Ok. That was confusing!! We didn't think Volland would be the judge then, there he was!! We are talking to attys, bondsmen,etc. to try and figure out where we are money-wise. We do know that the bail is $250,000 and can be cash, corporate or a combination of both. Be patient as we try to sort through all this and I will get back to everyone as soon as I can. Thanks, you guys got us here with all your positive vibes, your prayers and most of all your love. We ARE going to win this time and bring Mechele home. And you will all be invited to the BIGGEST party since the Saints won the Super Bowl!! My love and big hugs to each and everyone of you. I am interested in feedback from any of you that had the opportunity to watch the live feed.
Many big hugs,
Sandy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I don't have much to say, other than I hope she gets Justice! The media has construed many minds. There is no justice with Media around. I wish Volland wasn't on the case. Mechelle, my thoughts are with you, beyond a reasonable doubt!
I don't have much to say, other than I hope she gets Justice! The media has construed many minds. There is no justice with Media around. I wish Volland wasn't on the case. Mechelle, my thoughts are with you, beyond a reasonable doubt!
Amazing news, so happy for Mechele and her family and extended family - let me be bold and say extended family, being all of us around the world who support Mechele 1000%
The bail amount of $250,000 is being reported as $25,000 on a number of sites.
I'm glad you finally have a number; it must make things at least a bit easier knowing something definite instead of being left hanging.
All my best always to you, Mechele, and your family.
I happened upon the live feed. It was great to see Mechele. I felt pretty good about the whole hearing, really. Until the bail-amount. But it'll come together. You know it. :)
qbirdq, 10% of $250,000 I'm sure, unless she skips-- then it becomes the full amount. SO it is $25,000 to leave jail. Im sure someone will swiftly correct me if I'm wrong.
I watched every second. She looks gorgeous. The judge was very fair, almost nervous or something, but very fair.
I think he will be fine as the judge this time around.
The whole thing went very well, and he did NOT make her pay what the state wanted.
Sandy, I don't think you could have expected anything more. I couldnt tell anything about how she was feeling. She looked worn out.
Probably did not sleep.
I got a feeling you guys knew she'd be out on May 11??? Since you plan to go in a couple weeks and the hearing is that day? I BETCHA SHE WALKS THAT DAY! What do you think?
I'm in complete support of Mechele. I've taken a special interest in this case since I saw it on Snapped. Anything I can do to help please let me know.
Well, I only saw the last few minutes of the bail hearing, but from press accounts, I would say that Judge Phil comported himself with the reasoned judgment we would come to expect, from someone with his extensive capabilities and talent. Now, I dont want to comment directly on the bail terms, because that is something all parties negotiated, so it is not my place to comment on that, but given that I have had a tendency to criticize Judge Phil for many of the things that went on in the first trial, and some of my criticism was pretty darn harsh, it is then only fair, that I compliment him, on his reasoned judgment during the bail hearing, in discussing why the defedent is not a flight risk, and how the prosecutions case has materially changed, since the last trial, and how that impacted his decision, in setting bail, etc. Now, even if some dont necesarily agree on the bail terms, I think it is fair to say that Judge Phil comported himself well, he was open and candid, and he put his cards on the table in how he was curently viewing the case. Again, I have not seen a transcript, but from press accounts, it seems the Judge handled a very complex situation, quite well.
The comments of Judge Volland as reported in ADN and his bail decision appear to confirm the thought that I communicated to sandy some time ago regarding his remaining in charge of the case. Best for him to retry the case if possible.
He appears to be acting reasonably and his words are not those of a vindictive judge. His comments (as reported) re the possible inadmissability of the assumption of Mr Carlin's conviction given his death (and the subsequent striking out of his conviction), and the possible doubts about his son's willingness to co-operate in a new trial are most interesting. It then occurs to me that IF MR CARLIN'S GUILT CANNOT BE ASSUMED, THEN JUNIOR'S EVIDENCE LOSES MUCH OF ITS RELEVANCE ANYWAY.
The more I look at this the more hopeful I get regarding the final outcome.
I read that the cash requirement for bail is $25000. I hope that this is not insurmountable for the family.
My very best wishes
I knew Volland was the judge a LONG time ago and was wondering why the defense didn't ask for change of judge for bail.
State is stupid to retry and I would hope they change their mind.
You only have to come you with $25,000 cash to a bail bondsman, he then secures the rest of the $250,000.
She will be home soon.
Sorry, I have one more comment regarding the bail hearing.
As much as I praised Judge Phil for his reasoned analysis of the current situation, during the bail hearing, and his reminding everyone of the presumption of innocence, I have to once again take issue with Prosecutor Pat.
The things that emerge from this man's mouth, just astonish me. He said that the Phil should make the bail higher, because now that Mechele has experienced prison for 2 1/2 years, she has added incentive not to go back. Mr Gullufsen, are you stupid or something? Did someone drop you on your head when you were little? There are 10's of thousands of images of Mechele on the web, and videos of her on YouTube, where is she going to go Pat? the whole world knows who she is? Where is she going to run to Pat? Is she going to shave her head, and become a Hare Krishna? Jesus, get over yourself Pat.
You know she is not going to run. Just stop it. I realize your job is to be an aggressive prosecutor, but your reasoning Prosecutor Pat, is sometimes bordering on incoherent.
I have to assume the State is seriously reconsidering pursuing the trial a second time based on the change of circumstances.
I believe the Judge was trying to send a message to the prosecutor that the new case will have a far higher level of conduct and demands, thus if you can't reach them don't waste everyone's time.
My prediction is the State will drop the charges and this case will not see a second trial. Just my two cents...
Judge V thoughtfully explained he did not consider Mechele a flight risk this time, reminding the prosecution that she presented no problems while on bail in WA state; she'd already proven her reliability once. Also, she provided bail which accomplishes the same things as a third party (begging the ? why both were imposed).
Yet, after making those reasonable observations, he imposed a more restrictive situation than when she was thousands of miles away in Washington.
In WA there were no stipulations as to where she could go during the day or where she could sleep at night, as long as she was with one of her third parties, of whom she had several. She even went to work each day.
This time, Mechele is restricted to the Anchorage bowl, with only one third party in the entire state for long stretches when her family cannot be here, she is under house arrest, allowed only two outings a week for four hours each. She must be in her own apartment by 8:00 pm, seven nights a week.
In imposing more severe restrictions, Judge V allowed Gullufsen to put her third-party custodian under house-arrest herself so that she is unable to function in her own life. There is no provision for her own dctr appts, to take her dog to the vet or groomer, to take care of household duties, even grocery shopping, for personal errands, to take her husband to medical appts requiring her presence without them using one of Mechele's four hour weekly outings, and seven nights a week she is not allowed to sleep in her own home with her husband of almost 26 years. Monday-Friday, she and her husband will rarely see each other, and will only see each other during the days on weekends. There are no provisions for her third-party and Mechele to even take her third-party's dogs for a walk.
Gullufsen has thus far refused to compromise on allowing Mechele to sometimes sleep at her third- party's house so that she may sleep in her own home with her husband at least part of the time. Gullufsen stated "he needs to know where Mechele is every night." He does have both addresses and phone numbers for both, and Mechele must call her bail bondsman every day as well.
Her third party feels this is unreasonable, and as a responsible citizen who stepped forward to make the system work, Gullufsen is being intentionally unreasonable and she can see no reason for it other than either to be vindictive toward Mechele and a member of the public for whom he works as a public servant, or that he hopes her third-party will abandon her due to the stress, and she will be forced to go back to prison. Given this situation is so much more severe than the last, before Mechele proved her trustworthiness, what other explanation can there be?
If Judge V is going to continue to allow Prosecutor Pat to make the decisions and run the show much like he did Mechele's last trial, then I do not agree he should be her judge. Because while what he said in court was fair and reasonable, as judge he does not owe it to the prosecution to be unjust, unfair, or unreasonable, but thus far, Pat is still the one all parties are answering to, even when he does not offer logical, relevant, justifications for his refusals to compromise.
Thus far, Mechele's local third party has expressed no interest in abandoning her commitment to Mechele, but instead the opposite. Having the unnecessary vindictiveness extended to her as well merely for stepping-up has strengthened her resolve and she intends to seek her own legal counsel if necessary because the law does not provide the prosecution the authority to put third party custodians under house arrest, nor may the court; and to contact her representatives in government with a request for judiciary committee examination of this system by looking at her own involvement and what has happened to her for merely attempting to be a responsible citizen doing no one any harm but responsibly keeping the defendant where she belongs until her trial date.
Post a Comment