Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 171819202122232425262728 LastLast
Results 651 to 675 of 678

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

  1. #651
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Huh. The docket right now does not have either of those items listed. They were there earlier today. Could be nothing, could be something, could be computers being weird.



  2. #652
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,168
    Quote Originally Posted by flourish View Post
    Two new items on the docket today. Found at http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/p...t_lst?54330965

    They read as follows:



    and



    I don't know what "proposed order not used" means.
    It's sounds like it was an option that was not exercised.

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


  4. #653
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    It's sounds like it was an option that was not exercised.
    LOL, thank otto...I actually did understand that much

    I just don't know what it really means that the option was not used. Also finding it weird that it disappeared from the docket. However, I'm not an expert in...docket documentation...so it could totally be nothing.

    Last edited by flourish; 03-24-2012 at 05:28 PM.

  5. #654
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125


    As predicted, "soon" appears to have a rather subjective meaning in this case.

    Mechele's new trial was scheduled for last and this week IIRC.


    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.

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


  7. #655
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Latest on the docket:

    04/10/2012 Order Granting Motion Case Motion #63: Unopposed Motion to Accept Late Filed Reply to State's Opposition to Motion for Presiding Judge To Examine Potential Grand Jurors For Bias
    http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/p...t_lst?54330965

    as far as I can tell that just means the judge accepted the defense's late response to the state's opposition to the defense's motion asking for an examination of potential grand jurors

    So, still it seems. yay.

    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.

  8. #656
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Hmm, well what do we have here? New item on the docket:

    04/18/2012 PJ Order Denying Motion for PJ to Examine Potential Grand Jurors for Bias Case Motion #62: Motion For Presiding Judge to Examine Potential Grand Jury For Bias, As Required by Criminal Rule 6(s)(2), Alaska Rules of Court
    http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/p...t_lst?54330965

    Looks like the defense's motion asking for potential grand jury members to be examined by the presiding judge has been denied.

    I wonder if this means that there will be a new grand jury...anyone know if the judge would have to rule on that motion if there wasn't going to be a new grand jury...like, do judges have to rule on motions that are moot, as this one would be if there wasn't going to be a new grand jury?

    Curiouser and curiouser...

    and now back to your regularly scheduled

    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.

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


  10. #657
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    just an fyi--the Alaska courts updated their online court records page and it seems to currently being running slow as, I figure, they complete the transition to the new page. Anyway, here's the link to the new site:

    http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/e...es/home.page.2

    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.

  11. #658
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Grr the courtview site is being silly....here's the link that is working today, as the one I provided above redirects to this one:

    http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/e...es/home.page.4

    Sorry if these change or break or are incorrect...just doing my best

    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.

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


  13. #659
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    230
    After the December ruling, I don't see how the DA can get an indictment without a GJ and I don't see a GJ touching that half eaten ham sammich on the table.

    The threat of reindictment is laughable.

  14. #660
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Fishee View Post
    After the December ruling, I don't see how the DA can get an indictment without a GJ and I don't see a GJ touching that half eaten ham sammich on the table.

    The threat of reindictment is laughable.

    Hi! Always great to see someone post on this thread who isn't me

    From what I understand, the DA is required to take Murder 1 cases to a GJ, so I don't think it's actually possible for the DA to get an indictment without a GJ.

    Can you expand a bit on why you don't think a GJ would reindict?

    While the thought that a reindictment would occur appears to be amusing to you, from what I understand, Mechele and her family aren't at all amused, nor do they feel "secure" with Mechele's current status.

    It's frustrating for everyone interested in this case that the DA stated many weeks ago that there would be an announcement/decision regarding whether or not they intend to seek a re-indictment, and then nothing nada no more info whatsoever.

    Mechele's family and/or friends have indicated, on this board and the Free Mechele public facebook group page, that the DA doesn't have the legal ability to "leave this hanging" over her head forever, as it violates, or will at some point violate, Mechele's civil rights.

    However, as has been explained, both here and there, there's no statue of limitations on murder, her current legal status is what it was prior to the original indictment, so they can actually take all the time in the world to make their decision.

    It appears there's an issue with John Carlin IV, as he has a pending lawsuit against the State of Alaska regarding his father's prison murder, and he is not cooperating with the DA. I don't know the legalities involved in legally forcing him to testify, or if they can just use his testimony from the first trial or from depositions or something? IIRC, someone once indicated that he's essentially "untouchable" because he's suing the state, but I really don't understand how his lawsuit makes him invulnerable to prosecution or legal actions against him. Although, he wouldn't likely even be a great witness at this point, because I think it would be possible that his anger and resentment at the state could impact his truthfulness on the stand. Pretty sad when, IMO, his father's death resulted from a relationship with Mechele. If it were me, I'd likely be as angry with Mechele as I'd be with the state, particularly if there's any veracity to the alleged accusations Carlin IV made against Mechele, which were discussed in the Rosen book.

    In any case, I don't expect to see a re-indictment--not because I don't think the state has a case--I do, but more because of the lack of cooperating witnesses, the inability to use Carlin III's conviction, and the tossing out of Kent's letter (which I absolutely disagree with--a person shouldn't be able to guarantee they'll never be able to face their accuser by murdering them--it seems like a weird paradox to me).

    Additionally, it's my opinion that Mechele is not likely to re-offend as in arrange to have someone else killed. I do think she's dangerous to her family and those who come in contact with her, though, as she appears extremely manipulative, volatile, self-absorbed, selfish, mean, and generally not a "good person." However, none of those things are, or should be, illegal or necessarily indicators of her guilt or innocence...IMO, that is just her and how she is.

    As I mentioned before, I now consider this case a loss for justice, but will continue to follow it and report any news here.

    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.

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


  16. #661

    common sense

    I have not followed this case for a long long time. But while reading all of the current and past posts here, it occurred to me that if you have common sense, you will realize Mechele us guilty. The one clue that stands out like a smoking gun is the fact that Mechele never intended to marry Kent. Even Mechele supporters admit to that. So why did she buy him a life insurance policy?

  17. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to homehearties For This Useful Post:


  18. #662
    Quote Originally Posted by flourish View Post
    Hi! Always great to see someone post on this thread who isn't me

    From what I understand, the DA is required to take Murder 1 cases to a GJ, so I don't think it's actually possible for the DA to get an indictment without a GJ.

    Can you expand a bit on why you don't think a GJ would reindict?

    While the thought that a reindictment would occur appears to be amusing to you, from what I understand, Mechele and her family aren't at all amused, nor do they feel "secure" with Mechele's current status.

    It's frustrating for everyone interested in this case that the DA stated many weeks ago that there would be an announcement/decision regarding whether or not they intend to seek a re-indictment, and then nothing nada no more info whatsoever.

    Mechele's family and/or friends have indicated, on this board and the Free Mechele public facebook group page, that the DA doesn't have the legal ability to "leave this hanging" over her head forever, as it violates, or will at some point violate, Mechele's civil rights.

    However, as has been explained, both here and there, there's no statue of limitations on murder, her current legal status is what it was prior to the original indictment, so they can actually take all the time in the world to make their decision.

    It appears there's an issue with John Carlin IV, as he has a pending lawsuit against the State of Alaska regarding his father's prison murder, and he is not cooperating with the DA. I don't know the legalities involved in legally forcing him to testify, or if they can just use his testimony from the first trial or from depositions or something? IIRC, someone once indicated that he's essentially "untouchable" because he's suing the state, but I really don't understand how his lawsuit makes him invulnerable to prosecution or legal actions against him. Although, he wouldn't likely even be a great witness at this point, because I think it would be possible that his anger and resentment at the state could impact his truthfulness on the stand. Pretty sad when, IMO, his father's death resulted from a relationship with Mechele. If it were me, I'd likely be as angry with Mechele as I'd be with the state, particularly if there's any veracity to the alleged accusations Carlin IV made against Mechele, which were discussed in the Rosen book.

    In any case, I don't expect to see a re-indictment--not because I don't think the state has a case--I do, but more because of the lack of cooperating witnesses, the inability to use Carlin III's conviction, and the tossing out of Kent's letter (which I absolutely disagree with--a person shouldn't be able to guarantee they'll never be able to face their accuser by murdering them--it seems like a weird paradox to me).

    Additionally, it's my opinion that Mechele is not likely to re-offend as in arrange to have someone else killed. I do think she's dangerous to her family and those who come in contact with her, though, as she appears extremely manipulative, volatile, self-absorbed, selfish, mean, and generally not a "good person." However, none of those things are, or should be, illegal or necessarily indicators of her guilt or innocence...IMO, that is just her and how she is.

    As I mentioned before, I now consider this case a loss for justice, but will continue to follow it and report any news here.
    What about a civil case against Mechele from Kent's family and or loved ones? I would like to see her be criminally prosecuted, but a civil case might not have as stringent guidelines for what is admissible and what isn't. It would do my heart good to see his loved ones get a huge judgment against her and she would have to give 2 out of every 3 dollars she earns to a fund or cause of their choice for the rest of her life. what do you think?

  19. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to homehearties For This Useful Post:


  20. #663
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Hi Homehearties! I feel so lucky getting two other posters to post here just this week! I get kinda lonely over here...


    I've also wondered about a wrongful death suit. I don't know if the Leppinks ever pursued that, or considered pursuing that. From what I understand, (and I'm not a lawyer), where a criminal case must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a civil case is "more likely than not" kinda thing...don't quote me, but that's what I recall hearing.

    My concern is that the statute of limitations for wrongful death may have passed. Unfortunately, too, Mr. and Mrs. Leppink's health isn't that great, from what I understand, and all this and delaying has to be difficult for them and the stress can't be good for their aging/ailing bodies. Those poor parents...I hope they've not read or caught wind of some of the horrible nasty things Mechele's supporters have said about Kent.

    I, too, would love to see Mechele pay for her [alleged] crime. I suppose one small comfort is that she did spend ~2.5 years in prison, so she did serve some time. It has never appeared to me that she feels remorseful as she claims to be innocent so why should she be remorseful--so even though she spent that time in prison, I suspect her claimed innocence along with the overturning of the conviction has just fed into her (IMO) preexisting entitlement issues and self-absorbed, haughty attitude.

    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.

  21. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  22. #664
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by homehearties View Post
    I have not followed this case for a long long time. But while reading all of the current and past posts here, it occurred to me that if you have common sense, you will realize Mechele us guilty. The one clue that stands out like a smoking gun is the fact that Mechele never intended to marry Kent. Even Mechele supporters admit to that. So why did she buy him a life insurance policy?
    Well, unfortunately, as anyone who watched that horrid trial in Florida last year has seen, common sense is not common. In fact, I've come to refer to it as a "super-power" because it seems so rare these days. The jury in that trial apparently had not one ounce of common sense combined. It's as though some folks have decided that unless a crime is videotaped in broad daylight, with a "locked," unchangeable time-stamp and at least 30 independent witnesses to the entire act, then a case can't be proven.

    The answer Mechele's supporters have offered as far as the life insurance policy is that her and Kent weren't going to get married, but were going to go into business together with Kent's fishing boat, and since fishing boat folks have a higher rate of death or something than other occupations, it was just "common sense" (heh) that they get policies on each other.

    However, that indicates that Mechele was fine with Kent as a business partner, which doesn't mesh with her supporters' claims that he was essentially stalking her so badly that she had to get an illegal passport in order to travel without him following her. Yeah, that makes sense NOT. The illegal passport business is, to me, super sketchy, and, according to Rosen's book (take with big cellar of salt), she had illegal identification long before she even arrived in Alaska--she allegedly stole her sister's id and had other identification papers made from that back in New Jersey.

    So, yeah, it's pretty obvious to me that her manipulative lying ways were going on long before this incident. I mean, I don't have a clue where to get false identification and passports and I don't know anyone who does...yet she supposedly just innocently had a passport in the name of Sally Wong, IIRC, in order to avoid Kent.

    As far as I'm concerned, no matter how her supporters try to spin it, there are some glaring issues that I just don't see working in her favor--the passports, the issue of her taking Kent's laptop after his murder, and shipping it her sister and asking her sister to wipe it out...

    I wasn't dropped off a turnip truck yesterday, and it sounds like you weren't, either, Homehearties!
    Last edited by flourish; 05-11-2012 at 07:20 PM.

    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.

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


  24. #665
    Quote Originally Posted by flourish View Post
    Well, unfortunately, as anyone who watched that horrid trial in Florida last year has seen, common sense is not common. In fact, I've come to refer to it as a "super-power" because it seems so rare these days. The jury in that trial apparently had not one ounce of common sense combined. It's as though some folks have decided that unless a crime is videotaped in broad daylight, with a "locked," unchangeable time-stamp and at least 30 independent witnesses to the entire act, then a case can't be proven.
    This is so true! What is going on with people? On the one hand I think that the prosecutor HAS to make it clear that common sense must play a factor in determining a verdict. The prosecutor has to figure out different ways to explain this because not all jurors will understand.
    In poor Caylee's case, the defense attorney (IMO) did a great job of raising doubt. And the prosecutor did not do enough to combat this manipulation by the defense. And the jury did not understand how to determine a verdict. The justice system did NOT work and if people continue to reward criminals on how good they can lie and manipulate, our justice system is going to break down. I think there are a lot of factors at play here. A LOT. Especially our culture is changing, right and wrong are blurring.
    Well I kind of just went off on a tangent there!
    On the OTHER hand people have to stop rewarding manipulators! It is almost like people think it is a GOOD thing to be such a great manipulator, liar. An attribute.
    Its sad and frustrating and that is why I can't spend too much time thinking about these cases because I think I might go into a depression!
    This case may be dead in the water, and Mechele may never be brought to justice. And I totally feel for Kent's family. He has been portrayed as a gay stalker social outcast and it's just wrong. I don't know Kent or what kind of guy he was, but he didn't deserve to die and he didn't deserve to have his reputation dragged through the mud and his parents don't deserve the hell they inherited and Mechele will never get it, she will never care, she has no regard for what she has caused. Just like OJ, Casey and many others I hope Kent's parents have a strong support system, I hope so.

  25. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to homehearties For This Useful Post:


  26. #666
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska
    Posts
    6
    Does anyone know what is going on with the indictment? I see that in March the prosecutor said they would reach a decision soon if they were going to re-indict. The court website says the case is closed, however I am not sure if since they threw out the original conviction/indictment if they would have to open a "new" case, or if it would still be the same case number. I am amazed at how this case has gone. I actually live in Alaska and I just heard about this case, which is crazy since I'm a HUGE crime buff

  27. #667
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by rowdygirl99 View Post
    Does anyone know what is going on with the indictment? I see that in March the prosecutor said they would reach a decision soon if they were going to re-indict. The court website says the case is closed, however I am not sure if since they threw out the original conviction/indictment if they would have to open a "new" case, or if it would still be the same case number. I am amazed at how this case has gone. I actually live in Alaska and I just heard about this case, which is crazy since I'm a HUGE crime buff
    Hi rowdygirl99 I'm glad you posted!
    So far no new news on whether or not they are going to seek a reindictment or not...the last couple of pages of this thread have all the recent information that's available, which isn't much at all.

    There's also a public facebook group page under the name "Free Mechele," where her relatives/supporters sometimes post about the case...they update pretty much the same stuff as I (we) do here, but sometimes that page includes amusing or otherwise interesting comments and posts...there's a whole rant on there about how Mechele is a victim of a misogynistic society/system, which is sort of ironic seeing how Mechele appeared to have taken full advantage of a set of the population who, it could be argued, are particularly misogynistic...so basically, she made her ["tuition"] money exploiting a people and mind-set which is now accused of taking advantage of her.

    I suppose life is all just a matter of perspective.

    And back to our regularly scheduled endless

    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 2 Users Say Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  29. #668
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Fairbanks, Alaska
    Posts
    6
    I can't believe it, but they have decided not to seek new charges against Mechele Linehan.
    http://www.adn.com/2012/08/06/257539...k-retrial.html

  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to rowdygirl99 For This Useful Post:


  31. #669
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    230
    [shrug]As expected.

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


  33. #670
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    7,582
    Quote Originally Posted by rowdygirl99 View Post
    I can't believe it, but they have decided not to seek new charges against Mechele Linehan.
    http://www.adn.com/2012/08/06/257539...k-retrial.html
    she 'exhausted' the system

    but karma will get her

  34. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to LadyL For This Useful Post:


  35. #671
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Well, there you have it.
    After the debacle in Florida, no case outcome will ever again surprise me.

    Quote from the adn article (http://www.adn.com/2012/08/06/257539...k-retrial.html):

    They [prosecutors] ultimately decided the answer was no, Miovas said.
    "We just don't feel like we have sufficient evidence to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt," he said.
    Another factor, he said, was that some witnesses who were key to the case are now deceased or otherwise unavailable, he said.
    Mechele hasn't been acquitted, or exonerated, so like it or not, fair or not, legally or morally correct or not, this will always be there, shadowing her.

    Remember when her husband wrote a big thing on her blog about how he wished everyone could see the existing evidence that leaves not a shadow of a doubt as to her innocence? This oft-alluded to evidence surely can be released now, right? Yeah, I'll be holding my breath on that *insert eye roll here* Yes, yes, "Mechele's enemies will still use it against her (how, I don't know)," or "since there's no statute of limitation on murder, and the prosecution's announcement isn't legally binding, we have to keep all this evidence secret forever just in case," or "Mechele doesn't have to prove anything to anyone" ----I'm sure there's a myriad of reasons/excuses as to why this alleged mind-blowing evidence will never see the light of public day.

    There are some lessons to be learned with this case. If you think someone is possibly plotting to kill you, but you can't help yourself and still interact with them anyway because certainly you're just being paranoid, writing a letter about it won't help you, because by murdering you, your murderer loses their right to "confront" you about your letter, trumping your rights not to be murdered. So have a film crew as well as a notary present at all times so if you do get murdered, maybe the jury will convict your murderer...seems like anything less isn't gonna cut it anymore.

    It's my opinion that Mechele Linehan is a dangerous woman. I don't think she's a risk to plot a murder, but she appears to be an incredibly vain, self-absorbed, manipulative woman whose moral compass is skewed and whose development was arrested long ago. I don't think she'd physically harm someone, but emotionally...mentally...that's an entirely different story. It's also my opinion that she likely feels vindicated, because guilty or not, she doesn't appear to believe she did anything wrong, except accept some gifts.

    There's been numerous comments online from people purporting to have been in prison with Mechele, and the general consensus seemed to be that she indeed is the proverbial scorpion in the fable--in prison she allegedly caused the same kind of trouble and situations that landed her there in the first place, only on a different scale. I suspect she just adjusts her tactics to suit her surrounding, and keeps on going.

    The youngest Carlin--- *sigh* --- what a messed-up situation he was placed in. I'm disappointed in him for not cooperating with the state regardless of how it would or would not impact his pending lawsuit against the state. I don't know all the ins and outs, but he does, and he's going to have to live with himself the rest of his life.

    All the parties are going to have to live with themselves the rest of their lives. For those with stable consciences, that may prove challenging. Sad all around.

    LadyL, I certainly hope you're right.

    Finally, I wonder what some of her most outspoken and active supporters are going to do with their time now? I wonder if Mechele will still interact with the people who got involved in her cause without knowing her previously? Will she thank them profusely and remain life-long friends? Or will she give them the royall blow-off quicker than the turtle beat the hare? Not that it's any of my business or matters...just thinking.

    Well,

    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.

  36. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  37. #672
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,987
    Rest in peace, TT. there isnt always justice in this world unfortunately.

  38. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to 2goldfish For This Useful Post:


  39. #673
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by 2goldfish View Post
    Rest in peace, TT. there isnt always justice in this world unfortunately.
    Yet I hear it said over and over that we have the best justice system
    Little Caylee Marie, must not be an "Anthony", since "the Anthony's always win". So sorry, Caylee.

  40. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Trvl4Lyfe For This Useful Post:


  41. #674
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,913
    Well, I guess I'm not surprised by this news but I am disappointed with this decision.

    Flourish - I left this thread a while ago - just had to take a break....I guess I just got tired of reading about MEchele. That woman annoys me to no end. But thanks for continually updating this thread.....

  42. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Blondie in Spokane For This Useful Post:


  43. #675
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,701
    Is Mechele still married to her husband? Any updates to what she is doing? I haven't thought of her for so long, but then the plane crash in Alaska yesterday made me think of her.

  44. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BrownRice For This Useful Post:


Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 171819202122232425262728 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. MT Barry Beach '85 murder conviction appeal
    By UdbCrzy2 in forum Archived Cases
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-12-2014, 12:39 AM
  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
  •