CONVICTION OVERTURNED AK - Kent Leppink, 36, murdered, Hope, 2 May 1996

[nancy botwin]

Nancy, I've started a transcript of that interview...got sidetracked by my own real life, but plan to get back to it...I'll review it when I get a chance and let you know what I think

Thanks for keeping us all updated! You're awesome!

That's a great idea-- thanks! There's a lot of information within the interview and I'm very interested in what you hear in that side conversation between Linehan and Carlin in part I.

If I'm reading the docket list correctly, it seems the bail hearing that was to be tomorrow has been rescheduled for 7/7/10?

Yes, that's how I read it too.

 

[marilhicks]

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.

 

[marilhicks]

I decided to listen to the audio of Mechele's May 3, 1996 interview with investigators again and I'm noting some new things. I want to know if anyone else hears what I hear. (Link in the Related Audio Content section here: http://www.adn.com/linehan/ )


In Part I:
Mechele says she was recently in Nevada and got back "a couple days ago."
(Leppink's body was found the morning of May 2.)

When asked about the last time she spoke with Leppink, Mechele explains Kent's father was in town and Kent "wanted to spend time alone with his dad."

(We know this is untrue, as Kent was frantically trying to locate Mechele and both Kent & his father were disappointed she hadn't spent time with them as planned)

Then something very curious happens at the 1:30 mark in Part I, at least according to my ears. John Carlin enters the room asking for a cigarette. There's some mumbling I can't make out-- an apparent exchange between Carlin and Mechele.

Mechele says something like "he left?...(mumbles)..."

I hear Carlin say "yeah... he's dead."

Then Mechele says something unintelligible.

Then Carlin says "Leppink"

Then I hear a male voice say "(Mr.?) Leppink is dead."

Then the investigator interjects with "this is kind of a confidential thing for our ears only, ok?..."

Does anyone else hear this?? I had to crank the volume up all the way and use headphones because the audio quality is so rough, but that's what it sounded like to me??

This is very strange given that it's not until Part 3 of the audio that Mechele appears to be formally notified of Kent's death and then actually reacts. I don't understand. Am I hearing things?

Also in the interview Mechele says she got back into Anchorage "Wednesday night, which would have been Thursday morning." She then says the flight got in 12:30 or 1am Thursday morning. (May 2).

Mechele says she had a phone conversation with Kent late at night on the night before she left Nevada (Tuesday, April 30) and Kent promised to pick her up from the airport after her return flight. According to Mechele, Kent never showed up.

So why does the defense argue Kent was wandering around Hope looking for Mechele when he was killed (sometime within the 28 or so hours after that phone call) if he knew she wasn't in Alaska?? Doesn't make sense.

Ok, so the timeline:

Tuesday, April 30: late evening: Kent & Mechele phone conversation. Kent agrees to pick Mechele up at airport.

Wednesday, May 1: Mechele's flight departs from Sacramento late evening.

Thursday, May 2 12:30-1:00 am: Mechele arrives back in Anchorage.

Thursday, May 2 4:00 am: Medical Examiner's latest estimated time of death for Kent Leppink.

According to Mechele's own statements, she was actually in Alaska for 3+ hours during the very narrow timeframe of Kent's murder. Why does the defense insist Mechele wasn't even in Alaska when he was killed? From Mechele's own statements, Kent was still alive "very late" at night on Tuesday April 30. So it was sometime within the next 28 or so hours that Kent was killed.

The more I think about this interview and the timeline Mechele sets, the more I think Mechele was present and participated in the murder or did it herself. What do you guys think?

I read that after Kent did not show up at the airport to pick her up, she called Carlin who came. So the two were together on May 2nd. I'm not sure what that implies.

According to the Fred Rosen book, Carlin's reaction was nonchalant when officially informed of Kent's death and they were found rummaging through his belongings when the investigator first came to the house before being officially informed of Kent's death.

I'm inclined to believe Carlin was involved - he was evasive and untruthful in most of his interviews. The facts were always changing and the truth seemed to be emanating slowly. Who knows what else he might have admitted to had he lived.

A conundrum indeed.

There was a segment in one of Carlin's interviews when he dismisses the importance of the Mechele's allusion to the Seychelles. He says something to the effect that one million (presumably from the insurance) wouldn't be enough to buy a citizenship there. But what if she thought he had much more than that? He heaped huge amounts of money on her including an $18000 down payment on a $57000 RV. She believed Kent had loads of money; she might have believed Carlin was much richer than he actually was.

 

[flourish]

I read that after Kent did not show up at the airport to pick her up, she called Carlin who came. So the two were together on May 2nd. I'm not sure what that implies.

According to the Fred Rosen book, Carlin's reaction was nonchalant when officially informed of Kent's death and they were found rummaging through his belongings when the investigator first came to the house before being officially informed of Kent's death.

I'm inclined to believe Carlin was involved - he was evasive and untruthful in most of his interviews. The facts were always changing and the truth seemed to be emanating slowly. Who knows what else he might have admitted to had he lived.

A conundrum indeed.

There was a segment in one of Carlin's interviews when he dismisses the importance of the Mechele's allusion to the Seychelles. He says something to the effect that one million (presumably from the insurance) wouldn't be enough to buy a citizenship there. But what if she thought he had much more than that? He heaped huge amounts of money on her including an $18000 down payment on a $57000 RV. She believed Kent had loads of money; she might have believed Carlin was much richer than he actually was.

BBM

First bold: I read the Rosen book, too, and he repeatedly emphasized that Mechele and Carlin were at the Wasilla house going through Kent's personal items when the police arrived to interview Mechele. If that is true, it does not paint Mechele or Carlin in a good light.

Second bold: That is what I have figured from the start. I don't think Mechele had any idea exactly how much money any of these guys really had. The expensive gifts indicate some wealth. These guys knew Mechele liked expensive gifts and it seems likely that if they wanted to keep her around, they may imply they had more money than they did and/or allow her to believe their financial resources were more than they were.

Just because Carlin didn't have ten million dollars doesn't mean Mechele didn't think he did! Also, I don't really believe she had any intention of actually running away with Carlin to anywhere, so there's that, too.

 

[marilhicks]

BBM

First bold: I read the Rosen book, too, and he repeatedly emphasized that Mechele and Carlin were at the Wasilla house going through Kent's personal items when the police arrived to interview Mechele. If that is true, it does not paint Mechele or Carlin in a good light.

Second bold: That is what I have figured from the start. I don't think Mechele had any idea exactly how much money any of these guys really had. The expensive gifts indicate some wealth. These guys knew Mechele liked expensive gifts and it seems likely that if they wanted to keep her around, they may imply they had more money than they did and/or allow her to believe their financial resources were more than they were.

Just because Carlin didn't have ten million dollars doesn't mean Mechele didn't think he did! Also, I don't really believe she had any intention of actually running away with Carlin to anywhere, so there's that, too.

re: bolded text - Not for a minute did she intend to run away with him. Poor Carlin would have been stuck in the Seychelles for the rest of his life while Mechele lived it up. She was a piece of work!

 

[nancy botwin]

I read that after Kent did not show up at the airport to pick her up, she called Carlin who came. So the two were together on May 2nd. I'm not sure what that implies.

According to the Fred Rosen book, Carlin's reaction was nonchalant when officially informed of Kent's death and they were found rummaging through his belongings when the investigator first came to the house before being officially informed of Kent's death.

I'm inclined to believe Carlin was involved - he was evasive and untruthful in most of his interviews. The facts were always changing and the truth seemed to be emanating slowly. Who knows what else he might have admitted to had he lived.

A conundrum indeed.

There was a segment in one of Carlin's interviews when he dismisses the importance of the Mechele's allusion to the Seychelles. He says something to the effect that one million (presumably from the insurance) wouldn't be enough to buy a citizenship there. But what if she thought he had much more than that? He heaped huge amounts of money on her including an $18000 down payment on a $57000 RV. She believed Kent had loads of money; she might have believed Carlin was much richer than he actually was.

BBM

First bold: I read the Rosen book, too, and he repeatedly emphasized that Mechele and Carlin were at the Wasilla house going through Kent's personal items when the police arrived to interview Mechele. If that is true, it does not paint Mechele or Carlin in a good light...

I was surprised by this revelation when someone (I think it was you, marilhicks??-- sorry the thread is getting long so I can't remember for sure) first posted it. And I noted that Rosen not only stated it as fact several times, but also wrote that Carlin IV testified about officers first coming to notify Carlin & Mechele about Kent's death when they were rummaging through Kent's things at the Wasilla house.

Also! In the May 3 audio linked earlier in the thread, Mechele makes reference to this fact herself. The detectives are trying to understand the living arrangement Mechele is explaining that they usually live at the house in South Anchorage but detectives found them at the Wasilla house that day: She says (of the S. Anchorage house)"...That's where we usually are all the time. We just came out to start sorting through..."

So I think Rosen's statement about the Wasilla rummaging has been corroborated by both Carlin IV's testimony and Mechele's own words. It's weird more isn't made of this in the media reports.

I don't understand why, if Mechele had already been told Leppink was dead, she reacts so intensely when "formally notified" in the middle of the May 3 interview. Seems very very strange to me? Why is she pretending throughout the beginning of the interview that she doesn't know what's happened to him?

 

[nancy botwin]

I don't think this email has already been posted, so I thought I'd put it up here to see if anyone has any thoughts about it:

Email sent from Mechele to Kent on 4/9/96:
(recall she paid for the life insurance policies on 4/1/96 and wrote that HAHAHA email to her mother on 3/31/96, mocking the idea of marrying Kent.)


"HEY I GOT A MIN TO WRITE YOU. I JUST WANTED TO SAY YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU AND YOU KNOW OUR LIVES WILL BE FINE. WE HAVE MANY OTHER THINGS TO DO AND SAY TO ONE ANOTHER. I HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO DO BEFORE WE SETTLE DOWN SO PLEASE STOP SNOOPING AND ASKING ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS. I AM SERIOUSLY TELLING YOU THIS...IF YOU CONTINUE TO RUMAGE THREW MY PRIVACY AND SNOOP THREW MY BELONGINGS I WILL NOT MARRY YOU. WHILE WE ARE NOT MARRIED, NOTHING IS YOURS. DO YOU GET IT?

WHEN WE GET MARRIED YOU CAN KNOW WHERE EVERYTHING IS IN THE HOUSE. BUT THEN YOU GO THROUGH MY PURSE AND MY BAGS. YOU ARE INVADING MY PRIVACY AND I WILL NOT TOLERATE IT. SO REMEMBER I THINK YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY. I DID NOT TAKE YOUR PHONE BOOKS AND I TIRED TO LOCATE IT AT THE AIRPORT BUT IT WAS NOT TURNED IN.

I MAY COME TO FLORIDA AND SEE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY IF YOU ASK ME NICELY. STOP DEMANDING YOUR ***** ON ME. I AM SICK OF IT. YOU TRY TO TELL ME WHAT DAY I HAVE TO MARRY YOU. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE. YOU HAVE WAITED THIS LONG YOU CAN JUST CALL IT OFF IF ANOTHER TWO WEEKS REALLY CRAMPS YOUR LIFE. I WILL NOT GET MRRIED UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. I AM FINALLY TELLING YOU THIS BECAUSE I LOVE YOU AND YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE BEEN P*SSING ME OFF.

YOU HIDE SO MUCH ***** FROM ME, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME? YOUR SAFETY DEPOSIT BOXES YOUR HIDDEN ***** YOUR STORAGE SHED ETC., ETC., ETC. I NEVER PRY INTO YOUR ***** EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE TAKEN MY SENTIMENTAL PRIVATE BELONGINGS AND BROUGHT THEM TO YOUR STORAGE.

THAT WAS STEALING AND IF YOU WANT TO MARRY ME THEN YOU NEED TO REALIZE I LET THAT GO. YOU STOLE FROM ME AND I DID YOU WRONG TOO. YOU CONTINUE TO SNOOP AND PRY. STOP, IF YOU WANT ME TO HAVE YOUR CHILDREN AND SPEND THE LIFE TOGETHER THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THEN YOU NEED TO KNOW THESE THINGS YOU ARE VERY CLOSE TO DRIVING ME AWAY.

ONE THING I WANT YOU TO KNOW IS I DO NOT WANT YOU TO BUY A HOUSE AND I DON'T WANT YOUR PRENUPTUALS. I HAVE MY OWN HOUSE AND IF IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU THEN YOU BETTER SACRIFICE YOUR HIGH HONOR FOR THIS WEDDING. YOU HAVE MADE ME SO ANGRY BY DONG MANY THINGS THESE PAST FEW WEEKS THAT I AM FED UP WITH. YOU WERE SO NICE BEFORE I AGREED TO MARRY YOU.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO QUESTION ME ABOUT MY FAMILY. UNFORTUNATELY, THEY ARE NOT CONCERNED AND I DO NOT WANT THEM INVOLVED ANY MORE THAN WHAT I EMPLOY THEM INTO. SO YOU CAN STOP SENDING MY MOTHER CARDS. DO NOT SEND HER CARDS AND YOU WONT EITHER IF YOU ARE PART OF ME. I DO NOT INTERFERE WITH YOUR FAMILY UNLESS I AM ASKED OR TOLD I MAY UNTIL I FEEL THAT I AM EXCEPTED AND PART OF THE FAMILY I WILL NOT EMBARRASS MY SELF BY FORCING MYSELF ON YOUR FAMILY.

YOU NEED TO REMEMBER WHERE YOU MET ME AND STOP AND THINK IF I WANT MY FAMILY IN MY LIFE. THEN WHY WAS I IN ALASKA AND DANCING WITH NO FAMILY THERE.

I THINK IT IS VERY OBVIOUS I DONT CARE HOW YOUR FAMILY AND BROTHER HAVE TURNED OUT. THAT IS NOT THE SAME REASONS AND MAYBE ONE DAY YOU WILL KNOW AND UNDERSTAND. UNTIL THEN, PLEASE DONT MEDDLE IN MY FAMILY RELATIONS. YOU CANNOT REPAIR THEM.

WHO I INVITE WILL HAVE TO BE EXCEPTED BY YOU AND YORU FAMILY. IF NOT THEN I WILL BE HEART BROKEN AT THE ALTERNATIVE.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD EXPLAIN TO YOUR PARENTS. TELL THEM I HAVE VERY FINE LINES THAT DETERMINE THE BOUNDRIES OF MY LIFE. AND WHEN SOMEONE VIOLATES TEHM, I HAVE THE OPTION TO ELIMINATE THEM FROM MY LIFE. THAT IS MY CHOICE."

Source: This email email appears in Fred Rosen's "Deadly Angel"
(pgs 102-104 of the ebook edition); Amazon.com: Deadly Angel: The Bizarre True Story of Alaska's Killer Stripper (9780061733987): Fred Rosen: Books

 

[marilhicks]

I don't think this email has already been posted, so I thought I'd put it up here to see if anyone has any thoughts about it:

Email sent from Mechele to Kent on 4/9/96:
(recall she paid for the life insurance policies on 4/1/96 and wrote that HAHAHA email to her mother on 3/31/96, mocking the idea of marrying Kent.)


"HEY I GOT A MIN TO WRITE YOU. I JUST WANTED TO SAY YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU AND YOU KNOW OUR LIVES WILL BE FINE. WE HAVE MANY OTHER THINGS TO DO AND SAY TO ONE ANOTHER. I HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO DO BEFORE WE SETTLE DOWN SO PLEASE STOP SNOOPING AND ASKING ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS. I AM SERIOUSLY TELLING YOU THIS...IF YOU CONTINUE TO RUMAGE THREW MY PRIVACY AND SNOOP THREW MY BELONGINGS I WILL NOT MARRY YOU. WHILE WE ARE NOT MARRIED, NOTHING IS YOURS. DO YOU GET IT?

WHEN WE GET MARRIED YOU CAN KNOW WHERE EVERYTHING IS IN THE HOUSE. BUT THEN YOU GO THROUGH MY PURSE AND MY BAGS. YOU ARE INVADING MY PRIVACY AND I WILL NOT TOLERATE IT. SO REMEMBER I THINK YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY. I DID NOT TAKE YOUR PHONE BOOKS AND I TIRED TO LOCATE IT AT THE AIRPORT BUT IT WAS NOT TURNED IN.

I MAY COME TO FLORIDA AND SEE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY IF YOU ASK ME NICELY. STOP DEMANDING YOUR ON ME. I AM SICK OF IT. YOU TRY TO TELL ME WHAT DAY I HAVE TO MARRY YOU. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE. YOU HAVE WAITED THIS LONG YOU CAN JUST CALL IT OFF IF ANOTHER TWO WEEKS REALLY CRAMPS YOUR LIFE. I WILL NOT GET MRRIED UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. I AM FINALLY TELLING YOU THIS BECAUSE I LOVE YOU AND YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE BEEN P*SSING ME OFF.

YOU HIDE SO MUCH FROM ME, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME? YOUR SAFETY DEPOSIT BOXES YOUR HIDDEN YOUR STORAGE SHED ETC., ETC., ETC. I NEVER PRY INTO YOUR EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE TAKEN MY SENTIMENTAL PRIVATE BELONGINGS AND BROUGHT THEM TO YOUR STORAGE.

THAT WAS STEALING AND IF YOU WANT TO MARRY ME THEN YOU NEED TO REALIZE I LET THAT GO. YOU STOLE FROM ME AND I DID YOU WRONG TOO. YOU CONTINUE TO SNOOP AND PRY. STOP, IF YOU WANT ME TO HAVE YOUR CHILDREN AND SPEND THE LIFE TOGETHER THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THEN YOU NEED TO KNOW THESE THINGS YOU ARE VERY CLOSE TO DRIVING ME AWAY.

ONE THING I WANT YOU TO KNOW IS I DO NOT WANT YOU TO BUY A HOUSE AND I DON'T WANT YOUR PRENUPTUALS. I HAVE MY OWN HOUSE AND IF IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU THEN YOU BETTER SACRIFICE YOUR HIGH HONOR FOR THIS WEDDING. YOU HAVE MADE ME SO ANGRY BY DONG MANY THINGS THESE PAST FEW WEEKS THAT I AM FED UP WITH. YOU WERE SO NICE BEFORE I AGREED TO MARRY YOU.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO QUESTION ME ABOUT MY FAMILY. UNFORTUNATELY, THEY ARE NOT CONCERNED AND I DO NOT WANT THEM INVOLVED ANY MORE THAN WHAT I EMPLOY THEM INTO. SO YOU CAN STOP SENDING MY MOTHER CARDS. DO NOT SEND HER CARDS AND YOU WONT EITHER IF YOU ARE PART OF ME. I DO NOT INTERFERE WITH YOUR FAMILY UNLESS I AM ASKED OR TOLD I MAY UNTIL I FEEL THAT I AM EXCEPTED AND PART OF THE FAMILY I WILL NOT EMBARRASS MY SELF BY FORCING MYSELF ON YOUR FAMILY.

YOU NEED TO REMEMBER WHERE YOU MET ME AND STOP AND THINK IF I WANT MY FAMILY IN MY LIFE. THEN WHY WAS I IN ALASKA AND DANCING WITH NO FAMILY THERE.

I THINK IT IS VERY OBVIOUS I DONT CARE HOW YOUR FAMILY AND BROTHER HAVE TURNED OUT. THAT IS NOT THE SAME REASONS AND MAYBE ONE DAY YOU WILL KNOW AND UNDERSTAND. UNTIL THEN, PLEASE DONT MEDDLE IN MY FAMILY RELATIONS. YOU CANNOT REPAIR THEM.

WHO I INVITE WILL HAVE TO BE EXCEPTED BY YOU AND YORU FAMILY. IF NOT THEN I WILL BE HEART BROKEN AT THE ALTERNATIVE.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD EXPLAIN TO YOUR PARENTS. TELL THEM I HAVE VERY FINE LINES THAT DETERMINE THE BOUNDRIES OF MY LIFE. AND WHEN SOMEONE VIOLATES TEHM, I HAVE THE OPTION TO ELIMINATE THEM FROM MY LIFE. THAT IS MY CHOICE."

I always thought this email was so revealing of her personality, really hard edged, sharp-tongued, demanding, controlling of these weak men that she targeted. However the bolded phrase could be interpreted quite negatively given the events that followed.

 

[nancy botwin]

I always thought this email was so revealing of her personality, really hard edged, sharp-tongued, demanding, controlling of these weak men that she targeted. However the bolded phrase could be interpreted quite negatively given the events that followed.

I very much agree.
This email definitely undercuts any defense argument that Mechele was controlled by these men and too meek or naive to escape them. It also clearly negates a defense theory that Kent was delusional in thinking he and Mechele were engaged and planning a life together. And I agree that the last sentence is darkly resonant.

***
Also, I'm giving the Rosen book another shot after realizing I overlooked some stuff the first time I read it. I'll post some of the info I come across here in case others are interested.

In his opening remarks, the prosecutor references a letter Carlin wrote to Mechele after the murder:

"I know that you'll be fine. I must just figure out what to do with my life. I have asked you what to do and you have said you don't know what to tell me. It is my problem that I have created and it is my responsibility to fix it. I must do that for me and John (IV)."

According to Rosen, the prosecutor posited that this letter could be viewed as a sort of confession or admission from Carlin.


Source: page 147 (ebook edition)
Amazon.com: Deadly Angel: The Bizarre True Story of Alaska's Killer Stripper (9780061733987): Fred Rosen: Books

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

I always thought this email was so revealing of her personality, really hard edged, sharp-tongued, demanding, controlling of these weak men that she targeted. However the bolded phrase could be interpreted quite negatively given the events that followed.

I too thought that phrase was most telling....almost eerie to read at this point.

I rarely post on this thread as I have so little to add. But I do want to thank marilhicks, nancy botwin and flourish for all of your contributions here. I try to keep up on this thread and simply cannot believe all of the info that has been uncovered here. Thanks everyone for all of your time, work and contributions. Much appreciated by all of us "lurkers"!

 

[nancy botwin]

Linehan's new website is now online at www.mechelelinehan.com.

The main page offers this introduction/statement of purpose:
"This case has generated great interest. The personal opinions posted throughout various internet sites are extremely polarized. There has been little information derived directly from court documentation. This site was developed as an online resource. All records on this site have been made public record previously. These records are available from the State of Alaska court records. Current documents will be posted as they are filed with the court. Previous documents, transcripts, and evidence will become available overtime. This is not a publishing site for public or personal comments."

There are tabs for trial documents, Grand Jury documents, sentencing documents and appellate documents, but those pages are still under construction and don't have any content yet.

Right now, the only available document is the most recent motion to modify Linehan's conditions of release (21 pages)-- the bail hearing is July 7.

You can view the motion here: http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.mechelelinehan.com/uploads/Bail_Motion2010.pdf

Let me know if that link doesn't work. I'm using google docs as a proxy because their website is curiously slow to load and this method also allows people without pdf software to read the document.

 

[nancy botwin]

The bail hearing is today. http://www.randomtv.com/ will be telecasting the hearing live at 3:15 PST -- so in about 45 mins.

According to the reporter's twitter site, they will also be interviewing Linehan later. (http://twitter.com/vomodoTV)

Among the requests to be considered at today's hearing:

*removal of third-party custodian requirement
*removal of house arrest condition
*removal of driving restrictions
*removal of curfew conditions
*implementation of electronic monitoring in lieu of the above restrictions

If Judge Volland does not remove the restrictions, I'm assuming Linehan's attorney will modify their request and ask for limited work release and also request that the Court approve an additional third-party custodian.

 

[nancy botwin]

I don't know if the randomtv.com website will log and save the live footage. I hope they do!

If anyone is able to watch the telecast and wouldn't mind taking some notes for those who can't watch, that would be awesome!

Unfortunately, I have a meeting scheduled around the time of the hearing so I don't think I can watch it live. So if anyone can help, that would be super cool!

 

[nancy botwin]

I caught the end of the hearing. From what I heard, it sounds like today was a victory for Linehan.

She no longer has to abide by a third-party custodian requirement.

She will now be under the supervision of an electronic monitoring service.

She will no longer have to abide by house arrest conditions.

She will have a curfew of 9pm to 7am.

She will be subjected to monthly home inspections.

She will have to provide her monitoring service with some sort of schedule, detailing where she will be throughout the week.

She will be subjected to the same geographic restrictions-- remain in the greater Anchorage area and stay away from airports.

She is not to have any contact with witnesses-- the prosecutor will provide the Court with a list of specific witnesses at the end of the week.



At this time, she is restricted from driving a motor vehicle but may be a passenger. This condition may be relaxed or reconsidered once her schedule becomes clearer.

At this time, her desire to work as a receptionist at a beauty salon has not been cleared by the Court. She has yet to provide the Court with specific details regarding this position/location/etc. Judge Volland indicated a concern that an employer may not be able to deal with the high profile nature of this case.


The Leppink family vigorously opposed these relaxed restrictions and expressed their concerns via teleconference at the hearing.

It also seems that the prosecutor, Pat Gullufsen, will not be acting as prosecutor at the retrial. There was some discussion about another person taking over for him. Don't know what that's about.

 

[marilhicks]

I don't know if the randomtv.com website will log and save the live footage. I hope they do!

If anyone is able to watch the telecast and wouldn't mind taking some notes for those who can't watch, that would be awesome!

Unfortunately, I have a meeting scheduled around the time of the hearing so I don't think I can watch it live. So if anyone can help, that would be super cool!

I tuned in late so I couldn’t monitor the entire proceedings but in general Judge Volland did allow modifications to her bail conditions as follows:

1. He felt DMS the monitoring service was reputable and allowed it; he was not totally satisfied with the 3rd party arrangement because he felt the individuals doing the monitoring were not impartial and passionately devoted to her innocence.

2. He approved the bail request with the following restrictions: random home inspection once a month, curfew 9pm to 7am, during nighttime hours any officer can check up on her and is given authority to remand her if necessary, geographical limits are the greater Anchorage area, weekly meeting with DMS to propose her weekly schedule, if schedule appears suspicious DMS can disapprove, no driving but can ride in a car with another individual

3. If there are any violations DMS shall notify the DA.

4. Exclusion zones for Linehan include the airport and 700 feet around the residences of potential witnesses which include the insurance salesman, the fur salesperson, someone associated with a hardware store, and another with a motor home business.

5. Employment is ok, but must be approved by the court. The judge wants to be sure the employers can deal with the effects of a high profile case.

Mr. Leppink and Mr. Gullufsen testified by phone. Mr. Leppink disapproved of the bail modification request. Mr. Gullufsen seemed to suggest he will not be on the case after the 15th of this month. Offered another name that I did not catch who should be contacted after that.

Some of the transmission was lost while I watched.

 

[marilhicks]

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.

I posted my notes of the bail hearing without realizing you had already done so.

Two things I found of interest - Gullufsen probably leaving the case and the list of potential witnesses in the Anchorage area - a hardware store? That sounds interesting, may be new evidence. The motor home and fur businesses were associated with Carlin and the insurance salesman has a lot to say.

 

[nancy botwin]

I posted my notes of the bail hearing without realizing you had already done so.

Two things I found of interest - Gullufsen probably leaving the case and the list of potential witnesses in the Anchorage area - a hardware store? That sounds interesting, may be new evidence. The motor home and fur businesses were associated with Carlin and the insurance salesman has a lot to say.

Thanks for posting your notes! I appreciate! I only got to hear the very end--

Were any witnesses called, other than the representative of the electronic monitoring firm?

Do you know when it started/how long the hearing lasted?


I also found Gullufsen's exit surprising. I guess this could be a good thing, since Mechele's camp seems convinced he has some vendetta against her. I don't think so, but this is just one less thing to complain about, IMO.

I have no idea what the hardware store testimony would involve! I'm curious about that.

Fred Rosen wrote that Mechele contacted her former boyfriend in Brick NJ on the night before her first trial. Rosen wrote that she told him not to tell anyone anything about her, especially not to relay the fact that she had "taken money from him."

Rosen characterized this contact as witness tampering. I wondered if this was discussed at the hearing?

 

[nancy botwin]

ADN has published a story about the relaxed restrictions.

Judge Relaxes Linehan Restrictions of Bail, ADN, 7-7-10

from the article:

"Also at the hearing, prosecutor Pat Gullufsen, who has been central to the case since Linehan and co-defendant John Carlin were arrested in 2006, said he is retiring and handing it over to prosecutor Paul Miovas."

...

"Leppink's father, Kenneth Leppink, participated in the hearing over the phone and also urged the court to keep the leash on Linehan tight.

"She is a super candidate to run," he said. "To put this type of a tether on her, there's just gaps that you are just not covering here at all. She is a prisoner and she was in prison for first-degree murder. This is not play-games time."

...

Volland said he wasn't pleased with Linehan's lawyers changing their proposal for the bail conditions.

"In some ways, you know, I feel a little deceived," the judge said. "I was given a proposal that I thought I largely approved; that the defendant and her family thought was going to work, and now, just a couple of months later, I'm told it's not working at all. That bothers me."


...

I agree with Judge Volland's observations about the move to alter conditions so soon after her release.
Generally, the fewer restrictions you have, the lower your monetary bail. Linehan's monetary bail was quite low IMO. So it's interesting that she was able to secure both the low monetary bail and now the loose restrictions as well.

I think the ankle monitoring seems fair, though I was surprised so few restrictions were placed on her movement. From what I heard of the hearing, it sounds like she'll eventually be free to drive a car as well. I wonder if she'll keep a low profile in Anchorage or if she'll be out and about, befriending the locals. It's interesting that she's chosen such a visible and socially interactive job-- I wonder if there's an underlying strategy there.:waitasec:

 

[marilhicks]

Thanks for posting your notes! I appreciate! I only got to hear the very end--

Were any witnesses called, other than the representative of the electronic monitoring firm?

Do you know when it started/how long the hearing lasted?


I also found Gullufsen's exit surprising. I guess this could be a good thing, since Mechele's camp seems convinced he has some vendetta against her. I don't think so, but this is just one less thing to complain about, IMO.

I have no idea what the hardware store testimony would involve! I'm curious about that.

Fred Rosen wrote that Mechele contacted her former boyfriend in Brick NJ on the night before her first trial. Rosen wrote that she told him not to tell anyone anything about her, especially not to relay the fact that she had "taken money from him."

Rosen characterized this contact as witness tampering. I wondered if this was discussed at the hearing?

I tuned in late so I don't know the length of the hearing or if there were other witnesses beside the DA and Mr. Leppink. As for the witness tampering example, it shows her willingness to play fast and loose with the law. I think Volland must have been intimidated by the reversal and is caving in at every opportunity.

 

[flourish]

Some random questions/thoughts:

* I thought the restrictions were crafted as they were because electronic monitoring wasn't an option for Mechele. Electronic monitoring is rather expensive and it's the defendant's responsibility to pay for it in every jurisdiction with which I'm familiar. I assumed, since she is indigent and receiving the services of a public defender, that electronic monitoring was too cost prohibitive for Linehan.

* I wonder if Mechele has previously presented a complete employment plan to the Court --i.e. a letter of engagement or affidavit from the prospective employer; specific details about the nature of her employment; place of employment; hours; specific duties; etc. I'm assuming this is what she's planning to do at the July 7 bail hearing. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that she will present a comprehensive employment plan for the first time on July 7. I've always found it strange that Mechele supporters and news items kept asserting that Mechele wasn't allowed to work, yet never stated where she had planned to work. Often defendants will request work release without any specific job offer and their request is properly denied.

What do you all think?

*snip*

Yeah, she isn't going to be making big bucks this way, that is for certain.

And she indeed did not present the appropriate paperwork about the job.

I think she just wants to continue to stretch the boundaries of her conditional release. She began the moment she got out and I doubt she will let up any time soon. Prison did nothing to reduce her entitlement attitude. I don't care whether she works or not, if that is really what she is going to do. I think it is just an excuse to be places she isn't supposed to be. She is slippery, like a snake, and is always trying to slither her way around the rules.

Yes, the entitlement attitude. Let's look at a recent quote from Mechele, in this article:

http://www.adn.com/2010/06/26/1342683/linehan-seeks-more-freedom-while.html

"Why is it that I can't work?" Mechele Linehan asked. "I have a master's degree and I should be able to work. I've worked hard my whole life."

Seen any unemployment statistics lately, Mechele? If this quote was coming from one of the millions of Americans who are un- or under-employed I'd be much more sympathetic. Sure, she'll be under-employed working as a part-time receptionist at a hair salon, but boo-freaking-hoo...a degree isn't a job guarantee.

Although, I agree that it's not really about her having a job anyway.

I tend to agree with you, Belinda! Electronic monitoring would cost at least 400$ a month per the Alaska DOC Terms & Conditions for Electronic Monitoring. Factor in childcare costs and I don't think she'd even be breaking even by working at a standard 9-10$/hour??

From the motion you posted a few posts down, it sounds like her daughter will be attending "summer camp." I am assuming that would be like day summer camp, which is very popular, as opposed to sleep-away camp. Regardless, that costs money. Oh, look! The adn has nicely provided us with a list of the day summer camps available back in 2008. Let's check out some prices:

http://www.adn.com/2008/04/17/379455/day-camps.html

Looks like "The Alaska Club' is only open to children who "have attended school during the [previous] school year," so that's probably out...the "Aurora Waldorf School Camps" charged $205 for the first week, and $385 for "both weeks," so that one is only two week's long..."Camp Bear Valley" was $175/week in 2008. "Camp Si-La Meo" was a bit cheaper at $160-165/week, while "Gymnastics and More" is $33 per half-day (like, if a parent worked a part-time job), $40 full day, $670/month...Oh here we go...for $75/week the "Kincaid Adventure Camp."

So, if a person worked 20 hours a week at $10/hr...well, let's see if we can find what a receptionist in Anchorage might make. Cool, a quick scan of adn employment listings show one receptionist job as paying $11.00-13.00/hr. So that's roughly 1100/month before taxes, minus ~400 for the ankle bracelet and probably no less than ~300/month for child care and that leaves...400/month left for rent, transportation, food, etc. (good thing the botox is prob. free :angel. Hey Nancy, what are the rules about income and public defense, like, is it a sliding scale kind of deal, or a "you can make up to ____ before we make you pay" ?