Friday, December 4, 2009

Bmialone said...
Colin,I attended the hearing today. Mechele's lawyer did a good job. He was respectful, specific, informative, and logical.The lack of substance in the prosecuting attorney's arguments was shocking; shocking in that she produced nothing of substance so how could Mechele's life (and yours) been blown apart so easily?In fact, she actually said it all came down to only one thing, "interpretation." She was referring to the circumstantial evidence, admitting that is "only" what they had, and that it all came down to one's interpretation of that circumstantial evidence. It is stunning, surreal, how authorities could take a citizen, charge her, put her on trial, take her freedom for what amounts to the rest of her life, on nothing more than what the prosecutor's attorney herself admitted was only circumstantial evidence, and then because that is all they had, it all came down to interpretation of it. She said it as justification and as acceptable!How long can it take the judges to reach a decision?I'm sorry you spent your time and energy chasing planes.
December 3, 2009 9:50 PM


Thank you...

Very well articulated.


Circumstance needs to be interpretated. If you have a prosecution that will, and can, take the circumstance and interpret it to meet their narrative... you have guilt of whoever they want to target per their narrative. If... If the jury takes this narrative as absolute.

The key is to get the jury to believe this narrative is fact. And it sure helps if all the media available to citizens (and thus jury) parrots this narrative.

Listen... The jurors follow the media narrative regardless of juror instructions. This is fact.

Regardless of all the holes poked into the narrative in the trial... The trial itself becomes secondary to the headlines.

10 comments:

Turtlepace said...

If the legal system allows "interpretation" to make something circumstantial evidence, any of us could be convicted of anything. Circumstantial evidence should not leave room for assumptions. The conclusions from circumstantial evidence should be self-evident or else it proves nothing.

Bedside Detective said...

I wanted to let you know that I have adamently been following Mechele's case and firmly believe in her innocence. The prosecution and judge's handling of her entire trial was and is a disgrace to the justice system. It truly frightens me how many failures and inconsistencies occur everyday in this system. I wanted to share my blog with you which I linked to this site in hopes that it will help bring more positive reinforcement to your case. I hope you don't mind.

http://bedsidedetective.blogspot.com/2009/12/inconsistencies-mary-winkler-and.html

All my best thoughts are with your family and Mechele at this time.

AquaSam24 said...

They re-aired the "Snapped" episode on Mechele last night, and I have to say, it's essentially the only one of those shows I've ever seen where I walked away saying "I don't know how they got a guilty verdict out of that." There wasn't any hard evidence at all, and you had to "interpret" pretty hard to make the circumstantial evidence say anything at all, much less enough to send someone away for 99 years.

Best of luck to all of you in the appeal. And I think it's very touching that you're standing by your wife when a lot of people would be tempted not to.

lizzaliasbeth said...

I just want to say that I think it is unbelievable that 12 people watched and listened to the same case I did and came to a guilty conclusion. They obviousley weren't being objective or paying attention. I think that they were judging Mechele on her past, that is just awful you can't tell me that none of them have skeletons in their closet that they don't want coming out or coming back to haunt them.
Please know that I will be praying that Mechele gets her appeal, wins her case and gets to go home to her family real soon. God Bless,Lizz

Terri said...

Thank you for your support, Everyone. We all really appreciate it.

Bmialone said...

At the appeal hearing, for every question the prosecutor's attorney asked, as if there were only One answer and that answer was her "interpretation," I immediately thought of much more logical and obvious answers based upon the actual facts and the people involved.

In arguing for why Kent Leppink's letter should have been allowed, one thing she repeated multiple times was something like, Why would Mr. Leppink write these things if he wasn't heart broken and in fear for his life? What other reason other than Mechele Linehan's cold hearted ruthlessness Could there be for him to be in this mental state?

She argued if that was his state of mind at the time, the jury needed to know and the prosecution did not introduce it as evidence Kent Leppink was Accusing Mechele of being his killer, but just to show his state of mind, because of what Mechele Linehan had driven him to, and that he was "only telling his parents to call the police and have them question Mechele Linehan if he was killed."

That entire argument was so disingenuous I am shocked that our system actually works that way; that it stoops so low that such frivolous statements can be made in a court of law in front of a state's highest justices! And they all keep a straight face!

Of COURSE the jury heard it as Kent accusing Mechele and John Carlin of killing him! That letter didn't say, Oh, and if I am murdered, I would like you to call the police and have them question Mechele (which is how the prosecutor's attorney was describing Kent's intention and instruction). It was after he'd stolen her ID, passport, social security card and mailed it all to his parents and the letter said to take her down and be sure she burns!

Bmialone said...

As for why shouldn't the letter be evidence of truth even though the writer is not alive to evaluate, or to be questioned about it, let alone be cross examined? Well, how about because Kent Leppink was mentally unhinged?

Kent Leppink had a history of embezzlement. The authorities have evidence showing that he stole private papers/belongings from Mechele and Scott Hilke; that he stalked them all the way to another state and broke into Scott Hilke's car; and that he stalked Mechele in Alaska.

They know he wrote that irrational, intense letter. (Take her down, make sure she burns, and I wouldn't be doing this if she had married me. That isn't rational.)

The authorities know they had zero evidence of any threats or threatening behaviors against Leppink when he wrote the letter. They know he mailed it as well as Mechele's private papers with instructions not to open it unless he was killed, which again, is not rational.

They know Mechele called to cancel the insurance policy and that she called the insurance company to verify its cancellation, but for some reason, it was still in effect when he was killed, which doesn't make sense unless he lied to Mechele about his intention to cancel.

They know, according to his letter, that he put himself in a position he claimed to believe he thought was dangerous to his life. Rational people do not do that.

They know he was one of those sad sacks hanging out as "a regular " in a strip club and that he befriended a girl 13 years younger than he.

Any self-respecting psychologist knows all of those pieces of information add up to a mentally disturbed person, an unbalanced person. Since when is the written raving of a such a person, one that cannot be evaluated for mental health and cannot be cross examined, taken as the gospel truth and used to take away the freedom of another, destroying their life and ripping apart the lives of their loved ones? Did that attorney really believe Everyone listening to her was that stupid? That No one can see the glaring flaws in her argument and that there are much more obvious, realistic, and logical answers to her questions?

As I listened to her weak, even silly arguments, I wondered how she can look herself in the mirror and how she can sleep at night knowing she stood there and made those statements as her justification for what she was attempting to do to Mechele Linehan, which was to prevent her from having an opportunity for an appeal.

mauriece m, boles said...

Hello everyone! I just want to wish the best for you Mechele & your wonderful supportive family.In my heart I feel that things will turn out well for you Mechele & I think you will be exonorated! The only thing is,the waiting out the rediculous legal process... Your Friend,Mauriece B.

LaouidaMajorsDunn'sBlogger said...

Would You let Me do some Internet Investigational work to free Mechele? I am wanting to help get her out. I have followed this case since day 1 & I have always said she was set up & did not do this! I have seen Mechele 3 times & not one time she looked notorious as the media put her. She is the nicest Person I have ever met in My life & has lots of respect for all People regardless if they liked her or not, Mechele still smiled & never was ever mean or did not have a mean heart.

Does Anyone want to help Me with Investigational work on the Internet? I want to Prove Mechele did not commit this murder! Let Me know! I want to do multiple search engines on the Leppink Family or Friends of the Leppink is talking bad about Mechele on Blogs or etc...Even to find the real killer out there! ANYONE UP TO HELPING ME?

Bmialone said...

@LaouidaMajorsDunn'sBlogger:

One piece of info I'm looking for is contact information, a mailing address, for journalist John Dougherty, who wrote for the Phoenix New Times until sometime in 2006. Mr. Dougherty is an award winning journalist who regularly braved Maricopa County's crooked sheriff to expose him and he wrote the expose' that finally embarrassed the state of AZ into doing something about the theft of state dollars and abuse of young girls in Colorado City. I've thought he would be a good person to approach about this case to try and interest him in investigating it, but he left the New Times to "find his new muse and project" and I do not know where he can be reached anymore. Do you know how to track people like that down?