GUILTY IN - Melinda Lindsey, 23, shot to death, Porter County, 16 Jan 2015 - #3

[molly1255]

Here's a link to an interesting article I somehow missed. http://www.chicagotribune.com/subur...dsey-trial-wrapup-st-0316-20160315-story.html

Based on the Johnny Cochran-style tactics the defense used, I can only imagine the line of questioning the witnesses had to endure.

Thank you for posting the link to this article. I missed it, too. Very interesting what this reporter had to say about the kind of drama the defense employed during the trial.

It is reminiscent of Johnny Cochran, Barry Scheck, F. Lee Bailey and company during the OJ trial as they made issues out of things that had nothing to do with the crime that was committed. I am so glad these kind of tactics didn't befuddle this jury.

 

[cardinalgirl]

I still wonder if, now that they have a conviction for Lindsey, they might be working on building that conspiracy case against his brother.

 

[skinnycat]

I still wonder if, now that they have a conviction for Lindsey, they might be working on building that conspiracy case against his brother.

I've been wondering this as well.

The SIL I think if I was her, I'd be really concerned for my own safety, unless she was in on the stocking as well.

I do hope that the police find enough evidence to prosecute anyone that was involved in terrorizing Melinda, she didn't deserve that.

 

[Kerfuffles]

Hello everyone, I am new to this site!

I recently learned of Melinda Lindsey's murder and Steven Lindsey's guilty conviction and was directored towards Websleuths to read up on the rest of the court case. Over the last several days I have read all three forum threads and almost all of the articles linked from Chicago Tribune and the local IN paper (until my free trial grace periods were used up).

I signed up for this site because I had a theory on why the front door was left unlocked (something unfathomable to me as I grew up in a household obsessed with security, so our doors were always latched and secured):

what if ML DID secure the doors before going to bed, but the doors were then unlatched by SL to make the discovery of her body by a third party (potentially her girlfriends coming over to meet for brunch) and the baby more likely? Maybe he had planned to NOT be at the scene of the crime when she was discovered (but something happened so he had to improvise), so he wanted to make sure someone would be able to enter the home to discover the baby (who would need to be in the house to not raise suspicion, since she was supposed to go out to brunch that morning with ML and friends) that way the baby would not be left unattended for an extended period of time, like, say, while waiting for a warrant to be granted to search the premises if suspicion arose that ML did not anwser the door or her friends' texts when her car was still parked in the driveway, or to prevent her friends from simply leaving her home and discovering the staged scene/baby when ML did not come to the door if the doors were left locked.

 

[Kerfuffles]

Oops. I think I may have deleted this post in attempts to edit. What I meant to add, was as I was signing up on this site to make my initial post, my husband unknowingly chose Cabin in The Woods as the movie to watch (chills. I didn't have the heart to tell him it was the same SL watched that awful morning.) So I just now viewed that movie with SL's motives in mind.

 

[Kerfuffles]

Gah. I guess I did delete my intended second post (couldn't copy it in the edit page, accidentally hit delete post. Sorry.)

What I asked was if we knew if the movie playing (Cabin In The Woods) was infact on DVD? Or streaming? Or playing on cable? Was there a loop/repeat option?

I also was theorizing if he chose that movie with the intention of psyching himself up for the "sacrifice" of his innocent wife "for the greater good of mankind" (I.e. HIM.), as this is the overall theme of that movie? (Sacrificing the college kids to save all of humanity.)

Was he studying how the actors portrayed the characters believably reacting to the killing/maiming of their loved ones during a violent assault like human beings? (If this was his intention, FAIL.)

Was he desensitizing himself to the blood and gore he was about to inflict in real life on Melinda? ("Its all just special F/X! Its not real! Its NOT real!!!!")

Or was he just popping in background noise for during cooking breakfast/feeding the baby? Waiting for Melinda to die?

 

[Toralei]

Gah. I guess I did delete my intended second post (couldn't copy it in the edit page, accidentally hit delete post. Sorry.)

What I asked was if we knew if the movie playing (Cabin In The Woods) was infact on DVD? Or streaming? Or playing on cable? Was there a loop/repeat option?

I also was theorizing if he chose that movie with the intention of psyching himself up for the "sacrifice" of his innocent wife "for the greater good of mankind" (I.e. HIM.), as this is the overall theme of that movie? (Sacrificing the college kids to save all of humanity.)

Was he studying how the actors portrayed the characters believably reacting to the killing/maiming of their loved ones during a violent assault like human beings? (If this was his intention, FAIL.)

Was he desensitizing himself to the blood and gore he was about to inflict in real life on Melinda? ("Its all just special F/X! Its not real! Its NOT real!!!!")

Or was he just popping in background noise for during cooking breakfast/feeding the baby? Waiting for Melinda to die?

I think that it was just coincidence with the choice of movie. SL doesn't appear to be that cunning.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Set her soul free]

Hello everyone, I am new to this site!

I recently learned of Melinda Lindsey's murder and Steven Lindsey's guilty conviction and was directored towards Websleuths to read up on the rest of the court case. Over the last several days I have read all three forum threads and almost all of the articles linked from Chicago Tribune and the local IN paper (until my free trial grace periods were used up).

I signed up for this site because I had a theory on why the front door was left unlocked (something unfathomable to me as I grew up in a household obsessed with security, so our doors were always latched and secured):

what if ML DID secure the doors before going to bed, but the doors were then unlatched by SL to make the discovery of her body by a third party (potentially her girlfriends coming over to meet for brunch) and the baby more likely? Maybe he had planned to NOT be at the scene of the crime when she was discovered (but something happened so he had to improvise), so he wanted to make sure someone would be able to enter the home to discover the baby (who would need to be in the house to not raise suspicion, since she was supposed to go out to brunch that morning with ML and friends) that way the baby would not be left unattended for an extended period of time, like, say, while waiting for a warrant to be granted to search the premises if suspicion arose that ML did not anwser the door or her friends' texts when her car was still parked in the driveway, or to prevent her friends from simply leaving her home and discovering the staged scene/baby when ML did not come to the door if the doors were left locked.

This was actually brought up as a "this is kinda what we think was meant to happen" "I honestly believe that you were suppose to find her & babygirl both dead, but something happened and his plan fell through"

 

[Kerfuffles]

Just awful.

 

[molly1255]

This was actually brought up as a "this is kinda what we think was meant to happen" "I honestly believe that you were suppose to find her & babygirl both dead, but something happened and his plan fell through"

This was actually brought up as a "this is kinda what we think was meant to happen" "I honestly believe that you were suppose to find her & babygirl both dead, but something happened and his plan fell through"

Set her soul free - I think that this is what he originally intended to happen, too, and something went awry that caused him to change his story and place himself in the home when the crime was committed. My thoughts are that perhaps the gun jammed and when he realized Melinda was still alive, he went into a panic and was worried she might live and be able to talk to the police, so he changed his story.

It appears to me that he very carefully planned Melinda's murder, from setting up the life insurance (or so he thought) to making police reports on the "stalker", to trying to establish he had been staying at his brother's house in recent weeks, to leaving behind no forensic evidence that he was the shooter. I think a lot of effort and planning went into this and it blew up in his face when whatever went awry with the plan, went awry.

I also think if the original plan had worked, you would have had to live through the additional and horrific trauma of finding your dear friend. And possibly the baby, too. I also think that getting a conviction of SL would have been more difficult if he had been able to say he was elsewhere (perhaps staying at his brother's house) when the crime was committed. I'm not sure if anyone from the jury has spoken, but my guess is what left them with no reasonable doubts about his guilt had a lot to do with the fact that his statements about being choked out and dragged into the baby's room did not match the evidence at the scene.

It is very likely he will never say what really happened, leaving everyone to speculate about certain details. But one thing we probably don't need to speculate about is how truly horrible life will be for him in prison. Even before he murdered Melinda, SL flagrantly broke rules, even when he had to know that breaking certain rules would bring about very serious consequences. He lost a spouse, a job, and was in trouble with the court over failure to honor his child support obligations. In prison, he will be required to follow rules every single minute of every single day. He is going in as a convicted murderer and as such, no one is going to coddle him. He breaks the rules in there, he is going to face some very serious consequences.

 

[Toralei]

Set her soul free - I think that this is what he originally intended to happen, too, and something went awry that caused him to change his story and place himself in the home when the crime was committed. My thoughts are that perhaps the gun jammed and when he realized Melinda was still alive, he went into a panic and was worried she might live and be able to talk to the police, so he changed his story.

It appears to me that he very carefully planned Melinda's murder, from setting up the life insurance (or so he thought) to making police reports on the "stalker", to trying to establish he had been staying at his brother's house in recent weeks, to leaving behind no forensic evidence that he was the shooter. I think a lot of effort and planning went into this and it blew up in his face when whatever went awry with the plan, went awry.

I also think if the original plan had worked, you would have had to live through the additional and horrific trauma of finding your dear friend. And possibly the baby, too. I also think that getting a conviction of SL would have been more difficult if he had been able to say he was elsewhere (perhaps staying at his brother's house) when the crime was committed. I'm not sure if anyone from the jury has spoken, but my guess is what left them with no reasonable doubts about his guilt had a lot to do with the fact that his statements about being choked out and dragged into the baby's room did not match the evidence at the scene.

It is very likely he will never say what really happened, leaving everyone to speculate about certain details. But one thing we probably don't need to speculate about is how truly horrible life will be for him in prison. Even before he murdered Melinda, SL flagrantly broke rules, even when he had to know that breaking certain rules would bring about very serious consequences. He lost a spouse, a job, and was in trouble with the court over failure to honor his child support obligations. In prison, he will be required to follow rules every single minute of every single day. He is going in as a convicted murderer and as such, no one is going to coddle him. He breaks the rules in there, he is going to face some very serious consequences.

I agree 100%.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Toralei]

When is his sentencing again?

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

 

[starryfive]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/news/ct-ptb-lindsey-guilty-verdict-st-0312-20160311-story.html

Porter Superior Judge William Alexa has set April 8 as the sentencing date. Lindsey faces 45 to 65 years in prison.

 

[Toralei]

Ok thanks

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[HistoryNut]

In the meantime, MetLife has asked a federal judge to void the policy. http://www.chicagotribune.com/subur...ey-life-insurance-st-0318-20160317-story.html

 

[Toralei]

That's too bad in a way. It would have been nice if baby girl had received the benefits.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[HistoryNut]

I think a very strong argument can be made that the policy was the reason for Melinda's murder. The jury found SL guilty and it has been established that the policy was his motive. If MetLife would have done due diligence up front, the application would have been declined and Melinda may still be alive today.

 

[Toralei]

I think a very strong argument can be made that the policy was the reason for Melinda's murder. The jury found SL guilty and it has been established that the policy was his motive. If MetLife would have done due diligence up front, the application would have been declined and Melinda may still be alive today.

I agree. Agents are paid by commission and some life insurance policies pay up to 70% commission up front. So if their annual premium was 2000 the agent stood to make at least 1000 just from that sale. They should be held accountable.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[molly1255]

I agree. Agents are paid by commission and some life insurance policies pay up to 70% commission up front. So if their annual premium was 2000 the agent stood to make at least 1000 just from that sale. They should be held accountable.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I don't think an agent or commissions were involved. It sounds like MetLife has a customer service center where people can call in and get quotes and make application - direct. I do think SL did his homework on how to buy life insurance direct to avoid having an agent meet with them and ask too many questions and to make observations. I also think that had an agent met with them directly, they would have seen that something was very amiss at the Lindsey house and this would have been reported to MetLife.

I hope and pray that the judge does not honor MetLife's request to void the policy. MetLife wants it voided because of misrepresentations that were made on the application. If Melinda herself made a misrepresentation, she may not have even understood the questions being asked. She was also operating under extreme duress from her very volatile husband, who she said (and it is on audiotape) was "hounding" her to buy the policy. It is abundantly clear that Melinda had absolutely no clue she was being set up for murder and was just trying to keep the peace with her husband by buying the policy.

There's a long, long history of people being set up for murder with the purchase of life insurance and life insurance companies certainly know this and most have first-hand experience with this. Yet they continue to practice "post-claim" underwriting and only verify the answers on applications after the death has occurred, if the death happens during the contestable period. This allows them to deny the benefits by rescinding the policy due to misrepresentation.

IMO, when life insurance companies practice post-claim underwriting they are knowingly setting themselves up for potential insurance fraud and they are are ALSO putting innocent people's lives at risk and what happened to Melinda is a perfect example of that. I hope the judge does not allow MetLife to void this contract. IMO, Melinda might still be alive if this policy had never been issued.

 

[BarryW]

Interesting thought.

I believe Met has stated there were two misrepresentations in the application. One was that Steve was said to have a $2M policy, and he did not. What was the other misrepresentation (nice way to say "lie").

I don't know the legalities of "after-the-fact" underwriting, but it certainly worth looking into this. They are happy to collect the premiums, so if there is ANY reason why the policy should never have been written up, then they should know ahead of time (except in cases where the policy owner perpetrated a clever fraud which might not have been so easy to have uncovered by the insurance company).