Page 10 of 28 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 678

Thread: Mechele Linehan, 99 Years for Murder of Kent Leppink,-UPDATE Won Appeal of Conviction

  1. #226
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    flush flush
    Posts
    1,455
    Mechele and her husband have both posted new entries on the Free Mechele blog. Dr. Linehan's entry is here.

    Here's Mechele's entry.

    "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. Itís 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 prosecutionís discretion. There are also some items that my husband has posted that are not directly at the Stateís 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 Ďcourt of public opinioní. It is a shame that this Ďcourtí 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 Stateís 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 isnít online, then it simply doesnít 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 arenít 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. AgainÖ this will be a slow process, so please bear with me. It, of course, will be free. Iíll 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.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nancy botwin For This Useful Post:


  3. #227
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,560
    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.

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to darnudes For This Useful Post:


  5. #228
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by nancy botwin View Post
    Mechele and her husband have both posted new entries on the Free Mechele blog. Dr. Linehan's entry is here.

    Here's Mechele's entry.

    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, canít he be subpoenaed? If he canít be forced to testify, can his testimony in the first trial be introduced? (Logic and fairness would suggest that isnít possible to me.) Are interviews he gave to news organizations regarding the gun allowable?

    Would the same hold for the Carlinís taped interviews where he states he thought his gun was involved, that he got rid of it and that he didnít 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.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to marilhicks For This Useful Post:


  7. #229
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by darnudes View Post
    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!

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to marilhicks For This Useful Post:


  9. #230
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,227
    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.

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to txsvicki For This Useful Post:


  11. #231
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    flush flush
    Posts
    1,455
    Great post!
    Quote Originally Posted by marilhicks View 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!

    Quote Originally Posted by marilhicks View Post
    I was wondering about allowable testimony in the upcoming trial. Can Carlin IV refuse to testify as Judge Volland seemed to suggest? If so, canít he be subpoenaed? If he canít be forced to testify, can his testimony in the first trial be introduced? (Logic and fairness would suggest that isnít possible to me.) Are interviews he gave to news organizations regarding the gun allowable?

    Would the same hold for the Carlinís taped interviews where he states he thought his gun was involved, that he got rid of it and that he didnít 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 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.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nancy botwin For This Useful Post:


  13. #232
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    flush flush
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by darnudes View Post
    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 ) 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 :
    ps: I loved the phrase "gorging herself in cheese heaven" while twittering vacuously! haha!

    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. 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.

    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!

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nancy botwin For This Useful Post:


  15. #233
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    flush flush
    Posts
    1,455
    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?

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to nancy botwin For This Useful Post:


  17. #234
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    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!

    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  19. #235
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    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?

    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  21. #236
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    flush flush
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by flourish View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by flourish View Post
    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.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to nancy botwin For This Useful Post:


  23. #237
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by nancy botwin View Post
    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 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.
    Thank you SO much for this information. I'm relieved to know some of this testimony will be allowable.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to marilhicks For This Useful Post:


  25. #238
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by nancy botwin View Post
    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.

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to marilhicks For This Useful Post:


  27. #239
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by marilhicks View Post
    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.

    Unless specified otherwise and linked, my posts are simply random thoughts of mine, in no particular order, not directed at any post or poster, including but not limited to the ones directly above mine. My opinion only, yours may vary. IMO. JMO. IMHO. JMHO. MOO. Disclaimer, small print, asterisk, and etc.

  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  29. #240
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by flourish View Post
    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!

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to marilhicks For This Useful Post:


  31. #241
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    flush flush
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by marilhicks View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by flourish View Post
    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?

  32. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nancy botwin For This Useful Post:


  33. #242
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    flush flush
    Posts
    1,455

    another email

    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); [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Angel-Bizarre-Alaskas-Stripper/dp/0061733989"]Amazon.com: Deadly Angel: The Bizarre True Story of Alaska's Killer Stripper (9780061733987): Fred Rosen: Books[/ame]
    Last edited by nancy botwin; 06-30-2010 at 05:47 PM. Reason: profanity patrol

  34. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to nancy botwin For This Useful Post:


  35. #243
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by nancy botwin View Post
    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.

  36. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to marilhicks For This Useful Post:


  37. #244
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    flush flush
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by marilhicks View Post
    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)
    [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Angel-Bizarre-Alaskas-Stripper/dp/0061733989"]Amazon.com: Deadly Angel: The Bizarre True Story of Alaska's Killer Stripper (9780061733987): Fred Rosen: Books[/ame]

  38. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nancy botwin For This Useful Post:


  39. #245
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,990
    Quote Originally Posted by marilhicks View Post
    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"!

  40. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Blondie in Spokane For This Useful Post:


  41. #246
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    flush flush
    Posts
    1,455

    Defense's Bail Motion Now Online

    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=ht...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.
    Last edited by nancy botwin; 07-06-2010 at 01:58 AM.

  42. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nancy botwin For This Useful Post:


  43. #247
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    flush flush
    Posts
    1,455
    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.

  44. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nancy botwin For This Useful Post:


  45. #248
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    flush flush
    Posts
    1,455
    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!

  46. The Following User Says Thank You to nancy botwin For This Useful Post:


  47. #249
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    flush flush
    Posts
    1,455
    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.

  48. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nancy botwin For This Useful Post:


  49. #250
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by nancy botwin View Post
    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 couldnít 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.

  50. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to marilhicks For This Useful Post:


Page 10 of 28 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. MT Barry Beach '85 murder conviction appeal
    By UdbCrzy2 in forum Archived Cases
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-23-2014, 06:39 PM
  2. Appeal filed in jy murder conviction
    By Landonsmom02 in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 01-23-2014, 12:40 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-02-2010, 01:11 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-21-2010, 03:48 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-13-2009, 01:29 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •