GUILTY IN - Melinda Lindsey, 23, shot to death, Porter County, 16 Jan 2015 - #2

[Safeguard]

Were I a jurist in this case, I would not have been able to get past these parts of the Steve Lindsey story:

I went to the police the day before, with my terrified wife, to ask for protection from a stalker who had tried to gain access to the home... I gobbled pills and booze, because I didn't expect someone to break in and shoot my wife.

Melinda had addiction problems and I was trying to help her. ( By consuming it all yourself, your such a lovely man!).

(The 911 call) they took my wife. He couldn't have known anybody did anything at that point. I have always had a problem with that statement, and particularly the use of the word "they". Its crossed my mind, many times, that he may have made deliberate use of that word, in an attempt to make it seem like he felt one person, (himself!), could not have carried out the whole thing.

No emotional response. I've always shied away from pointing out people's reactions to tragedy as proof of some kind, but in this case, That's a plausible senerio, evokes images of his trying to come up with plausible senerio's and that one worked for him.

There IS no one else interested, available, or can even be remotely connected to the crime.

 

[Tina Grant]

She was killed with her own gun while he was in the house. He was left alive and unharmed. He refused to be tested for gunpowder residue. They could stop right there and I'd be screaming guilty. Never mind that there were no signs of forced entry, they were flat broke and in debt, and he badgered her to get life insurance.

 

[DisneyFan]

I was just thinking that a community of people following this trial, virtual strangers yet we feel remorse for ML. We care. There were many details we all learned during this trial that indicate a slam dunk guilty verdict.

SL didn't look for "killer", put up flyers or do anything to find the alleged "Killer". On that fateful day, he appeared to only be concerned about himself.

Domestic abuse victims are in the most danger when they plan to leave their abuser.

If the jurors were conflicted, since there were no footprints in snow. I wonder who they rationalize committed this heinous crime. The dog? Common sense people.

To use SL words and theory. Plausible=Yes. Probable=No

 

[BarryW]

It's horrible to think he murdered poor Melinda and may get away with it, but it's even more horrifying to me to think that he may now have access to his children. Without a conviction and if he makes bail, I'm afraid he will have custody of baby girl....and that his ex may be forced to honor their visitation agreement for their little boy.

Somebody please tell me I'm wrong. I so want to be wrong.

I want you to be wrong too. I'm hoping he won't get custody of baby girl as he said, in court, while the family was in danger from a stalker, that he took Xanax, Valium, and 5 shots of scotch. Poor decision making skills, "at a minimum". A "potential murderer" at worst (as far as CPS would see).

As for his son, IF he gets to see him I do hope it is under supervised visitation.

Of course I hope it is determined that he cannot see his children at all until after the retrial. If he is monstrous enough to kill his wife for $ (amongst other things) then I would not put it past him to commit murder/suicide. AWFUL thing to say, I know, but I do believe, in SL's words, "it is a plausible scenario".

How bloody awful this turn of events is!

 

[BarryW]

Since you've indicated that there will be a retrial, can I suggest this:

Through Melinda's father (or directly if you have a connection with the prosecutor at all), direct the prosecutor to this website.

I know that lawyer's do the best job they can. But sometimes little "nuances" slip by as they stick to the big picture.

Between all of the minds here in this thread (including the closed threads from earlier on) are perceptions of many individuals. I'm sure many of us are very wise. Collectively we may have put out a thought or two that the prosecution did not consider....or in the concern of saving time perhaps did not bring up in court. It would behoove him to print the threads, read through these threads, beginning to end, and highlight those items of interest. There has to be at least a few that stand out. We may not be lawyers (well, I'm speaking for myself, we may have a hidden lawyer or two on here), but we see what we see, from many different perspectives in life.

No wise man would turn down the opportunity to learn from others.

Set Her Soul Free, it is certainly worth a shot. I would not mind writing a letter, that you can forward yourself or through Melinda's family.

I feel so very very STRONGLY that a huge miscarriage of justice happened here. I don't know how, or why. But at the retrial the prosecutor will have to add something to the mix, as for whatever reason his first attempt failed. Now, I read the newspaper articles. I thought, from what I read, that he was driving home the necessary points. Obviously this didn't work.

I'm still mad, and worried, about this.

 

[Tina Grant]

I want you to be wrong too. I'm hoping he won't get custody of baby girl as he said, in court, while the family was in danger from a stalker, that he took Xanax, Valium, and 5 shots of scotch. Poor decision making skills, "at a minimum". A "potential murderer" at worst (as far as CPS would see).

As for his son, IF he gets to see him I do hope it is under supervised visitation.

Of course I hope it is determined that he cannot see his children at all until after the retrial. If he is monstrous enough to kill his wife for $ (amongst other things) then I would not put it past him to commit murder/suicide. AWFUL thing to say, I know, but I do believe, in SL's words, "it is a plausible scenario".

How bloody awful this turn of events is!

I wouldn't put anything past him. Even if he gets off for the murder, he will still be unemployed, broke, behind on court-ordered child support, in debt, and financially responsible for two children. And somebody has to pay for the lawyer. He will not collect on the life insurance. His problems will not go away like he thought they would. The only difference will be that he will not have Melinda to provide free child care.

If I were the ex I would try to get him to sign away his rights to his son in exchange for dropping the child support claim and any right to financial support going forward - if that's even possible. Anything to keep him away.

 

[BarryW]

I read somewhere that SL, before this murder happened, he had to go to court on back child support and I believe there was a "contempt" charge (for not paying?? I don't know that part). The contempt part had the possibility of him going to jail.

So, if that moves ahead if he gets out on bail, then he might just end up back in jail anyway. Now wouldn't that be nice. Especially if it brought him back to his retrial. Nice if the new jury knew he was showing up to court from jail each day, because of an "unrelated" matter. Just another piece of evidence to show the kind of man SL is.

 

[Set her soul free]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_b3c518af-0809-5672-a43b-4ff5d19d85b0.html

 

[skinnycat]

Praying that he is denied bail on Wednesday,

I hope this adoption thing is looked into, who was he trying to either adopt or have adopted, I doubt that Melinda would ever put baby girl up for adoption, the same with the x, they couldn't afford to adopt a child, so why did SL look up adoption

 

[DisneyFan]

Even if he is granted bail, SL is flat broke. Does his family have the means to assist him? Who will pay the attorney. This isn't going to be a few dollars. SL is arrogant, what if he skips bail.

 

[Tina Grant]

Somebody has to pay the attorney for the first trial. The Monster said in court that he needed the insurance funds to pay his family back. He doesn't have any money, and lawyers don't work for free, so we can be pretty sure his family has paid the bill so far. Now there's another trial. That will have to be paid for also. It came out in the first trial that the insurance policy was considered fraudulent, so there won't be any windfall there even if he is found innocent.

If his family is tapped out where will the money for the second trial come from? What I'm hoping is that his attorney realizes the well has run dry and drops Lindsey as his client.

 

[BarryW]

Even if he is granted bail, SL is flat broke. Does his family have the means to assist him? Who will pay the attorney. This isn't going to be a few dollars. SL is arrogant, what if he skips bail.

You're right. He won't get his $150,000 to $175,000 job (as if) back. He was fired, and now that he's got a murder trial behind him, and another one ahead of him, he'd be lucky to get a min. wage job.

He might be able to couch surf with family, who'll feed him, that won't cost too much. But his legal bills, past/present/future has got to be a major problem.

And he still owes $6000 in back child support. Hmmm, wonder if that increased during the months he's been in jail? And he still has a legal issue attached to that.

And he won't have a good landlord reference (was going to be evicted, and created hell for his landlord, as it would be tough, I'd think, to re-rent the house after a murder). He won't have a good job reference.

In other words, he's a hot mess, all of his own doing.

He'd be best to stay in jail, 3 hots and a cot, for free.

 

[Mercurial]

Scr*w the jurors, we all know they are idiots, but what special brand of nincompoop for a judge **accepts** a so-called hung jury after one day of deliberating? Mushy brains.

I think the ex-wife will have compelling evidence of SL's unfitness for parenting and have his visitations restricted or terminated - if he was happy to take (presumably) illegal drugs AND have 5 shots in an evening with his daughter in the house.

Let's face it: he was the one in charge of her, alone, as it turns out.

 

[ArabianLover]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_b3c518af-0809-5672-a43b-4ff5d19d85b0.html

While those charged with murder are typically denied bond in Indiana pending the outcome of their case, defendants have the right to be tried within 180 days if they are behind bars -- minus any delays caused by the defense, he said. This was complied with for the first trial, he said, but is now an issue as a result of the hung jury.

This is really interesting. IMO, he's not getting out. (But I thought he'd be convicted too) I think the clock for his 180 days is reset and started over, just like the trial. They have to declare the trial "null & void" in a mistrial in order to move forward with the retrial. Otherwise they would be violating the "double jeopardy" clause. (provision of the 5th amendment which prohibits an individual from being tried twice for the same offense) So since the trial is "null & void" the clock on the 180 days has to start over too.

It can't be both ways. Right? You can't start counting the 180 days during a trial that legally "never happened". If this is right, he won't get out.

 

[molly1255]

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/...cle_b3c518af-0809-5672-a43b-4ff5d19d85b0.html

While those charged with murder are typically denied bond in Indiana pending the outcome of their case, defendants have the right to be tried within 180 days if they are behind bars -- minus any delays caused by the defense, he said. This was complied with for the first trial, he said, but is now an issue as a result of the hung jury.

This is really interesting. IMO, he's not getting out. (But I thought he'd be convicted too) I think the clock for his 180 days is reset and started over, just like the trial. They have to declare the trial "null & void" in a mistrial in order to move forward with the retrial. Otherwise they would be violating the "double jeopardy" clause. (provision of the 5th amendment which prohibits an individual from being tried twice for the same offense) So since the trial is "null & void" the clock on the 180 days has to start over too.

It can't be both ways. Right? You can't start counting the 180 days during a trial that legally "never happened". If this is right, he won't get out.

My thinking is the same. I don't think he is getting out, either.

 

[HistoryNut]

Since the prosecution wants a retrial, it is clear they are convinced SL is guilty and I am very relieved and grateful they did not give up on seeking justice for Melinda and her family and friends. I would be surprised if the judge unleashes SL back into society before the retrial. He has not been found innocent and he remains the ONLY suspect in the case.

 

[BarryW]

If I were the ex I would try to get him to sign away his rights to his son in exchange for dropping the child support claim and any right to financial support going forward - if that's even possible. Anything to keep him away.

I don't believe it is legal for the ex to sign away child support. The money is the child's (not for x-boxes, but for life's necessities and education). My understanding that any such arrangement could be fought in court, by the child, down the road.

Now, they possibly could have a quiet arrangement that Steve just not visit and she won't push for funds. But she can change her mind, and go after back $ if she found herself in dire financial straits. The deal would only be casual, and not supported by the law.

Anyway, that is how "I" understand it. It might change from state to state?

One way would be if the ex remarried, and her husband wanted to adopt the son. Then SL could be relieved of paying child support, and the new husband takes on that responsibility (even if they divorce). The child is entitled to support till 18 (I think 18...might be longer if he's in college).

Fact is, I don't think SL will ever be able to pay up his back child support or continue with current support (which will be at a much lower level if/when he's released). His earning days are gone in all likelihood. I feel bad for his family members who paid TONS of $ for his defense, and have to do it again if they want to attempt another try at freedom. Or he might get a court-appointed lawyer.

 

[BarryW]

Lordy this is weighing heavily on my mind. I've read in the news, numerous times, about a jury who can't reach a concensus. The judge sends them back to deliberations, sometimes more than once, to get them to become unanimous. This judge let them off after only 10 hours of deliberations.

Now, in this case, this might be good, as 7 were non-guilty, and 2 leaning that way. So if the 3 guilty's caved in under pressure, then Steve would likely not get his retrial at all (don't know the law, if it is unanimous CAN THEY RETRY????)

And then I begin to worry about "jury of peers"! Is it time that jury's go the way of the dodo bird? Would it perhaps be fairer to have panels of people pre-selected? Not sure what the criteria would be. Former felons NOT on the panel of course. A certain level of education (hoping for stronger critical thinkers). A general aptitude test. It's not perfect, but maybe it's better than the current system. Or eliminate juries all together, and have bench trials only?

A judge is a critical thinker. A judge has the intellect to discern BS from real evidence. A judge has the intellect to ask the right questions. A judge understands the law, and would know where to assign weight in the evidence. A judge would not buy the statement "if you do not know EXACTLY what happened that day, that is reasonable doubt". That is BS, and we all saw that right away. I'm thinking that some jurors took that statement to heart. I suppose, for fairness in certain trials, the result can be retried by another judge. No hung juries, ever.

(or course as a defendant you wouldn't want to get "the hanging judge")

 

[molly1255]

Lordy this is weighing heavily on my mind. I've read in the news, numerous times, about a jury who can't reach a concensus. The judge sends them back to deliberations, sometimes more than once, to get them to become unanimous. This judge let them off after only 10 hours of deliberations.


Now, in this case, this might be good, as 7 were non-guilty, and 2 leaning that way. So if the 3 guilty's caved in under pressure, then Steve would likely not get his retrial at all (don't know the law, if it is unanimous CAN THEY RETRY????)

And then I begin to worry about "jury of peers"! Is it time that jury's go the way of the dodo bird? Would it perhaps be fairer to have panels of people pre-selected? Not sure what the criteria would be. Former felons NOT on the panel of course. A certain level of education (hoping for stronger critical thinkers). A general aptitude test. It's not perfect, but maybe it's better than the current system. Or eliminate juries all together, and have bench trials only?

A judge is a critical thinker. A judge has the intellect to discern BS from real evidence. A judge has the intellect to ask the right questions. A judge understands the law, and would know where to assign weight in the evidence. A judge would not buy the statement "if you do not know EXACTLY what happened that day, that is reasonable doubt". That is BS, and we all saw that right away. I'm thinking that some jurors took that statement to heart. I suppose, for fairness in certain trials, the result can be retried by another judge. No hung juries, ever.

(or course as a defendant you wouldn't want to get "the hanging judge")

Barry - I am pretty sure there was a majority of 7 who voted guilty, 3 voted not guilty and 2 who were undecided leaning toward not guilty.

I agree with the "exactly" statement made by the defense attorney. I do feel that impacted the jury and the way they voted. No one but SL and Melinda knows "exactly" what happens. Melinda cannot tell us, and SL is not telling us.

 

[BarryW]

Barry - I am pretty sure there was a majority of 7 who voted guilty, 3 voted not guilty and 2 who were undecided leaning toward not guilty.

I agree with the "exactly" statement made by the defense attorney. I do feel that impacted the jury and the way they voted. No one but SL and Melinda knows "exactly" what happens. Melinda cannot tell us, and SL is not telling us.

I stand corrected on the numbers, I wrote them down incorrectly. Either way, the numbers weren't good. I wish I knew whether the judge, or the prosecutor, corrected the defenses error. It was a grave error, and did not deserve to stand uncorrected.

I wonder if any jurists googled SL after they got home after trial and found this site. If so, wonder if any of them might have voted differently. If they'd seen that the instructions by the defense were INCORRECT, they may have ruled differently. I do not believe we were privy to information they were not given (as is sometimes the case). But if they'd seen the strength of our collective agreement of "guilty as sin", well, I just wonder.