (http://www.adn.com/2010/06/02/1305192/linehans-mother-is-now-added-as.html)

http://media.adn.com/smedia/2010/06/02/22/5268328.68137.original.standalone.prod_affiliate.7 .jpg
© Erik Hill, Anchorage Daily News

thanks for that Nancy. Do we have any idea how long it could be before they do a retrial. I can see this woman getting off even though I suspect she is guilty.

marilhicks
06-03-2010, 05:28 PM
Thanks Nancy for your excellent (as always) reply. It suddenly occurred to me that she could come out of this smelling like a rose if acquitted and able to sue. I’m relieved to know she is not likely to prevail.

nancy botwin
06-03-2010, 05:39 PM
thanks for that Nancy. Do we have any idea how long it could be before they do a retrial. I can see this woman getting off even though I suspect she is guilty.

The ADN article says there is no date set for trial, however, court records indicate the court has set a tentative date for the trial to begin on Sept 13, 2010. I imagine that this will be pushed back and my guess would be that the trial won't actually start until early 2011, but that's just a guess :)

***
Also I noted a perhaps interesting new development on the Free Mechele FB page. As previously noted, the defense and Mechele's supporters have publicly insisted Mechele only worked as an exotic dancer for a brief period while she was in Alaska. However, as I recall, Mechele's mother indicated in the early press coverage that Mechele did indeed dance in New Orleans before and after her time in Alaska. Early press coverage indicated Mechele did indeed strip on Bourbon Street until she became engaged to Dr. Linehan.

In addition, lots of internet comments have indicated some of her former coworkers in New Orleans had a very unfavorable opinion of Linehan that comports with the prosecution's narrative/assessment of her character and propensity to commit illegal acts. Some of those comments contain specific allegations of illegal acts and the accusation that Mechele was again using her sister's identity while working during that period. Personally, I don't care if Mechele worked as an exotic dancer in 43 states for 20+ years. But I do think it's suspect and disturbing that Mechele and her defenders LIE about the issue. It makes me more inclined to believe all the online allegations re: illegal behavior in New Orleans before and after her time in Alaska. Why is it so important to conceal the fact that Mechele worked as a dancer on Bourbon street? Would this revelation bring forth new witnesses and allegations of prior of bad acts? It seems to me that if a person is going to have a knee-jerk bias to an exotic dancer, they are going to have that bias whether the dancer worked for 18 months or 30 months?

So anyway, this morning a former Big Daddy's (strip club on Bourbon Street where Mechele allegedly worked) employee joined the Free Mechele FB site, identified herself as a former co-worker of Mechele's and wrote Mechele a kind note of support. The former co-worker's kind note of support was mysteriously deleted soon after. I find this suspicious. One could say Mechele is simply trying to completely distance herself from the "stripper issue" because being associated in any way with the exotic dance industry has caused unfair bias against her. Why then did Mechele consent to a bond agreement secured by a local strip club? Why do her defense attorneys & supporters continue to lean on the favorable testimony of her former coworkers from the Bush Company in Alaska (Honi Martin and Tina Brady)?

My theory is that Mechele has a vested interest in hiding whatever she was up to when she was stripping on Bourbon Street after Leppink's murder and after she left Alaska. It's interesting and I hope the prosecution is looking into this period of Ms. Linehan's life.

Here is the deleted comment. I have whited out the commenter's face and last name, but made no other modifications.
http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/nancybotwin2010/Picture1-1.jpg

Does anyone else think it's weird this woman's comment was deleted? Do you have theories or opinions about why Mechele & Co. are untruthful in their assertions that Mechele only worked as a dancer for 18 months while she was in Alaska?

marilhicks
06-03-2010, 06:33 PM
My theory is that Mechele has a vested interest in hiding whatever she was up to when she was stripping on Bourbon Street after Leppink's murder and after she left
Does anyone else think it's weird this woman's comment was deleted? Do you have theories or opinions about why Mechele & Co. are untruthful in their assertions that Mechele only worked as a dancer for 18 months while she was in Alaska?

I saw the comments you referenced about the illegal acts while stripping on Bourbon Street and they were horrendous. I should imagine they would certainly not want testimony of this sort to be heard. They were certainly in keeping with some of her behavior while in Alaska - a lot worse in some way - and her defense would surely want them suppressed. But surely the prosecution is aware of these allegations. However, the very fact that the comment from the Bourbon Street dancer was removed lends support to their veracity.

I was loathe to mention them because they were so awful and possibly libelous if not true.

darnudes
06-05-2010, 06:53 PM
The ADN article says there is no date set for trial, however, court records indicate the court has set a tentative date for the trial to begin on Sept 13, 2010. I imagine that this will be pushed back and my guess would be that the trial won't actually start until early 2011, but that's just a guess :)

***
Also I noted a perhaps interesting new development on the Free Mechele FB page. As previously noted, the defense and Mechele's supporters have publicly insisted Mechele only worked as an exotic dancer for a brief period while she was in Alaska. However, as I recall, Mechele's mother indicated in the early press coverage that Mechele did indeed dance in New Orleans before and after her time in Alaska. Early press coverage indicated Mechele did indeed strip on Bourbon Street until she became engaged to Dr. Linehan.

In addition, lots of internet comments have indicated some of her former coworkers in New Orleans had a very unfavorable opinion of Linehan that comports with the prosecution's narrative/assessment of her character and propensity to commit illegal acts. Some of those comments contain specific allegations of illegal acts and the accusation that Mechele was again using her sister's identity while working during that period. Personally, I don't care if Mechele worked as an exotic dancer in 43 states for 20+ years. But I do think it's suspect and disturbing that Mechele and her defenders LIE about the issue. It makes me more inclined to believe all the online allegations re: illegal behavior in New Orleans before and after her time in Alaska. Why is it so important to conceal the fact that Mechele worked as a dancer on Bourbon street? Would this revelation bring forth new witnesses and allegations of prior of bad acts? It seems to me that if a person is going to have a knee-jerk bias to an exotic dancer, they are going to have that bias whether the dancer worked for 18 months or 30 months?

So anyway, this morning a former Big Daddy's (strip club on Bourbon Street where Mechele allegedly worked) employee joined the Free Mechele FB site, identified herself as a former co-worker of Mechele's and wrote Mechele a kind note of support. The former co-worker's kind note of support was mysteriously deleted soon after. I find this suspicious. One could say Mechele is simply trying to completely distance herself from the "stripper issue" because being associated in any way with the exotic dance industry has caused unfair bias against her. Why then did Mechele consent to a bond agreement secured by a local strip club? Why do her defense attorneys & supporters continue to lean on the favorable testimony of her former coworkers from the Bush Company in Alaska (Honi Martin and Tina Brady)?

My theory is that Mechele has a vested interest in hiding whatever she was up to when she was stripping on Bourbon Street after Leppink's murder and after she left Alaska. It's interesting and I hope the prosecution is looking into this period of Ms. Linehan's life.

Here is the deleted comment. I have whited out the commenter's face and last name, but made no other modifications.
http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/nancybotwin2010/Picture1-1.jpg

Does anyone else think it's weird this woman's comment was deleted? Do you have theories or opinions about why Mechele & Co. are untruthful in their assertions that Mechele only worked as a dancer for 18 months while she was in Alaska?

Aha!!

I actually saw that comment a while ago and didn't know it had since been deleted. I think they are trying to whitewash her history. I'm with you, I couldn't care less if she was a dancer or not nor for how long. I suspect that some of the things she did in Orleans are NOT so flattering to Mechele and believe she may have been involved in some shady behaviour there and that she does not want that to see the light of day.

nancy botwin
06-22-2010, 03:21 AM
No big news lately, but I encountered something special earlier this evening.
Mechele is acting out on twittter. And she's apparently quite bemused by public criticism of her tweets. The most recent tweet is in response to an African American man's tweet to her earlier this week. :waitasec:

http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/nancybotwin2010/tweets.jpg


Very baiting, strange and inappropriate?! I can't believe this is coming from a 37 year old woman awaiting retrial for first degree murder.

darnudes
06-22-2010, 04:49 AM
Indeed Nancy, very strange and she actually said the "N" word, albeit in rapper slang! Unbelievable. I'm telling you this is one very very strange lady. I would be laying low and not making a peep.

Belinda
06-22-2010, 05:45 AM
She needs to have her mouth washed out with soap.

flourish
06-22-2010, 10:37 PM
:nono:Um, wow, so now we get to add "Racist" to the list of her ever-so-fine qualities right after "Tweeter Supreme" and "Very Super Awesome Speller!" :nono: :snooty::snooty::snooty:


And she just can't stand that guy who hates it when she tweets about cheese :violin::floorlaugh:

Maybe that tweet was the result of too much wine with all that cheese?
:cautionDrunk:

:angel:

One would think that one would learn to keep one's electronic mouth shut after one's past emails did not serve one well in one's first trial. :waitasec:

Perhaps Megan Holland should mention that tweet in her next article--it's much more interesting than Mechele's "first-produce-to-buy-when-I-get-out-of-prison list."

And, finally, I wonder if she ever had a problem letting any of those "N's" slip a few ones into her thong? :waitasec: Kinda doubt it.
:curtsey:

nancy botwin
06-24-2010, 08:17 PM
I agree with all of you! And like flourish, I also wondered if she was drunk or something? Wildly inappropriate!

It is strange that out of ALL the things written about her, she randomly chooses to act out on twitter and against that particular man. Whatever the case, it seems to me that the "real Mechele" doesn't seem a great departure from the nasty, immature and reckless Mechele who lived in Alaska years ago.

Random updates:
Another bail hearing appears to have been set on July 7. I don't know what that's about-- perhaps trying to relax restrictions again or maybe seeking permission for work release.

For people curious about her family life, her husband has been staying with her in Alaska in recent weeks.

nancy botwin
06-25-2010, 01:37 AM
Mechele continues to enjoy herself on twitter, this time invoking Kim Kardashian :waitasec:
http://i975.photobucket.com/albums/ae231/nancybotwin2010/tweets-1.jpg

(Source: http://twitter.com/MecheleLinehan)

Mechele's been going for runs, shopping, out for sushi, seen at hotels where visitors were staying, outside at local parks etc. It almost seems like she's playing loose with those house arrest restrictions...:rolleyes:

wanttohelp
06-25-2010, 06:46 AM
wow if that really is her account, her defense is gonna have a field day adding that huge group to to the list they dont want on the jury.

nancy botwin
06-26-2010, 10:21 PM
Mechele's third-party custodian Barbara Sheridan (hereafter BS) has posted a new entry on the Free Mechele FB site. BS is misrepresenting some things, namely the fact that the twitter account is not Mechele's. :angel:

BS's post (http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=55155870302&topic=15959):
"Supporters of Mechele have read a number of sites that continue to be filled with erroneous information. Some of it is only small details about legal logistics, about some of us involved in helping her, and about her relatives, but much of it seriously misrepresents Mechele.

Please remember that when you copy twitter messages and post them on your sites as Mechele's, you have no way of knowing that they are hers. The same is true for various web sites with impersonators setting up profiles under her name.

The twitter posts shown to me this week are not hers, so those of you who posted them as such contributed to damaging fraud.

Please remember that when you read cybergossip, the people you are repeating do not know Mechele. They have no information as to her private life, her schedule, or her relationships, and that is why it is only speculative gossip you are publishing.

Lastly, you also do not know details of Mechele's bail arrangement, whereabouts, schedule, the lay of the city, who is and who is not visiting her, why, when, whether it was prearranged or out of immediate need, and so forth. Hence, there too you are spreading misinformation by posting gossip and by doing your own guessing as if you have enough information to be correct. You don't, and that is why many of your online efforts are incorrect.

I know the stalkers don't care because that is what they want, but those of you who are serious about your interest and the time you spend on your blogs may want to to be more careful for web information integrity and ethics, if not merely to behave honorably toward someone you may be damaging unfairly.

Those who read the Free Mechele site for information to post on your blogs may want to double-check some of what you've written regarding what you've read there because this week there are multiple misrepresentations and a couple of them are getting a lot of discussion on your blogs-wasted discussion when what you report you read or the admin did isn't true and you didn't realize it.

Edits are sometimes done because someone posted something with a mistake in it and it would be wrong to leave the mistake up. A non-admin commenter might take something down because it had a mistake or they changed their minds, but they do not have access for editing, only removing their own posts. Other times an admin moves posts to different spots because commenters accidentally posted in the wrong one. Please be aware of that instead of assigning nefarious intent and/or thinking that just because something isn't where you saw it last time, it must have been removed to hide it.

For your own integrity at least, please read more carefully so that when you interpret for your readers what you've read on Free Mechele sites, you do not misrepresent what was said. Only the words written can accurately and fairly represent the authors, not how other parties want to interpret or read into the posts, guessing and paraphrasing what was written into a different meaning or intent.

When anyone publishing something on the web edits it or removes it, it is because they were dissatisfied with it for some reason. Readers do not usually know why commenters were dissatisfied with their posts. Furthermore, just because readers can take a photo of posts before their authors are finished editing it or fixing mistakes, or abandoned the effort and removed an entire post does not mean said readers have what the writers intended as their final written messages. (Another online ethical decision to consider.)

In case it matters to anyone reading this post, Mechele does not read blog sites about her. Misinformation is discovered by others of us and it is sent to us.

Further, as a reminder, Mechele does not administer the Free Mechele sites so what is written on them represents the writers only. Regarding her case, we do not speak for her as one entity, nor do we speak for each other, but are separate individuals, many of whom do not know each other personally. Therefore, anything readers take exception to, assign it only to the individual writer.

When I get the time again,(although, even without it, I know I will receive feedback from supportive readers who will fill me in), I personally will be interested to see the inevitable "reports" on this particular post. Responses will provide insight as to who is actually ethical among the true crime enthusiasts so closely following this case and blogging on it. In fact, and I mean this respectfully toward some of the bloggers I am referring to, erroneous inferences, presumptuous assumptions, frivolous treatment of Mechele's life and John Carlin's tragedy, and invasions of privacy guarantee remaining uninformed of accurate details. A situation as horrendously serious as this means mistreatment automatically earns distrust.

Thank you for taking the time to read this post."

Fact: Mechele's twitter account is linked to her email address. In order to set up the twitter account, someone had to click the confirmation link received by Mechele's private email address, etc.
Fact: Mechele's email address was initially exposed on her personal facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001147414887&ref=sgm) when she set it up. Mechele's personal facebook profile is still linked to that email address. I will not post the email address here because I do think it could be used by random creepers to harass her.


However, what Mechele chooses to post publicly online is fair game. She chose to create a twitter account. She chose to post on the Free Mechele site that she set up twitter and FB accounts soon after her release etc. She chose and continues to choose to make her tweets public. Her friends and family members publicly follow Mechele's twitter account and she references them in some of her tweets. If she doesn't want the public to view and form opinions about her tweets, she should stop making public tweets. Perhaps BS is unaware that the twitter account is actually Mechele's?? Whatever the case, I think it's absurd and irresponsible to pretend it isn't Mechele's account now that some of the tweets are receiving public scrutiny. Why lie? IMO lying to conceal reckless and inappropriate behavior is far worse than the initial reckless and inappropriate behavior itself, especially in Mechele's case. So, contrary to BS's latest diatribe, this is not a Michael Lohan (http://gawker.com/5528363/the-lindsay-lohan-has-hiv-twitter-scam-that-fooled-everyone) situation. :snooty:

One update to my previous post (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81172&page=9) about Mechele's former co-worker's deleted post from the Free Mechele FB site. Some of us noted it was curious that a comment from a fellow exotic dancer in New Orleans had been deleted and speculated that it was perhaps because (for whatever reason) Mechele's camp continues to deny that Mechele danced for several years in various locations not limited to Anchorage. That post was deleted from the Free Mechele FB site. I did note that the same fellow co-worker posted a comment of support on the Free Mechele blog and it was not deleted there. Importantly, the supportive co-worker self-identified as a former employee of Big Daddy's on her FB page, so it was easy to make the connection between her FB comment and where exactly she had worked with Mechele. Conversely, her blogger account does not link to any personal information about where exactly she may have worked with Mechele, etc. Perhaps this is why the comment was allowed on the Free Mechele blog site and deleted from the FB site-- I don't know. I just thought I'd put the updated information out there because BS is making the rounds and trying to renounce various online actions, insinuating that posters have made misrepresentations.


I think BS continues to do more harm than good in her quest to convince the world Mechele has never done anything questionable or wrong. It's shady and weird. What does everyone else think? Do you think Mechele wants BS to post things like this on her behalf?? Why is this happening?!?

nancy botwin
06-27-2010, 12:22 AM
aha! This puts BS's recent rant in clearer context.

Linehan Seeks More Freedom While Out On Bail (http://www.adn.com/2010/06/26/1342683/linehan-seeks-more-freedom-while.html), Anchorage Daily News, 6-26-2010

a few excerpts from the article:
"...Now staying in Anchorage as she awaits her trail -- which could be a year away -- she says she wants to take her daughter to the park. She wants to be able to dash out for milk when she needs some. And she wants to work -- she has an offer to be a receptionist at a local hair salon....

"Why is it that I can't work?" Mechele Linehan asked. "I have a master's degree and I should be able to work. I've worked hard my whole life."

"I don't want to take public assistance," said Linehan, who has been relying on others to help her financially, especially since her husband declared bankruptcy, something that the family says was driven by legal expenses...

"Where Mechele's case is so unusual is that you rarely get a homicide case where the person has no substance abuse history, has no mental health history, no criminal history," Cashion said in an interview last week. "We don't get homicide cases very often that don't have any of those elements." ...

nancy botwin
06-27-2010, 12:45 AM
Some random questions/thoughts:

* I thought the restrictions were crafted as they were because electronic monitoring wasn't an option for Mechele. Electronic monitoring is rather expensive and it's the defendant's responsibility to pay for it in every jurisdiction with which I'm familiar. I assumed, since she is indigent and receiving the services of a public defender, that electronic monitoring was too cost prohibitive for Linehan.

* I wonder if Mechele has previously presented a complete employment plan to the Court --i.e. a letter of engagement or affidavit from the prospective employer; specific details about the nature of her employment; place of employment; hours; specific duties; etc. I'm assuming this is what she's planning to do at the July 7 bail hearing. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that she will present a comprehensive employment plan for the first time on July 7. I've always found it strange that Mechele supporters and news items kept asserting that Mechele wasn't allowed to work, yet never stated where she had planned to work. Often defendants will request work release without any specific job offer and their request is properly denied.

* If Mechele doesn't have any friends and family in the area and is also indigent, who is going to watch Mechele's young daughter while Mechele is working outside the home?


I wonder how the judge will rule. Allowing 24/7 electronic monitoring and house arrest with work-release provisions seems fair to me. I think it's a big stretch to allow her to be free to go wherever she wants, but allowing her to work seems fair (as long as she's electronically monitored at all times). I don't imagine she'd net very much additional money by working outside the home, given the costs of monitoring and the need for childcare, but who knows? :waitasec:

What do you all think?

Belinda
06-27-2010, 03:03 AM
I think she just wants to continue to stretch the boundaries of her conditional release. She began the moment she got out and I doubt she will let up any time soon. Prison did nothing to reduce her entitlement attitude. I don't care whether she works or not, if that is really what she is going to do. I think it is just an excuse to be places she isn't supposed to be. She is slippery, like a snake, and is always trying to slither her way around the rules.

nancy botwin
06-27-2010, 04:30 PM
I think she just wants to continue to stretch the boundaries of her conditional release. She began the moment she got out and I doubt she will let up any time soon. Prison did nothing to reduce her entitlement attitude. I don't care whether she works or not, if that is really what she is going to do. I think it is just an excuse to be places she isn't supposed to be. She is slippery, like a snake, and is always trying to slither her way around the rules.

I tend to agree with you, Belinda! Electronic monitoring would cost at least 400$ a month per the Alaska DOC Terms & Conditions for Electronic Monitoring (http://www.correct.state.ak.us/corrections/institutions/anch/docs/SW_Terms_and_Conditions.pdf). Factor in childcare costs and I don't think she'd even be breaking even by working at a standard 9-10$/hour??

nancy botwin
06-27-2010, 04:34 PM
Mechele and her husband have both posted new entries on the Free Mechele blog. Dr. Linehan's entry is here. (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/06/heya-friends-i-have-been-super-busy.html)

Here's Mechele's entry. (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/06/thoughts-to-share.html)

"Hello to all,

I must apologize for the delay in posting to the blog. I have had very limited access to the internet (dang router). I check my email daily, and try to respond quickly. It’s been a crazy time.

There is much confusion about this. The public evidence about my case is abundant. However, the only available evidence is what has been given by the State. There are some items that have been individually posted by the ADN that are independent of the prosecution’s discretion. There are also some items that my husband has posted that are not directly at the State’s discretion. However, we have been very reluctant to post anything and to let the legal issues stay in the court. Throughout the appeal and the bail hearing, we have kept our arguments in the court. We are also very aware that there is a ‘court of public opinion’. It is a shame that this ‘court’ has influence beyond legal arguments.

We will never try this case through the media. However, it is also not productive to not make available evidence that reveals the true irresponsibility of the State’s allegations. This is easier said than done. It requires legal counsel and emotional energy. It has been a non issue during the appeal and the bail hearing (which is still ongoing). But now, it is time to start putting some information out there.

There is confusion about this posted by some internet surfers. They argue that everything that pertains to the case is online. If it isn’t online, then it simply doesn’t exist. This is naive at best. Let me explain for those visitors who are not exactly sure how to obtain these records or do proper research. The evidence, records, or transcripts that have been generated through the internet come from a large pool. This pool of information is available to every person, however they have to request it and pay for it from the state. There has been only a small volume of documentation from that pool that has been posted.

I have decided that it is best to post various documents that are public record but aren’t available online. It will take some time and will be a detailed process. I am working on a website that will be able to contain this volume of data securely. We are now at a point that this is possible. Anything posted has to be vetted and approved by our attorneys. Up until now, our legal counsel has advised us not to post documents related to the trial. The postings will be from previous trial, and ongoing motions. These documents will be posted once they are filed with the court and approved by our counsel. Again… this will be a slow process, so please bear with me. It, of course, will be free. I’ll let you know, via this blog, when this new website is up.

I appreciate all the support you have given me. I appreciate those of you who have taken time and energy out of your life to write me and those who have offered and given help.

There are truly angels here and I would be a lesser being without you,

Mechele"

I'm happy to see she will be posting court documents and other information on her website. I'm very interested in seeing information we haven't gotten to see through mainstream media.

darnudes
06-28-2010, 03:20 AM
Wow Nancy you have made some great points and kudos to you for weeding out the BS, that is for bull shiz - not for Barbara Sheridan, that is continually posted by Mechele and her supporters.

I have no problem with either of them actually. If they believe she is innocent fair dues to them, I don't share that opinion, however she is getting a new trial and technically she is innocent until that plays out.

Now to her twitter account. Nancy as all your (go you good thang!) sleuthing has proven, it is Mechele's twitter account end of story! Even without your info I would still know that it is her account due to her sentence structure, spelling mistakes, content etc. If Mechele or her supporters don't want that information public then set it to private. Maybe she likes the attention, who knows? I don't know how many black people reside in Anchorage and potentially might be on the jury but racist words in rapper slang are NOT a good look. But you see that is Mechele, she will do what she wants when she wants and say what she wants, irrespective of the fact that her own words could once again potentially have an affect on her new trial. Some people can't and won't change and I suspect Mechele is one of them. They believe their own hype and correct me if I'm wrong but I think psych eval's showed she was narcissistic....that I DO believe. Having known a true narcissist in my time they are a fascinating study if you don't allow yourself to be pulled in.

As to all the working malarkey and running out for a pint of milk - sheesh!! Girl you are on trial for murder, want to think about that for a moment? I say keep her behind in the lock down put in place already and if she wants that to change she can bloody well cough up the dough for anklet monitoring. I have no doubt whatsoever that she is a flight risk and I will be very surprised if her restrictions are relaxed. Once again she is on trial for murder not some sort of white collar crime, you think by now she might get this but not Mechele. I guess it means nothing to me if she does get the restrictions relaxed and is allowed to work but for Kent's family I'm sure they would be pizzed to the max.

And here we are again, the victim who is deceased has NO rights and the person alleged of the crime does. It is a sad indictment on society. I wonder if she spares a thought for Kent while she is gorging herself in cheese heaven and making vacuous comments on twitter? I think not. Sorry if I sound mad here but I am. I guess the conundrum for me is that if you are innocent then why shouldn't she do all these things? The problem is though is that she has often behaved in an inappropriate way and I do believe it is ALL about Mechele.

A word about John Carlin, I suspect the tragedy in his life was meeting Mechele in the first place. This man seemed to have done quite well up until that point. This is where things really took a turn for the worse, his divorce notwithstanding. Whether John was guilty or not guilty he certainly paid a high price for his decisions and mistakes and I am still not convinced that he was guilty, in which case his death in prison is one of the few tragedies in this story, Kent's is the other.

Lastly, Mechele does not read things about her on the internet? Really? LOL

Biggest load of bull dust I have ever heard! I would bet my last nickel that Mechele googles herself constantly and has her eyes on all the forums, she reports back to the supporters and they do the pooh poohing. Of this I have no doubt. She has the time and the energy and has been diagnosed as a narcissist.
Twitter account - check
Facebook account - check
Cruise the internet for me me me - check

Okay this is a long post for me and I know that I have missed talking about many things that Nancy brought up but I have to leave it here.

Nancy you are one of the best posters on websleuths and I am so glad you are here and keeping an eye on this case. God willing, you and I, flourish, marilhicks and all the other fine posters I haven't mentioned (can't remember all your names my apologies) will still be around and posting at the trial. We will be able to see and hear all the evidence and if she is found guilty again, watch her go back to jail.

Sorry, last comment, if any of Kent's family read here then please know that there are some people out there who do care about your son and do care that he gets justice. We do think of you, the family, and the son you loved and lost Kent.

marilhicks
06-28-2010, 04:28 AM
Mechele and her husband have both posted new entries on the Free Mechele blog. Dr. Linehan's entry is here. (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/06/heya-friends-i-have-been-super-busy.html)

Here's Mechele's entry. (http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/06/thoughts-to-share.html)

I'm happy to see she will be posting court documents and other information on her website. I'm very interested in seeing information we haven't gotten to see through mainstream media.

This is all very interesting! It makes sense that they should be monitoring posts on discussion boards at the very least to see which way the wind is blowing. I also think it gives them some idea of which issues may be of concern to potential jurors. My own reading of these boards is that the majority of people who post believe she may be guilty but that her supporters are emotional and resistant to logic, standing very fast in her defense.

I was wondering about allowable testimony in the upcoming trial. Can Carlin IV refuse to testify as Judge Volland seemed to suggest? If so, can’t he be subpoenaed? If he can’t be forced to testify, can his testimony in the first trial be introduced? (Logic and fairness would suggest that isn’t possible to me.) Are interviews he gave to news organizations regarding the gun allowable?

Would the same hold for the Carlin’s taped interviews where he states he thought his gun was involved, that he got rid of it and that he didn’t trust Mechele? Or would the fact that he cannot be cross examined by the defense preclude this?

This is such important testimony it would be a problem if it cannot be used.

marilhicks
06-28-2010, 04:39 AM
I don't know how many black people reside in Anchorage and potentially might be on the jury but racist words in rapper slang are NOT a good look. But you see that is Mechele, she will do what she wants when she wants and say what she wants, irrespective of the fact that her own words could once again potentially have an affect on her new trial. Some people can't and won't change and I suspect Mechele is one of them.



Great post, snipped for brevity.

Actually there was a black woman on the jury in her first trial. This sort of surprised me since I assumed there weren't many blacks in Alaska. But I saw her in an interview with some of the jurors in one of the documentaries - can't recall which now. But how reckless can you be writing something like that- insulting potential jurors!

txsvicki
06-28-2010, 05:26 AM
I'm not so sure about John Carlin. His late wife's daughter was posting a lot in the comment section of a newspaper, and she truly believes that he killed her mother.

nancy botwin
06-28-2010, 09:54 PM
Great post!

This is all very interesting! It makes sense that they should be monitoring posts on discussion boards at the very least to see which way the wind is blowing. I also think it gives them some idea of which issues may be of concern to potential jurors. My own reading of these boards is that the majority of people who post believe she may be guilty but that her supporters are emotional and resistant to logic, standing very fast in her defense.

I agree! And I intensely agree with your bolded observation. There's a general unwillingness to actually engage the content of posts which make the case for her guilt. It's like a cross between blind rage and willful ignorance, replete with ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. It's intense!


I was wondering about allowable testimony in the upcoming trial. Can Carlin IV refuse to testify as Judge Volland seemed to suggest? If so, can’t he be subpoenaed? If he can’t be forced to testify, can his testimony in the first trial be introduced? (Logic and fairness would suggest that isn’t possible to me.) Are interviews he gave to news organizations regarding the gun allowable?

Would the same hold for the Carlin’s taped interviews where he states he thought his gun was involved, that he got rid of it and that he didn’t trust Mechele? Or would the fact that he cannot be cross examined by the defense preclude this?

This is such important testimony it would be a problem if it cannot be used.

These are awesome and important questions-- if the prosecution couldn't use any of these statements, they would have serious problems.


My thoughts:
Carlin IV:
Carlin IV's Prior Testimony Would Be Admissible:
I think Carlin IV can be subpoenaed to testify at the retrial. Of course it is possible that he will still refuse to testify or go into hiding, etc. I think this is unlikely given the fact that he has a pending civil case against the Alaska DOC (alleging the wrongful death of Carlin III while incarcerated). However, if he refuses or otherwise evades testifying, his prior testimony at Linehan's first trial CAN be used at the retrial. This is based on exceptions to hearsay law and an evolving body of jurisprudence which affords for the use of prior statements and testimony when the declarant (Carlin IV) is unavailable but the party against whom the statement is offered (Linehan) has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine that testimony. (Mechele was able to cross-examine Carlin IV at her first trial, i.e. her constitutional right to confront her accuser has been satisfied and the prior testimony can be admitted at the new trial if necessary.)

Carlin III:
The legal issues surrounding the admissibility of Carlin III's prior statements are more complicated and nuanced. The main issue is whether those statements were "testimonial" in nature. If the statements are testimonial, Linehan has a constitutional right to confront/cross-examine the speaker. Generally speaking, testimonial statements are statements which were elicited or made in anticipation of litigation; or when the speaker (Carlin) reasonably believed those statements would be used against (Linehan) in a criminal proceeding.
So the rule is:
In situations where the declarant (Carlin III) is unavailable as a witness (deceased), and that statement is testimonial in nature, it cannot be offered as evidence against Linehan unless she has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness.


Carlin III Police Interviews Are Not Admissible:
Carlin III's taped police interviews are testimonial as a matter of law. (They were formal statements made to law enforcement and solicited in the course of a criminal investigation). This means they can only be offered as evidence against Linehan if she had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him. Because Linehan did not have that opportunity, Carlin III's taped police interrogations will NOT be admitted as evidence against her at the retrial, IMO.

Carlin III's Media Interviews Probably Admissible:
This one involves more subjective interpretation than the other two. Carlin's various interviews with the media were all given post-conviction, as I recall. It was only after both Linehan and Carlin were convicted that he first admitted owning and disposing of a Desert Eagle after Leppink's murder. Because those statements were made in voluntary interviews with journalists and after both Carlin and Linehan were convicted, I don't think the statements were given in anticipation of litigation or with the reasonable belief they would be used against Linehan in a criminal action, i.e. they were not testimonial. Consequently, I think Carlin's statements to journalists CAN be offered as evidence against Linehan at the retrial.

The hearsay exceptions and attendant Confrontation Clause issues are confusing and complicated. This article (http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article1296.pdf)does a good job explaining the issues and provides a flow-chart for evaluating whether a statement will generally be admissible.

Incidentally (for anyone interested), last week the Sixth Circuit upheld the District Court's reversal of Sharee Miller's conviction. The decision was split 2:1; the majority and dissenting opinions demonstrate how different judges resolve the Confrontation Clause and testimonial hearsay issues very differently. I think the dissenting justice does a great job teasing out the inherent problems in the way testimonial hearsay evidence is currently evaluated by the courts. Opinion can be read here. (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0179p-06.pdf)

nancy botwin
06-28-2010, 10:15 PM
Wow Nancy you have made some great points and kudos to you for weeding out the BS, that is for bull shiz - not for Barbara Sheridan, that is continually posted by Mechele and her supporters.

I have no problem with either of them actually. If they believe she is innocent fair dues to them, I don't share that opinion, however she is getting a new trial and technically she is innocent until that plays out.

Now to her twitter account. Nancy as all your (go you good thang!) sleuthing has proven, it is Mechele's twitter account end of story! Even without your info I would still know that it is her account due to her sentence structure, spelling mistakes, content etc. If Mechele or her supporters don't want that information public then set it to private. Maybe she likes the attention, who knows? I don't know how many black people reside in Anchorage and potentially might be on the jury but racist words in rapper slang are NOT a good look. But you see that is Mechele, she will do what she wants when she wants and say what she wants, irrespective of the fact that her own words could once again potentially have an affect on her new trial. Some people can't and won't change and I suspect Mechele is one of them. They believe their own hype and correct me if I'm wrong but I think psych eval's showed she was narcissistic....that I DO believe. Having known a true narcissist in my time they are a fascinating study if you don't allow yourself to be pulled in.

As to all the working malarkey and running out for a pint of milk - sheesh!! Girl you are on trial for murder, want to think about that for a moment? I say keep her behind in the lock down put in place already and if she wants that to change she can bloody well cough up the dough for anklet monitoring. I have no doubt whatsoever that she is a flight risk and I will be very surprised if her restrictions are relaxed. Once again she is on trial for murder not some sort of white collar crime, you think by now she might get this but not Mechele. I guess it means nothing to me if she does get the restrictions relaxed and is allowed to work but for Kent's family I'm sure they would be pizzed to the max.

And here we are again, the victim who is deceased has NO rights and the person alleged of the crime does. It is a sad indictment on society. I wonder if she spares a thought for Kent while she is gorging herself in cheese heaven and making vacuous comments on twitter? I think not. Sorry if I sound mad here but I am. I guess the conundrum for me is that if you are innocent then why shouldn't she do all these things? The problem is though is that she has often behaved in an inappropriate way and I do believe it is ALL about Mechele.

A word about John Carlin, I suspect the tragedy in his life was meeting Mechele in the first place. This man seemed to have done quite well up until that point. This is where things really took a turn for the worse, his divorce notwithstanding. Whether John was guilty or not guilty he certainly paid a high price for his decisions and mistakes and I am still not convinced that he was guilty, in which case his death in prison is one of the few tragedies in this story, Kent's is the other.

Lastly, Mechele does not read things about her on the internet? Really? LOL

Biggest load of bull dust I have ever heard! I would bet my last nickel that Mechele googles herself constantly and has her eyes on all the forums, she reports back to the supporters and they do the pooh poohing. Of this I have no doubt. She has the time and the energy and has been diagnosed as a narcissist.
Twitter account - check
Facebook account - check
Cruise the internet for me me me - check

Okay this is a long post for me and I know that I have missed talking about many things that Nancy brought up but I have to leave it here.

Nancy you are one of the best posters on websleuths and I am so glad you are here and keeping an eye on this case. God willing, you and I, flourish, marilhicks and all the other fine posters I haven't mentioned (can't remember all your names my apologies) will still be around and posting at the trial. We will be able to see and hear all the evidence and if she is found guilty again, watch her go back to jail.

Sorry, last comment, if any of Kent's family read here then please know that there are some people out there who do care about your son and do care that he gets justice. We do think of you, the family, and the son you loved and lost Kent.

Thank you so much for your (way too :blushing:) kind words and awesome post!! I agree very much with the emboldened and thank you for writing it so sensitively and eloquently.

About Carlin:
I agree with you about not being fully convinced of his guilt and the fact that he clearly payed too high a price for whatever did or didn't happen in Alaska.
I'm totally up in the air about Carlin-- The way I view the evidence, it's plausible that Mechele set Carlin III up too and that Carlin was being truthful when he said he had no idea who killed Leppink. As such, I also think it's possible that Carlin was being truthful when he said he disposed of the Desert Eagle because he didn't trust Mechele and/or his son's fingerprints were on it. Or, perhaps he figured out what happened after the murder and participated in a cover-up? I don't know. After his conviction, Carlin's defense attorney emphasized the lack of evidence against her client and said something like, "If anyone was involved in Leppink's murder, it was Mechele." That resonated with me.

Then, like txsvicki points out, there were pages and pages of online comments from people purporting to be Carlin's family members, all alleging that Carlin was a pretty sinister and bad man. If you believe they were who they said they were, his step-daughter and brother were posting at ADN.com a lot during both trials. I wonder if things they were saying could be true. I can see how the evidence points to both Carlin and Mechele being guilty. I can also see a scenario where Carlin killed Leppink for Mechele because he correctly or incorrectly believed that's what she wanted. I wish we knew more about Carlin... I recall that he was living in New Jersey at the time of his arrest and had since remarried. I read somewhere that his new wife was a "Russian Mail-Order Bride." I wonder if that's true and what, if anything, his former wife might have to say about all of this.

About Narcissism :dance::
ps: I loved the phrase "gorging herself in cheese heaven" while twittering vacuously! haha!:rotfl:

I also think Mechele appears to have a narcissistic personality. I haven't been able to figure out whether she was actually diagnosed with NPD or any other personality disorder during her psych evaluations?? But I do believe the scales the forensic psychiatrist was being grilled about during the sentencing hearing are scales which correlate to narcissistic features on the MMPI. Whatever the case, her history of manipulating, exploiting, lying and scamming makes me think she could be diagnosed with at least one personality disorder.:waitasec: The baiting twitter posts seem very NPD to me. Whatever the case, I think there's something seriously out of whack!

I'm very curious about Mechele's childhood and what may have shaped her into the person she became. Her mother-in-law's sentencing letter said something about how Mechele had worked through issues and resentments stemming from her childhood and early family life-- I wonder what that's about??

And I agree that it's rather apparent Mechele reads about herself online! and it's silly to pretend otherwise, IMO.:snooty:

And while I wouldn't react with baiting and strange comments of my own, I'm sure I would read about myself/my impending first degree murder trial online if I were in Mechele's shoes. Like marlihicks pointed out, a lot of the pro-guilt online commentary could be helpful to the defense. I think the first trial revealed the defense had a crippling lack of insight on what issues were actually important to jurors-- the defense focused WAY too much on the stripper issue and the supposed demonization of Mechele and focused WAY too little on the substantive issues IMO.

So again, great post! I'm excited to read what you and everyone else thinks of the documents Mechele ends up posting on her website!

nancy botwin
06-29-2010, 04:31 AM
I decided to listen to the audio of Mechele's May 3, 1996 interview with investigators again and I'm noting some new things. I want to know if anyone else hears what I hear. (Link in the Related Audio Content section here: http://www.adn.com/linehan/ )


In Part I:
Mechele says she was recently in Nevada and got back "a couple days ago."
(Leppink's body was found the morning of May 2.)

When asked about the last time she spoke with Leppink, Mechele explains Kent's father was in town and Kent "wanted to spend time alone with his dad."

(We know this is untrue, as Kent was frantically trying to locate Mechele and both Kent & his father were disappointed she hadn't spent time with them as planned)

Then something very curious happens at the 1:30 mark in Part I, at least according to my ears. John Carlin enters the room asking for a cigarette. There's some mumbling I can't make out-- an apparent exchange between Carlin and Mechele.

Mechele says something like "he left?...(mumbles)..."

I hear Carlin say "yeah... he's dead."

Then Mechele says something unintelligible.

Then Carlin says "Leppink"

Then I hear a male voice say "(Mr.?) Leppink is dead."

Then the investigator interjects with "this is kind of a confidential thing for our ears only, ok?..."

Does anyone else hear this?? I had to crank the volume up all the way and use headphones because the audio quality is so rough, but that's what it sounded like to me??

This is very strange given that it's not until Part 3 of the audio that Mechele appears to be formally notified of Kent's death and then actually reacts. I don't understand. Am I hearing things?

Also in the interview Mechele says she got back into Anchorage "Wednesday night, which would have been Thursday morning." She then says the flight got in 12:30 or 1am Thursday morning. (May 2).

Mechele says she had a phone conversation with Kent late at night on the night before she left Nevada (Tuesday, April 30) and Kent promised to pick her up from the airport after her return flight. According to Mechele, Kent never showed up.

So why does the defense argue Kent was wandering around Hope looking for Mechele when he was killed (sometime within the 28 or so hours after that phone call) if he knew she wasn't in Alaska?? Doesn't make sense.

Ok, so the timeline:

Tuesday, April 30: late evening: Kent & Mechele phone conversation. Kent agrees to pick Mechele up at airport.

Wednesday, May 1: Mechele's flight departs from Sacramento late evening.

Thursday, May 2 12:30-1:00 am: Mechele arrives back in Anchorage.

Thursday, May 2 4:00 am: Medical Examiner's latest estimated time of death for Kent Leppink.

According to Mechele's own statements, she was actually in Alaska for 3+ hours during the very narrow timeframe of Kent's murder. Why does the defense insist Mechele wasn't even in Alaska when he was killed? From Mechele's own statements, Kent was still alive "very late" at night on Tuesday April 30. So it was sometime within the next 28 or so hours that Kent was killed.

The more I think about this interview and the timeline Mechele sets, the more I think Mechele was present and participated in the murder or did it herself. What do you guys think?

flourish
06-29-2010, 03:51 PM
Nancy, I've started a transcript of that interview...got sidetracked by my own real life, but plan to get back to it...I'll review it when I get a chance and let you know what I think:)

Thanks for keeping us all updated! You're awesome!

flourish
06-29-2010, 03:56 PM
If I'm reading the docket list correctly, it seems the bail hearing that was to be tomorrow has been rescheduled for 7/7/10?

nancy botwin
06-29-2010, 07:31 PM
Nancy, I've started a transcript of that interview...got sidetracked by my own real life, but plan to get back to it...I'll review it when I get a chance and let you know what I think:)

Thanks for keeping us all updated! You're awesome!

That's a great idea-- thanks! There's a lot of information within the interview and I'm very interested in what you hear in that side conversation between Linehan and Carlin in part I.


If I'm reading the docket list correctly, it seems the bail hearing that was to be tomorrow has been rescheduled for 7/7/10?

Yes, that's how I read it too.

marilhicks
06-30-2010, 12:16 PM
Great post!


I agree! And I intensely agree with your bolded observation. There's a general unwillingness to actually engage the content of posts which make the case for her guilt. It's like a cross between blind rage and willful ignorance, replete with ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. It's intense!



These are awesome and important questions-- if the prosecution couldn't use any of these statements, they would have serious problems.


My thoughts:
Carlin IV:
Carlin IV's Prior Testimony Would Be Admissible:
I think Carlin IV can be subpoenaed to testify at the retrial. Of course it is possible that he will still refuse to testify or go into hiding, etc. I think this is unlikely given the fact that he has a pending civil case against the Alaska DOC (alleging the wrongful death of Carlin III while incarcerated). However, if he refuses or otherwise evades testifying, his prior testimony at Linehan's first trial CAN be used at the retrial. This is based on exceptions to hearsay law and an evolving body of jurisprudence which affords for the use of prior statements and testimony when the declarant (Carlin IV) is unavailable but the party against whom the statement is offered (Linehan) has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine that testimony. (Mechele was able to cross-examine Carlin IV at her first trial, i.e. her constitutional right to confront her accuser has been satisfied and the prior testimony can be admitted at the new trial if necessary.)

Carlin III:
The legal issues surrounding the admissibility of Carlin III's prior statements are more complicated and nuanced. The main issue is whether those statements were "testimonial" in nature. If the statements are testimonial, Linehan has a constitutional right to confront/cross-examine the speaker. Generally speaking, testimonial statements are statements which were elicited or made in anticipation of litigation; or when the speaker (Carlin) reasonably believed those statements would be used against (Linehan) in a criminal proceeding.
So the rule is:
In situations where the declarant (Carlin III) is unavailable as a witness (deceased), and that statement is testimonial in nature, it cannot be offered as evidence against Linehan unless she has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness.


Carlin III Police Interviews Are Not Admissible:
Carlin III's taped police interviews are testimonial as a matter of law. (They were formal statements made to law enforcement and solicited in the course of a criminal investigation). This means they can only be offered as evidence against Linehan if she had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him. Because Linehan did not have that opportunity, Carlin III's taped police interrogations will NOT be admitted as evidence against her at the retrial, IMO.

Carlin III's Media Interviews Probably Admissible:
This one involves more subjective interpretation than the other two. Carlin's various interviews with the media were all given post-conviction, as I recall. It was only after both Linehan and Carlin were convicted that he first admitted owning and disposing of a Desert Eagle after Leppink's murder. Because those statements were made in voluntary interviews with journalists and after both Carlin and Linehan were convicted, I don't think the statements were given in anticipation of litigation or with the reasonable belief they would be used against Linehan in a criminal action, i.e. they were not testimonial. Consequently, I think Carlin's statements to journalists CAN be offered as evidence against Linehan at the retrial.

The hearsay exceptions and attendant Confrontation Clause issues are confusing and complicated. This article (http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article1296.pdf)does a good job explaining the issues and provides a flow-chart for evaluating whether a statement will generally be admissible.

Incidentally (for anyone interested), last week the Sixth Circuit upheld the District Court's reversal of Sharee Miller's conviction. The decision was split 2:1; the majority and dissenting opinions demonstrate how different judges resolve the Confrontation Clause and testimonial hearsay issues very differently. I think the dissenting justice does a great job teasing out the inherent problems in the way testimonial hearsay evidence is currently evaluated by the courts. Opinion can be read here. (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0179p-06.pdf)

Thank you SO much for this information. I'm relieved to know some of this testimony will be allowable.

marilhicks
06-30-2010, 12:40 PM
I decided to listen to the audio of Mechele's May 3, 1996 interview with investigators again and I'm noting some new things. I want to know if anyone else hears what I hear. (Link in the Related Audio Content section here: http://www.adn.com/linehan/ )


In Part I:
Mechele says she was recently in Nevada and got back "a couple days ago."
(Leppink's body was found the morning of May 2.)

When asked about the last time she spoke with Leppink, Mechele explains Kent's father was in town and Kent "wanted to spend time alone with his dad."

(We know this is untrue, as Kent was frantically trying to locate Mechele and both Kent & his father were disappointed she hadn't spent time with them as planned)

Then something very curious happens at the 1:30 mark in Part I, at least according to my ears. John Carlin enters the room asking for a cigarette. There's some mumbling I can't make out-- an apparent exchange between Carlin and Mechele.

Mechele says something like "he left?...(mumbles)..."

I hear Carlin say "yeah... he's dead."

Then Mechele says something unintelligible.

Then Carlin says "Leppink"

Then I hear a male voice say "(Mr.?) Leppink is dead."

Then the investigator interjects with "this is kind of a confidential thing for our ears only, ok?..."

Does anyone else hear this?? I had to crank the volume up all the way and use headphones because the audio quality is so rough, but that's what it sounded like to me??

This is very strange given that it's not until Part 3 of the audio that Mechele appears to be formally notified of Kent's death and then actually reacts. I don't understand. Am I hearing things?

Also in the interview Mechele says she got back into Anchorage "Wednesday night, which would have been Thursday morning." She then says the flight got in 12:30 or 1am Thursday morning. (May 2).

Mechele says she had a phone conversation with Kent late at night on the night before she left Nevada (Tuesday, April 30) and Kent promised to pick her up from the airport after her return flight. According to Mechele, Kent never showed up.

So why does the defense argue Kent was wandering around Hope looking for Mechele when he was killed (sometime within the 28 or so hours after that phone call) if he knew she wasn't in Alaska?? Doesn't make sense.

Ok, so the timeline:

Tuesday, April 30: late evening: Kent & Mechele phone conversation. Kent agrees to pick Mechele up at airport.

Wednesday, May 1: Mechele's flight departs from Sacramento late evening.

Thursday, May 2 12:30-1:00 am: Mechele arrives back in Anchorage.

Thursday, May 2 4:00 am: Medical Examiner's latest estimated time of death for Kent Leppink.

According to Mechele's own statements, she was actually in Alaska for 3+ hours during the very narrow timeframe of Kent's murder. Why does the defense insist Mechele wasn't even in Alaska when he was killed? From Mechele's own statements, Kent was still alive "very late" at night on Tuesday April 30. So it was sometime within the next 28 or so hours that Kent was killed.

The more I think about this interview and the timeline Mechele sets, the more I think Mechele was present and participated in the murder or did it herself. What do you guys think?

I read that after Kent did not show up at the airport to pick her up, she called Carlin who came. So the two were together on May 2nd. I'm not sure what that implies.

According to the Fred Rosen book, Carlin's reaction was nonchalant when officially informed of Kent's death and they were found rummaging through his belongings when the investigator first came to the house before being officially informed of Kent's death.

I'm inclined to believe Carlin was involved - he was evasive and untruthful in most of his interviews. The facts were always changing and the truth seemed to be emanating slowly. Who knows what else he might have admitted to had he lived.

A conundrum indeed.

There was a segment in one of Carlin's interviews when he dismisses the importance of the Mechele's allusion to the Seychelles. He says something to the effect that one million (presumably from the insurance) wouldn't be enough to buy a citizenship there. But what if she thought he had much more than that? He heaped huge amounts of money on her including an $18000 down payment on a $57000 RV. She believed Kent had loads of money; she might have believed Carlin was much richer than he actually was.

flourish
06-30-2010, 03:52 PM
I read that after Kent did not show up at the airport to pick her up, she called Carlin who came. So the two were together on May 2nd. I'm not sure what that implies.

According to the Fred Rosen book, Carlin's reaction was nonchalant when officially informed of Kent's death and they were found rummaging through his belongings when the investigator first came to the house before being officially informed of Kent's death.

I'm inclined to believe Carlin was involved - he was evasive and untruthful in most of his interviews. The facts were always changing and the truth seemed to be emanating slowly. Who knows what else he might have admitted to had he lived.

A conundrum indeed.

There was a segment in one of Carlin's interviews when he dismisses the importance of the Mechele's allusion to the Seychelles. He says something to the effect that one million (presumably from the insurance) wouldn't be enough to buy a citizenship there. But what if she thought he had much more than that? He heaped huge amounts of money on her including an $18000 down payment on a $57000 RV. She believed Kent had loads of money; she might have believed Carlin was much richer than he actually was.

BBM

First bold: I read the Rosen book, too, and he repeatedly emphasized that Mechele and Carlin were at the Wasilla house going through Kent's personal items when the police arrived to interview Mechele. If that is true, it does not paint Mechele or Carlin in a good light.

Second bold: That is what I have figured from the start. I don't think Mechele had any idea exactly how much money any of these guys really had. The expensive gifts indicate some wealth. These guys knew Mechele liked expensive gifts and it seems likely that if they wanted to keep her around, they may imply they had more money than they did and/or allow her to believe their financial resources were more than they were.

Just because Carlin didn't have ten million dollars doesn't mean Mechele didn't think he did! Also, I don't really believe she had any intention of actually running away with Carlin to anywhere, so there's that, too.

marilhicks
06-30-2010, 04:58 PM
BBM

First bold: I read the Rosen book, too, and he repeatedly emphasized that Mechele and Carlin were at the Wasilla house going through Kent's personal items when the police arrived to interview Mechele. If that is true, it does not paint Mechele or Carlin in a good light.

Second bold: That is what I have figured from the start. I don't think Mechele had any idea exactly how much money any of these guys really had. The expensive gifts indicate some wealth. These guys knew Mechele liked expensive gifts and it seems likely that if they wanted to keep her around, they may imply they had more money than they did and/or allow her to believe their financial resources were more than they were.

Just because Carlin didn't have ten million dollars doesn't mean Mechele didn't think he did! Also, I don't really believe she had any intention of actually running away with Carlin to anywhere, so there's that, too.

re: bolded text - Not for a minute did she intend to run away with him. Poor Carlin would have been stuck in the Seychelles for the rest of his life while Mechele lived it up. She was a piece of work!

nancy botwin
06-30-2010, 05:24 PM
I read that after Kent did not show up at the airport to pick her up, she called Carlin who came. So the two were together on May 2nd. I'm not sure what that implies.

According to the Fred Rosen book, Carlin's reaction was nonchalant when officially informed of Kent's death and they were found rummaging through his belongings when the investigator first came to the house before being officially informed of Kent's death.

I'm inclined to believe Carlin was involved - he was evasive and untruthful in most of his interviews. The facts were always changing and the truth seemed to be emanating slowly. Who knows what else he might have admitted to had he lived.

A conundrum indeed.

There was a segment in one of Carlin's interviews when he dismisses the importance of the Mechele's allusion to the Seychelles. He says something to the effect that one million (presumably from the insurance) wouldn't be enough to buy a citizenship there. But what if she thought he had much more than that? He heaped huge amounts of money on her including an $18000 down payment on a $57000 RV. She believed Kent had loads of money; she might have believed Carlin was much richer than he actually was.


BBM

First bold: I read the Rosen book, too, and he repeatedly emphasized that Mechele and Carlin were at the Wasilla house going through Kent's personal items when the police arrived to interview Mechele. If that is true, it does not paint Mechele or Carlin in a good light...



I was surprised by this revelation when someone (I think it was you, marilhicks??-- sorry the thread is getting long so I can't remember for sure) first posted it. And I noted that Rosen not only stated it as fact several times, but also wrote that Carlin IV testified about officers first coming to notify Carlin & Mechele about Kent's death when they were rummaging through Kent's things at the Wasilla house.

Also! In the May 3 audio linked earlier in the thread, Mechele makes reference to this fact herself. The detectives are trying to understand the living arrangement Mechele is explaining that they usually live at the house in South Anchorage but detectives found them at the Wasilla house that day: She says (of the S. Anchorage house)"...That's where we usually are all the time. We just came out to start sorting through..."

So I think Rosen's statement about the Wasilla rummaging has been corroborated by both Carlin IV's testimony and Mechele's own words. It's weird more isn't made of this in the media reports.

I don't understand why, if Mechele had already been told Leppink was dead, she reacts so intensely when "formally notified" in the middle of the May 3 interview. Seems very very strange to me? Why is she pretending throughout the beginning of the interview that she doesn't know what's happened to him?

nancy botwin
06-30-2010, 05:46 PM
I don't think this email has already been posted, so I thought I'd put it up here to see if anyone has any thoughts about it:

Email sent from Mechele to Kent on 4/9/96:
(recall she paid for the life insurance policies on 4/1/96 and wrote that HAHAHA email to her mother on 3/31/96, mocking the idea of marrying Kent.)


"HEY I GOT A MIN TO WRITE YOU. I JUST WANTED TO SAY YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU AND YOU KNOW OUR LIVES WILL BE FINE. WE HAVE MANY OTHER THINGS TO DO AND SAY TO ONE ANOTHER. I HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO DO BEFORE WE SETTLE DOWN SO PLEASE STOP SNOOPING AND ASKING ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS. I AM SERIOUSLY TELLING YOU THIS...IF YOU CONTINUE TO RUMAGE THREW MY PRIVACY AND SNOOP THREW MY BELONGINGS I WILL NOT MARRY YOU. WHILE WE ARE NOT MARRIED, NOTHING IS YOURS. DO YOU GET IT?

WHEN WE GET MARRIED YOU CAN KNOW WHERE EVERYTHING IS IN THE HOUSE. BUT THEN YOU GO THROUGH MY PURSE AND MY BAGS. YOU ARE INVADING MY PRIVACY AND I WILL NOT TOLERATE IT. SO REMEMBER I THINK YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY. I DID NOT TAKE YOUR PHONE BOOKS AND I TIRED TO LOCATE IT AT THE AIRPORT BUT IT WAS NOT TURNED IN.

I MAY COME TO FLORIDA AND SEE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY IF YOU ASK ME NICELY. STOP DEMANDING YOUR ***** ON ME. I AM SICK OF IT. YOU TRY TO TELL ME WHAT DAY I HAVE TO MARRY YOU. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE. YOU HAVE WAITED THIS LONG YOU CAN JUST CALL IT OFF IF ANOTHER TWO WEEKS REALLY CRAMPS YOUR LIFE. I WILL NOT GET MRRIED UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. I AM FINALLY TELLING YOU THIS BECAUSE I LOVE YOU AND YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE BEEN P*SSING ME OFF.

YOU HIDE SO MUCH ***** FROM ME, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME? YOUR SAFETY DEPOSIT BOXES YOUR HIDDEN ***** YOUR STORAGE SHED ETC., ETC., ETC. I NEVER PRY INTO YOUR ***** EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE TAKEN MY SENTIMENTAL PRIVATE BELONGINGS AND BROUGHT THEM TO YOUR STORAGE.

THAT WAS STEALING AND IF YOU WANT TO MARRY ME THEN YOU NEED TO REALIZE I LET THAT GO. YOU STOLE FROM ME AND I DID YOU WRONG TOO. YOU CONTINUE TO SNOOP AND PRY. STOP, IF YOU WANT ME TO HAVE YOUR CHILDREN AND SPEND THE LIFE TOGETHER THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THEN YOU NEED TO KNOW THESE THINGS YOU ARE VERY CLOSE TO DRIVING ME AWAY.

ONE THING I WANT YOU TO KNOW IS I DO NOT WANT YOU TO BUY A HOUSE AND I DON'T WANT YOUR PRENUPTUALS. I HAVE MY OWN HOUSE AND IF IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU THEN YOU BETTER SACRIFICE YOUR HIGH HONOR FOR THIS WEDDING. YOU HAVE MADE ME SO ANGRY BY DONG MANY THINGS THESE PAST FEW WEEKS THAT I AM FED UP WITH. YOU WERE SO NICE BEFORE I AGREED TO MARRY YOU.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO QUESTION ME ABOUT MY FAMILY. UNFORTUNATELY, THEY ARE NOT CONCERNED AND I DO NOT WANT THEM INVOLVED ANY MORE THAN WHAT I EMPLOY THEM INTO. SO YOU CAN STOP SENDING MY MOTHER CARDS. DO NOT SEND HER CARDS AND YOU WONT EITHER IF YOU ARE PART OF ME. I DO NOT INTERFERE WITH YOUR FAMILY UNLESS I AM ASKED OR TOLD I MAY UNTIL I FEEL THAT I AM EXCEPTED AND PART OF THE FAMILY I WILL NOT EMBARRASS MY SELF BY FORCING MYSELF ON YOUR FAMILY.

YOU NEED TO REMEMBER WHERE YOU MET ME AND STOP AND THINK IF I WANT MY FAMILY IN MY LIFE. THEN WHY WAS I IN ALASKA AND DANCING WITH NO FAMILY THERE.

I THINK IT IS VERY OBVIOUS I DONT CARE HOW YOUR FAMILY AND BROTHER HAVE TURNED OUT. THAT IS NOT THE SAME REASONS AND MAYBE ONE DAY YOU WILL KNOW AND UNDERSTAND. UNTIL THEN, PLEASE DONT MEDDLE IN MY FAMILY RELATIONS. YOU CANNOT REPAIR THEM.

WHO I INVITE WILL HAVE TO BE EXCEPTED BY YOU AND YORU FAMILY. IF NOT THEN I WILL BE HEART BROKEN AT THE ALTERNATIVE.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD EXPLAIN TO YOUR PARENTS. TELL THEM I HAVE VERY FINE LINES THAT DETERMINE THE BOUNDRIES OF MY LIFE. AND WHEN SOMEONE VIOLATES TEHM, I HAVE THE OPTION TO ELIMINATE THEM FROM MY LIFE. THAT IS MY CHOICE."

Source: This email email appears in Fred Rosen's "Deadly Angel"
(pgs 102-104 of the ebook edition); Amazon.com: Deadly Angel: The Bizarre True Story of Alaska's Killer Stripper (9780061733987): Fred Rosen: Books

marilhicks
06-30-2010, 06:11 PM
I don't think this email has already been posted, so I thought I'd put it up here to see if anyone has any thoughts about it:

Email sent from Mechele to Kent on 4/9/96:
(recall she paid for the life insurance policies on 4/1/96 and wrote that HAHAHA email to her mother on 3/31/96, mocking the idea of marrying Kent.)


"HEY I GOT A MIN TO WRITE YOU. I JUST WANTED TO SAY YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU AND YOU KNOW OUR LIVES WILL BE FINE. WE HAVE MANY OTHER THINGS TO DO AND SAY TO ONE ANOTHER. I HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO DO BEFORE WE SETTLE DOWN SO PLEASE STOP SNOOPING AND ASKING ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS. I AM SERIOUSLY TELLING YOU THIS...IF YOU CONTINUE TO RUMAGE THREW MY PRIVACY AND SNOOP THREW MY BELONGINGS I WILL NOT MARRY YOU. WHILE WE ARE NOT MARRIED, NOTHING IS YOURS. DO YOU GET IT?

WHEN WE GET MARRIED YOU CAN KNOW WHERE EVERYTHING IS IN THE HOUSE. BUT THEN YOU GO THROUGH MY PURSE AND MY BAGS. YOU ARE INVADING MY PRIVACY AND I WILL NOT TOLERATE IT. SO REMEMBER I THINK YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY. I DID NOT TAKE YOUR PHONE BOOKS AND I TIRED TO LOCATE IT AT THE AIRPORT BUT IT WAS NOT TURNED IN.

I MAY COME TO FLORIDA AND SEE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY IF YOU ASK ME NICELY. STOP DEMANDING YOUR ***** ON ME. I AM SICK OF IT. YOU TRY TO TELL ME WHAT DAY I HAVE TO MARRY YOU. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE. YOU HAVE WAITED THIS LONG YOU CAN JUST CALL IT OFF IF ANOTHER TWO WEEKS REALLY CRAMPS YOUR LIFE. I WILL NOT GET MRRIED UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. I AM FINALLY TELLING YOU THIS BECAUSE I LOVE YOU AND YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE BEEN P*SSING ME OFF.

YOU HIDE SO MUCH ***** FROM ME, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME? YOUR SAFETY DEPOSIT BOXES YOUR HIDDEN ***** YOUR STORAGE SHED ETC., ETC., ETC. I NEVER PRY INTO YOUR ***** EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE TAKEN MY SENTIMENTAL PRIVATE BELONGINGS AND BROUGHT THEM TO YOUR STORAGE.

THAT WAS STEALING AND IF YOU WANT TO MARRY ME THEN YOU NEED TO REALIZE I LET THAT GO. YOU STOLE FROM ME AND I DID YOU WRONG TOO. YOU CONTINUE TO SNOOP AND PRY. STOP, IF YOU WANT ME TO HAVE YOUR CHILDREN AND SPEND THE LIFE TOGETHER THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THEN YOU NEED TO KNOW THESE THINGS YOU ARE VERY CLOSE TO DRIVING ME AWAY.

ONE THING I WANT YOU TO KNOW IS I DO NOT WANT YOU TO BUY A HOUSE AND I DON'T WANT YOUR PRENUPTUALS. I HAVE MY OWN HOUSE AND IF IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU THEN YOU BETTER SACRIFICE YOUR HIGH HONOR FOR THIS WEDDING. YOU HAVE MADE ME SO ANGRY BY DONG MANY THINGS THESE PAST FEW WEEKS THAT I AM FED UP WITH. YOU WERE SO NICE BEFORE I AGREED TO MARRY YOU.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO QUESTION ME ABOUT MY FAMILY. UNFORTUNATELY, THEY ARE NOT CONCERNED AND I DO NOT WANT THEM INVOLVED ANY MORE THAN WHAT I EMPLOY THEM INTO. SO YOU CAN STOP SENDING MY MOTHER CARDS. DO NOT SEND HER CARDS AND YOU WONT EITHER IF YOU ARE PART OF ME. I DO NOT INTERFERE WITH YOUR FAMILY UNLESS I AM ASKED OR TOLD I MAY UNTIL I FEEL THAT I AM EXCEPTED AND PART OF THE FAMILY I WILL NOT EMBARRASS MY SELF BY FORCING MYSELF ON YOUR FAMILY.

YOU NEED TO REMEMBER WHERE YOU MET ME AND STOP AND THINK IF I WANT MY FAMILY IN MY LIFE. THEN WHY WAS I IN ALASKA AND DANCING WITH NO FAMILY THERE.

I THINK IT IS VERY OBVIOUS I DONT CARE HOW YOUR FAMILY AND BROTHER HAVE TURNED OUT. THAT IS NOT THE SAME REASONS AND MAYBE ONE DAY YOU WILL KNOW AND UNDERSTAND. UNTIL THEN, PLEASE DONT MEDDLE IN MY FAMILY RELATIONS. YOU CANNOT REPAIR THEM.

WHO I INVITE WILL HAVE TO BE EXCEPTED BY YOU AND YORU FAMILY. IF NOT THEN I WILL BE HEART BROKEN AT THE ALTERNATIVE.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD EXPLAIN TO YOUR PARENTS. TELL THEM I HAVE VERY FINE LINES THAT DETERMINE THE BOUNDRIES OF MY LIFE. AND WHEN SOMEONE VIOLATES TEHM, I HAVE THE OPTION TO ELIMINATE THEM FROM MY LIFE. THAT IS MY CHOICE."



I always thought this email was so revealing of her personality, really hard edged, sharp-tongued, demanding, controlling of these weak men that she targeted. However the bolded phrase could be interpreted quite negatively given the events that followed.

nancy botwin
06-30-2010, 11:24 PM
I always thought this email was so revealing of her personality, really hard edged, sharp-tongued, demanding, controlling of these weak men that she targeted. However the bolded phrase could be interpreted quite negatively given the events that followed.

I very much agree.
This email definitely undercuts any defense argument that Mechele was controlled by these men and too meek or naive to escape them. It also clearly negates a defense theory that Kent was delusional in thinking he and Mechele were engaged and planning a life together. And I agree that the last sentence is darkly resonant.

***
Also, I'm giving the Rosen book another shot after realizing I overlooked some stuff the first time I read it. I'll post some of the info I come across here in case others are interested.

In his opening remarks, the prosecutor references a letter Carlin wrote to Mechele after the murder:

"I know that you'll be fine. I must just figure out what to do with my life. I have asked you what to do and you have said you don't know what to tell me. It is my problem that I have created and it is my responsibility to fix it. I must do that for me and John (IV)."

According to Rosen, the prosecutor posited that this letter could be viewed as a sort of confession or admission from Carlin.


Source: page 147 (ebook edition)
Amazon.com: Deadly Angel: The Bizarre True Story of Alaska's Killer Stripper (9780061733987): Fred Rosen: Books

Blondie in Spokane
07-01-2010, 08:22 AM
I always thought this email was so revealing of her personality, really hard edged, sharp-tongued, demanding, controlling of these weak men that she targeted. However the bolded phrase could be interpreted quite negatively given the events that followed.

I too thought that phrase was most telling....almost eerie to read at this point.

I rarely post on this thread as I have so little to add. But I do want to thank marilhicks, nancy botwin and flourish for all of your contributions here. I try to keep up on this thread and simply cannot believe all of the info that has been uncovered here. Thanks everyone for all of your time, work and contributions. Much appreciated by all of us "lurkers"!

nancy botwin
07-06-2010, 01:44 AM
Linehan's new website is now online at www.mechelelinehan.com.

The main page offers this introduction/statement of purpose:
"This case has generated great interest. The personal opinions posted throughout various internet sites are extremely polarized. There has been little information derived directly from court documentation. This site was developed as an online resource. All records on this site have been made public record previously. These records are available from the State of Alaska court records. Current documents will be posted as they are filed with the court. Previous documents, transcripts, and evidence will become available overtime. This is not a publishing site for public or personal comments."

There are tabs for trial documents, Grand Jury documents, sentencing documents and appellate documents, but those pages are still under construction and don't have any content yet.

Right now, the only available document is the most recent motion to modify Linehan's conditions of release (21 pages)-- the bail hearing is July 7.

You can view the motion here: http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mechelelinehan.com%2Fu ploads%2FBail_Motion2010.pdf

Let me know if that link doesn't work. I'm using google docs as a proxy because their website is curiously slow to load and this method also allows people without pdf software to read the document.

nancy botwin
07-07-2010, 05:44 PM
The bail hearing is today. http://www.randomtv.com/ will be telecasting the hearing live at 3:15 PST -- so in about 45 mins.

According to the reporter's twitter site, they will also be interviewing Linehan later. (http://twitter.com/vomodoTV)

Among the requests to be considered at today's hearing:

*removal of third-party custodian requirement
*removal of house arrest condition
*removal of driving restrictions
*removal of curfew conditions
*implementation of electronic monitoring in lieu of the above restrictions

If Judge Volland does not remove the restrictions, I'm assuming Linehan's attorney will modify their request and ask for limited work release and also request that the Court approve an additional third-party custodian.

nancy botwin
07-07-2010, 05:57 PM
I don't know if the randomtv.com website will log and save the live footage. I hope they do!

If anyone is able to watch the telecast and wouldn't mind taking some notes for those who can't watch, that would be awesome!

Unfortunately, I have a meeting scheduled around the time of the hearing so I don't think I can watch it live. So if anyone can help, that would be super cool!

nancy botwin
07-07-2010, 08:37 PM
I caught the end of the hearing. From what I heard, it sounds like today was a victory for Linehan.

She no longer has to abide by a third-party custodian requirement.

She will now be under the supervision of an electronic monitoring service.

She will no longer have to abide by house arrest conditions.

She will have a curfew of 9pm to 7am.

She will be subjected to monthly home inspections.

She will have to provide her monitoring service with some sort of schedule, detailing where she will be throughout the week.

She will be subjected to the same geographic restrictions-- remain in the greater Anchorage area and stay away from airports.

She is not to have any contact with witnesses-- the prosecutor will provide the Court with a list of specific witnesses at the end of the week.



At this time, she is restricted from driving a motor vehicle but may be a passenger. This condition may be relaxed or reconsidered once her schedule becomes clearer.

At this time, her desire to work as a receptionist at a beauty salon has not been cleared by the Court. She has yet to provide the Court with specific details regarding this position/location/etc. Judge Volland indicated a concern that an employer may not be able to deal with the high profile nature of this case.


The Leppink family vigorously opposed these relaxed restrictions and expressed their concerns via teleconference at the hearing.

It also seems that the prosecutor, Pat Gullufsen, will not be acting as prosecutor at the retrial. There was some discussion about another person taking over for him. Don't know what that's about.

marilhicks
07-07-2010, 08:51 PM
I don't know if the randomtv.com website will log and save the live footage. I hope they do!

If anyone is able to watch the telecast and wouldn't mind taking some notes for those who can't watch, that would be awesome!

Unfortunately, I have a meeting scheduled around the time of the hearing so I don't think I can watch it live. So if anyone can help, that would be super cool!

I tuned in late so I couldn’t monitor the entire proceedings but in general Judge Volland did allow modifications to her bail conditions as follows:

1. He felt DMS the monitoring service was reputable and allowed it; he was not totally satisfied with the 3rd party arrangement because he felt the individuals doing the monitoring were not impartial and passionately devoted to her innocence.

2. He approved the bail request with the following restrictions: random home inspection once a month, curfew 9pm to 7am, during nighttime hours any officer can check up on her and is given authority to remand her if necessary, geographical limits are the greater Anchorage area, weekly meeting with DMS to propose her weekly schedule, if schedule appears suspicious DMS can disapprove, no driving but can ride in a car with another individual

3. If there are any violations DMS shall notify the DA.

4. Exclusion zones for Linehan include the airport and 700 feet around the residences of potential witnesses which include the insurance salesman, the fur salesperson, someone associated with a hardware store, and another with a motor home business.

5. Employment is ok, but must be approved by the court. The judge wants to be sure the employers can deal with the effects of a high profile case.

Mr. Leppink and Mr. Gullufsen testified by phone. Mr. Leppink disapproved of the bail modification request. Mr. Gullufsen seemed to suggest he will not be on the case after the 15th of this month. Offered another name that I did not catch who should be contacted after that.

Some of the transmission was lost while I watched.