Page 23 of 28 FirstFirst ... 13141516171819202122232425262728 LastLast
Results 551 to 575 of 678

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

  1. #551

    I do not agree that John Carlin was guilty.

    I do not agree that John Carlin was guilty. You can discount my reasons because they come from other commenters, but you cannot say that I agree that John was guilty.

    "The physical evidence was spare: three shell casings, two sets of footprints going up this rise and only one set coming back down again." ----- NBC Dateline

  2. #552
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    22,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Turtlepace View Post
    I have read the comments from ages ago. Never once do they give a link to the entire original Kent's letter. There are just the links to the four pieces that the prosecutor was willing to publish. They don't even show the part that deals with Kent's accusations of fraud. The video was not meant to let anyone read the whole letter.

    And where are the links that validate Kent's unsubstantiated accusations of fraud? Was there any action by the people or companies Mechele was supposed to have defrauded?

    But my question still remains: how do Kent's unsubstantiated accusations of fraud prove that Mechele was conspiring to kill him?
    I suspect the links to Kent alleging fraud may be in the same place as valid links to Kent being a homosexual pedophile ... in the Land of Imagining & Pretend.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  4. #553
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    22,332
    Quote Originally Posted by Turtlepace View Post
    I do not agree that John Carlin was guilty. You can discount my reasons because they come from other commenters, but you cannot say that I agree that John was guilty.

    "The physical evidence was spare: three shell casings, two sets of footprints going up this rise and only one set coming back down again." ----- NBC Dateline
    I guess that eliminates any discussion of suicide.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  6. #554
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,987
    oohhh for heavenly cupcakes' sakes, alaska is +10 hours for me!! flourish I expect an "interoffice memo" or something when I wake up in the morning!!

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to 2goldfish For This Useful Post:


  8. #555
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Turtlepace View Post
    I do not agree that John Carlin was guilty. You can discount my reasons because they come from other commenters, but you cannot say that I agree that John was guilty.

    "The physical evidence was spare: three shell casings, two sets of footprints going up this rise and only one set coming back down again." ----- NBC Dateline
    my bold

    I wouldnt dream of it that's why I asked

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to 2goldfish For This Useful Post:


  10. #556
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    It's highly possibly that I am the only person confused here, but even if it's just for me, I'm retracing the "fraud" discussion chronologically. If I missed a post, please speak up, I searched for the word "fraud" in the thread, so it's entirely possible something was missed.

    I've snipped some or all of the following posts, for space and emphasis.
    It's still practically novella-length, so I apologize in advance for the wall of text

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtlepace View Post
    I have read the comments from ages ago. Never once do they give a link to the entire original Kent's letter. There are just the links to the four pieces that the prosecutor was willing to publish. They don't even show the part that deals with Kent's accusations of fraud. The video was not meant to let anyone read the whole letter.

    And where are the links that validate Kent's unsubstantiated accusations of fraud? Was there any action by the people or companies Mechele was supposed to have defrauded?

    But my question still remains: how do Kent's unsubstantiated accusations of fraud prove that Mechele was conspiring to kill him?
    Quote Originally Posted by Turtlepace View Post
    The April 9, 1996 email still makes me doubt that Mechele was really interested in marrying Kent. That there are no restraining orders from her to keep him away from her does not mean that she wanted him following her to California while she was visiting Scott. I am not going to say whether Mechele committed scams or fraud using the expectation of marrying her, but I will ask how her enemies plead up the accusations to conspiracy to murder?

    www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com
    Quote Originally Posted by Turtlepace View Post
    Kent accused Mechele of fraud taking money from him under the impression they were getting married. I think it would have been hard for him to win that even if he had lived to sue her. How does that prove that Mechele conspired to murder him?

    The main point of Kent's spite letter was that he would have destroyed the letter if Mechele had married him. The rest including the vague accusation of murder were just smears.

    www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com
    RBBM

    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I suspect the links to Kent alleging fraud may be in the same place as valid links to Kent being a homosexual pedophile ... in the Land of Imagining & Pretend.
    Quote Originally Posted by 2goldfish View Post
    well, I'll bite...they dont. and I dont think they have anything to do with the case either.

    I wish they'd release the full letter. I've been spoiled rotten by the anthony case (if you dont know, FL has laws that require transparency and so information is released to anyone who requests as soon as it becomes available) and I have a really rough time now especially with a case that happened so long ago. I want to see ALL the evidence.

    now, to answer your question with another - if kent leppink's "letter from the grave" is full of lots of unsubstantiated accusations, why did linehan's DT never use it themselves? or did they? because that's a bit telling if they did not, if they could prove that much of the rest was lies, when one could go a step further and enter reasonable doubt as to the murder part.

    until I know anything about the contents of the rest of the letter I cant form any opinions on any of that obviously but I really REALLY cant get over how completely .....well, "coincidental" it was that leppink writes that if something happens to him, have a look at linehan and carlin. because HE TURNED UP DEAD.

    I'm just saying....while I do agree that poor kent was almost stalkerish (I believe this was a very stubborn innocence, he desperately wanted to believe mechele loved him when there surely was lots of evidence to the contrary) it was not MECHELE LINEHAN who turned up dead....it was kent leppink. I see NO evidence of her stalking HIM and if there WERE, I could see where he came up with that "letter from the grave" but since she wasnt stalking him....where did he get the idea?? what did he know or what did he guess?

    I'm not gonna go for him suiciding by any means, that's not rational and there is NO evidence supporting it. so that's out. thinking carlin was going to kill him, I do see how he could link carlin to linehan (at that time) because of uncertainty so it makes sense that he linked them together.

    so the question is now, as it has always been, did carlin act alone and if so why? as a rival love interest with it being somewhat obvious that linehan had NO feelings for leppink, what was his motive?

    or did carlin, adoring linehan in the same desperate manner that leppink did, simply do what linehan wanted him to do? that's the way the evidence goes, the evidence goes, the evidence goes....


    just so I know, are we all in agreement that carlin was definitely involved? cause to me, I dont see anyone EVER arguing HIS innocence or lack thereof.
    Quote Originally Posted by flourish View Post
    Extra: Kent's ominous letter - 48 Hours - CBS News


    At ~1:21 of this video, the camera focuses on part of Kent Leppink's letter, and the word "--Fraud--" is clearly visible.

    Edited to add: Dang it, we had this issue pages ago where we tried to re-link it for 2goldfish and the link keeps coming up with a different case.
    It is really easy to find, though, if the link doesn't work. I googled "48 Hours Mechele Linehan" and it was the third link down, entitled "Love and Death in Alaska--cbsnews.com." Then I clicked on "Extra: Ken't ominous letter," and watched the video that popped up.

    Edited again to add: When I click on the title of the video box that appears in this post, it takes me to the correct place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Turtlepace View Post
    I know that Kent's letter makes unsubstantiated accusations of fraud. Are there any links confirming this fraud? Even if these accusations of fraud had more validity than smears in spite for her not marrying him, how would they be motive for murder? Isn't this just pleading up the accusations?

    By the way, if you're going to refer to Kent's letter, where is the link that shows the original of that letter in its entirety? The parts that the prosecutor released do not mention the fraud accusations.
    Quote Originally Posted by flourish View Post
    Ah yes the "conventional marriage" interview, where Mechele seems quite tongue-tied trying to explain her engagement to Kent. Yeah, I'm with otto and 2goldfish--considering the source...

    So what will be the strategy in Mechele's new trial?

    As for motive, while the money appears obvious, Kent's body was found in such a rural area that it may have never been found, making it difficult for Mechele to cash it in. Perhaps the money played no part in the motive, but was just the cherry.

    I'm wondering what all Kent knew about Mechele and her activities, or even what Mechele perceived Kent knew about her and her activities...I think his letter may have mentioned something about her possibly being guilty of fraud.

    It's been stated (in the Rosen book) that when police came to talk to Carlin and Mechele, they found them at the house in Wasilla, where apparently they were going through Kent's personal belongings. We know in the ALL CAPS letter that Mechele seemed to take issue with Kent keeping personal belongings in a shed. Additionally, Kent apparently accused her of stealing some furnishings from him at on point. Also, Hilke accuses Mechele of stealing two items from him, although it sounds like they had more sentimental than financial value (which makes one wonder if she was just being cruel stealing them from him...assuming that's true). Mechele also sent Kent's computer to her sister very shortly after the murder, so I've always wondered if there was more on there for her to worry about than the damning emails.

    When it comes right down to it, though, motive is in the eye of the beholder.

    Okay, now that made it slightly clearer than mud

    We all know there never has been a link to the entire letter, as it was never released. The fact that Kent, in his letter, accused Mechele of fraud was mentioned. It was asked where it says that. I found where I saw that it said that. There are no links to the entire letter. There never were. I was wondering if anyone knew anything more about it. Since we're all asking each other for more links, I'm guessing we don't. However, turtlepace, you specified that the fraud portion was in regards to an expectation of marriage...where did that come from?

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


  12. #557
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by 2goldfish View Post
    oohhh for heavenly cupcakes' sakes, alaska is +10 hours for me!! flourish I expect an "interoffice memo" or something when I wake up in the morning!!
    LOL
    I'm only an hour earlier than Alaska. I don't know whether or not I'll get to watch, though, or should I say "weather" or not (weak joke, I know)...because it's snowy out here today and I live where everyone freaks when it snows, so if there's snow tomorrow, school will likely by cancelled and I will be able to watch. In that case, I'll report as real-timeish as I can. Otherwise, I can try to watch from work after I get the kids on the bus, but it will be after the hearing starts and possibly somehow blocked at work (they don't love streaming video there...it's like they want us to actually work or something LOL).

    Have I mentioned how nice it will be to have some movement of some kind on this case?

    I can't imagine what the Leppinks are feeling today.
    Nor Mechele's family. What a horrible situation for everyone.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  14. #558
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I guess that eliminates any discussion of suicide.
    IIRC, IMHO, FWIW, MOO, etc.

    Except the claims are that it was an assisted suicide of sorts--Kent was so angry with Mechele for blowing him off that he orchestrated his own "murder" in order to frame her--so there was a shooter besides Kent, but it was a suicide because he set it up himself. Or so the "theory" goes. I don't have a link for this "theory" as it is just the ramblings of random commentators over at the Anchorage Daily News, many of which were removed during the changeover of the comment system over there, or "timed out" or whatever links do when they go away to die.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  16. #559
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    22,332
    Quote Originally Posted by flourish View Post
    IIRC, IMHO, FWIW, MOO, etc.

    Except the claims are that it was an assisted suicide of sorts--Kent was so angry with Mechele for blowing him off that he orchestrated his own "murder" in order to frame her--so there was a shooter besides Kent, but it was a suicide because he set it up himself. Or so the "theory" goes. I don't have a link for this "theory" as it is just the ramblings of random commentators over at the Anchorage Daily News, many of which were removed during the changeover of the comment system over there, or "timed out" or whatever links do when they go away to die.
    Unless there is some evidence supporting the claim that Kent arranged for someone to murder him, it didn't happen. It's just as likely that Kent arranged for aliens to swoop in, zap him with a couple of bullets, and then vanish. Without any evidence to support the claim, it didn't happen.

    What we have is a very manipulative woman that lied to Kent until he believed that they were to be married. Afterwards, she milked him for everything he was worth, always threatening him with cutting off her affection if he didn't follow her demands. The relationship was filled with manipulation and a complete absence of trust. Shortly before Kent was murdered, that woman, Michele Hughes-Linehan, purchased a life insurance policy for Kent, naming herself as beneficiary. Then, through additional manipulations, she and John cooked up a set of circumstances to lure Kent to Hope, where he was murdered and left beside a logging road.

    That evidence suggests a premeditated murder, not a murder arranged by the victim.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  18. #560
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Unless there is some evidence supporting the claim that Kent arranged for someone to murder him, it didn't happen. It's just as likely that Kent arranged for aliens to swoop in, zap him with a couple of bullets, and then vanish. Without any evidence to support the claim, it didn't happen.

    What we have is a very manipulative woman that lied to Kent until he believed that they were to be married. Afterwards, she milked him for everything he was worth, always threatening him with cutting off her affection if he didn't follow her demands. The relationship was filled with manipulation and a complete absence of trust. Shortly before Kent was murdered, that woman, Michele Hughes-Linehan, purchased a life insurance policy for Kent, naming herself as beneficiary. Then, through additional manipulations, she and John cooked up a set of circumstances to lure Kent to Hope, where he was murdered and left beside a logging road.

    That evidence suggests a premeditated murder, not a murder arranged by the victim.
    RBBM
    Oh I totally agree, I was just pointing out that the suicide theory doesn't try to say that Kent shot himself three times. But again, agreed this is a murder perpetrated on a victim, not a victim-planned murder.

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


  20. #561
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    22,332
    Quote Originally Posted by flourish View Post
    RBBM
    Oh I totally agree, I was just pointing out that the suicide theory doesn't try to say that Kent shot himself three times. But again, agreed this is a murder perpetrated on a victim, not a victim-planned murder.
    Some of the theories that are tossed around to help Mechele get away with murder seem like they were hatched in a strip club.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  22. #562
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    32
    A new documentary on the Linehan case is scheduled to be aired on Investigation Discovery, Thursday, Jan 19 at 9:00 pm eastern time.

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


  24. #563
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,987
    no one has any info on the hearing yesterday? I cant find anything anywhere. no updates on the "free mechele" facebook page either.

  25. #564
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by 2goldfish View Post
    no one has any info on the hearing yesterday? I cant find anything anywhere. no updates on the "free mechele" facebook page either.
    My understanding is that the hearing is being held today at 2:30 pm Alaska time.

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


  27. #565
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    22,332
    Quote Originally Posted by flourish View Post
    According to the "Free Mechele" facebook page, (which is an "open group" whose wall can be viewed without being a member of the group, found here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/55155870302/) the hearing is to be aired live at the following link:

    http://www.randomtv.com/

    at 2:30pm Anchorage time.
    bumping ... link to hearing

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  29. #566

    I said Kent's letter was spite because Mechele would not marry him.

    Kent said in his letter that the letter would have been destroyed if Mechele had married him. The unsubstantiated accusation of murder was the last of a set of smears that do not prove why Mechele would want Kent dead but show that Kent wanted to discredit Mechele. That's why the prosecutor didn't want the fraud part of the letter presented as evidence.

  30. #567

    What requires a link!

    "- Fraud - She took me for a lot of money on the impression we were getting married. This may be hard to prove without me present, but give it a shot. It's a class B Felony in Alaska. $15000 can be proven because you sent it to us." Kent Leppink's letter


    The ADNews did have a link for the letter for a short time, but deleted it. I don't know if Mechele's taking money from Kent under the impression they were getting married is a class B Felony in Alaska or not. If she really did use the impression they were getting married to manipulate money from Kent, I think it is unethical, but I do not think it is a motive to conspire to murder.

    I also think it strange that certain facts like the letter can be taken for granted without a link, but others that are not relevant to convicting Mechele have to have links.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to Turtlepace For This Useful Post:


  32. #568

    So why did Kent return to Hope?

    Kent had gone to Hope on April 27, 1996 and and there's a rumour that Kent's mother said on TV that Kent told her that John went with him. Kent asked the residents of Hope about Mechele and the recently renovated cabin and was told that they were not there.

    The Seychelles email starts with Mechele's wondering how Kent took to being told that she was 2 1/2 hours away from Anchorage. Hope is 1 1/2 hours away from Anchorage by car. Barrow is 2 1/2 hours away from Anchorage by plane.

    Mechele supposedly told the police she had returned to Anchorage by 1 AM May 2, 1996. If she had, wouldn't Kent have known about it? Why would he go to Hope looking for her? If Kent had left home before Mechele and John got back from the airport, how would they know where Kent had gone?

    If Mechele really returned to Anchorage later that morning after Kent had already left home, how would John know where Kent had gone? They had separate rooms. Neither John's car nor Kent's car was used.

    Where is the evidence that John was ever at the murder scene? John's gun was a rare gun, but not unique. Where is the evidence tying John's gun to the murder scene?

  33. #569

    How does Kent's being dead prove who killed him?

    How does Kent's being dead prove who killed him? Why did Kent return to Hope five days after he had already found out Mechele was not there? How is it proved that the person who took Kent to Hope on May 2, 1996 was John? Why was the rest of Kent's life not investigated to determine what else might have been involved in his death? Did the police just want to convict Mechele and John was an easy route to that?

  34. #570
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Couple of things

    • No snow today so no watching live for me. I am actually an hour later than Alaska, not earlier as I mistakenly typed earlier. I'll try to watch what I can.
    • And yeah it is today not yesterday as yesterday was a US holiday.
    • Questions about links can best be answered by a mod.
    • It is my understanding that only parts of Kent's letter were available at various points in time, but the entire thing was never available?
    • I wonder if the new show on ID is just a re-edited version of the old 48 Hours episode...I'll be sure to DVR it, thanks

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


  36. #571
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,987
    Quote Originally Posted by marilhicks View Post
    My understanding is that the hearing is being held today at 2:30 pm Alaska time.

    oohhhh...of course you're right, it's insomnia week, I dont know my asp from a hole in the ground

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to 2goldfish For This Useful Post:


  38. #572
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Well, that was kinda lame. Super short. It was kinda loud in my office when I was watching, but if I heard and understood correctly:


    • Mechele's bail restrictions have been lifted. I assume that means she can go back to Washington?
    • The state did not say they are not seeking another indictment, however. They said there is an issue with the youngest Carlin being a witness...sounds like perhaps he's not doing it willingly? In any case, it sounds like the state intends to seek another indictment, but is waiting to iron out details, etc. with the young Carlin (maybe he'll be a hostile witness?)
    • Is the state able to read in court the testimony provided by youngest Carlin at the first trial?
    • I'm curious as to whether or not Mechele's sister will manage to be in the country for this trial.
    • I'm not thrilled at not having a definite answer about the indictment. However, when the judge (not Volland today although it sounds like it will be in the future) asked if the prosecution agreed on the lifting of the bail restrictions, the judge asked if they were not going to be seeking a new indictment, and the prosecutor said "that's not accurate" and then explained about the troubles with the youngest Carlin.

    So I guess it's more wait and see wait and see...we'll see how Mechele's supporters interpreted today's proceedings.

  39. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  40. #573
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    She is free to leave Alaska and has no restrictions. For now.

    http://www.adn.com/2012/01/17/226827...alaska-if.html

    Prosecutors say they have not yet made a decision on pursuing a new trial for Mechele Linehan, and she will be released from bail requirements that have kept her in Alaska since 2006, when she was indicted in the 1996 murder of her former fiance....
    Prosecutors and the state Department of Law continue to discuss whether they will seek another indictment and present the case, again, to a grand jury, said Assistant Attorney General Paul Miovas.
    "We're still in a holding pattern," Miovas said Tuesday. "There are a few legal issues that we need to work through before we can be at a point where that would even be possible."


  41. #574
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    32
    [*]Mechele's bail restrictions have been lifted. I assume that means she can go back to Washington?[*]The state did not say they are not seeking another indictment, however. They said there is an issue with the youngest Carlin being a witness...sounds like perhaps he's not doing it willingly? In any case, it sounds like the state intends to seek another indictment, but is waiting to iron out details, etc. with the young Carlin (maybe he'll be a hostile witness?)[*]Is the state able to read in court the testimony provided by youngest Carlin at the first trial?

    This question bothered me sometime ago and I asked Nancy Botwin about it. The question and her response follows. It is a complicated situation.

    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.

    Nancy's response:
    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.

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


  43. #575
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    22,332
    Is Carlin Jr waiting for some sort of compensation for testifying (doing the right thing), putting his father in prison and then the people he trusted (authorities) letting his father be murdered in prison?

    If so, he's probably really pissed off and unwilling to cooperate without compensation for his loss.

  44. The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


Page 23 of 28 FirstFirst ... 13141516171819202122232425262728 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
  •