Colin's Introduction

Greetings Friends,

My name is Colin Linehan. I am the husband of Mechele Linehan. I have known Mechele for over 10 years and she is beloved to many. My audience for these postings is intended for those who are interested in lifting the veil of tabloid media and peering into a reality based on facts and understanding. The “reality” of the situation doesn’t include a made for television narrative concocted for maximum negative impact. Sorry. This narrative won’t make sensational headlines or sell newspapers. It, therefore, has no commercial value. The truth rarely does.

Before I proceed, it is necessary to make a focused disclaimer. This web-log site was not created by me. I had no input or involvement in its creation. This site was created by family friends who have peered into Mechele’s heart and spirit and have been impacted by her generous being. Mechele and I are blessed by a myriad of friends and we are lucky to count this blogspot’s creators among them.

As a side note, I must say that I admire the bravery and initiative of Kevin and Terri. Let me explain. I have read very little of the media coverage and even less of the malicious, anonymous comments made by ignorant individuals to the newspapers that have covered Mechele’s trial. Some people have pointed out the more absurd comments to humor me. They are indeed humorous to the extent that people can make claims about events they know nothing about. “I like to criticize things I don’t know about”. To me, that is funny. But, in truth, that is the direct fault of my family by choosing to not get involved with the media during the trial. So, there are no hard feelings from me. But for friends to voluntarily put themselves into an arena that invites mockery and ridicule is admirable.

Mechele and I have never wanted or sought out media attention from this tragedy. In fact, the opposite is true. We have turned down so many offers from producers of major television shows and editors of newspapers and periodicals looking to exploit Mechele’s peripheral association with the Leppink’s tragedy for ratings and sales. Yes, that is correct… “Peripheral”. I know what sentiments, from those convinced of Mechele’s guilt, will be provoked by using this phrasing. I am not naive. Contrary to the inference that I am a clueless husband blinded by love, the truth doesn’t lie within that categorization. These postings do not have the intention to defend myself. Anyone that knows me can tell you that the one adjective that doesn’t apply to me is “naive”. The purpose is to expose the readers to many facts and circumstances that have not been reported on and reveal the shallowness of the arguments made by the prosecution that were sold to the media and jury. You will indeed see that “justice is a game” and that the rules are flexible and often ignored.

The truth of the events and circumstances that surrounded the relationships of many people associated with Kent Leppink before his death have been revealed to the media, and thus to you, in an extremely incomplete and biased package. This is because our family decided not to participate in the process. From the trial standpoint, we felt we only had to challenge the assertions made by the prosecution and show that the narrative presented by the State had “more holes than Swiss cheese”. We decided not to focus on a “story” to explain the narrative of Mechele’s life and relationships at that time. This was a conscious decision based on the fact that the prosecution’s narrative contradicted itself and their witnesses were flawed, to say the least.

We have no regrets about this decision from a legal perspective. The fact of the matter, however, is that this case was decided using a method that relied on factors other than the strict legal constraints that are inherent in our system. This is a serious allegation, but the facts that I will give to support this assertion are hard to ignore. I will use the juror’s own words to show some of this. For example, one of the juror’s stated to a reporter that one factor in the reasoning of Mechele’s guilt was that the defense didn’t give the jurors a “story” about what happened. This alone is an incredibly scary statement that goes against the very grain of our justice system. The legal burden on Mechele was not to describe the events and what happened. The burden rested solely with the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mechele committed the crime she was accused of. The role of the jury was to presume Mechele innocent and leave the burden of proof on the State, not on Mechele. These were the rules of the “game” that we played. I will show with jury and witness statements that the burden was placed on Mechele to prove her innocence.

I will also describe events in the trial that were ignored by the media and by the jury that support my assertions. This will be done using quotes from the trial transcript and from statements made by witnesses, the prosecution team, and the jury itself. I will not rely on hearsay statements or extrapolations. My objective is to remain empiric in every instance. If I stray from that, I will make clear that the conclusion or interpretation is my own.

My ideal is to make available only the facts that are clear and unassailable. It is true that some of these facts have not been presented in the media and some were not allowed into the trial. I will discuss these in three different links: Media, Legal, and Personal. This is a work in progress and is just getting started. There will be many more posts and documents, including audio of police interrogations, to come. The empiric data will rest mainly in the “Legal” link. This is truly a work in process and needs to be cleared by legal counsel. So, id est, stay tuned.

For those of you interested in truth and not tabloid, I invite you to read my postings. Also, our family appreciates the support of the hundreds of people who have written and expressed their support and dismay. This “case” is far from over, and we will continue the fight.

Colin Linehan

“An' for each unharmful, gentle soul misplaced inside a jail
An' we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing.”

Bob Dylan, “Chimes of Freedom”

On a Personal Note (from Colin)

It is one thing for me to put myself in the media spotlight by appearing on two major network broadcasts. I am a man who is immune to any public ridicule or perceptions of being a stooge. I know myself too well to let any of that effect me. I am well grounded by a myriad of friends and family and by my own sense of self. I am not claiming to be “self-actualized” via Maslow’s hierarchy, but I am comfortable with myself. It is entirely another matter where my friends and family are involved.

The fact of the matter is that my wife is a convicted murderer. I obviously think that does not equal truth or justice. Anyone with a modicum of intellectual curiosity knows that there are guilty individuals proclaimed innocent and innocent individuals proclaimed guilty in our justice system. We played the game with a set of rules and the prosecution played the game with another. We lost. Fortunately, in our system, there are checks to balance that, and the “game” continues. My prayers focus on justice through the law. The appeal process for Mechele is the only game in my sight.

Anyone can throw any arrows, insults, and mockery towards me. I’m good. It really doesn’t bother me. Think of me as a dupe who is “under a spell” from my sorceress wife. More power to you. Just leave my daughter out of it. Mechele’s character and being has already been reduced to tatters by the process. She is, by the way, still standing strong with her head up and her optimism intact. Sorry, she is grounded as well. What I have a hard time with, however, are insults and mockery directed at our family and friends who support Mechele.

It, again, is one thing for me to flash my mug on a camera and ping answers back from national correspondents. It is an entirely different thing for dear friends to put their beings and insights into national media. I have no say in that. Everyone who has let themselves be interviewed on national television in support of Mechele has done so on their own volition. I can only sit back and appreciate their courage. God bless them. If you want to tweak me, I will let you in on a little secret. All you have to do is bash them. Nothing is more touching to me than their willingness to step in front of the lens of the national media and speak up for Mechele. They are not encouraged or orchestrated by myself, Mechele, or our legal counsel. It is an honorable undertaking to put yourself in the crosshairs for someone who you care about when it can only bring unwanted attention.

So here it is, in no particular order:

Thank you all who wrote letters in support of Mechele.

Thanks to Kevin Fitzgerald and his amazing family for everything they continue to do in support of Mechele and my family.

Thank you, Kevin and Terri, who are truly a blessing and brave beyond measure.

Thank you, Kristina for your incalculable courage to speak with NBC and CBS on behalf of Mechele.

Thank you, Honi for your enormous risk to open up yourself and family to ridicule for your support of Mechele and revelation of your (way) past occupation.

Thank you, Tina for your ability to stay honest and for courageously inviting ridicule to your family from the close-minded who still cling to the Puritanical Paradox.

Thank you, Denise for your selfless sacrifice to reveal truth at your own personal risk.

Thank you, Julie Thrasher for the courage to speak the truth and reveal an aspect of the realities of the American juror system.

Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Sheridan for your insight and fortitude.

Thanks to all I didn’t mention, who know who you are. Too many to list.

And to those who have supported Mechele with books that keep her bearings straight in a situation that lends itself to easily losing those bearings.

I noticed that at the end of the trial and during sentencing that the words “God” and “Christian” were used profusely by individuals wishing Mechele harm and misery. Of note, this is not God’s Justice. This is Man’s justice, and it is deeply flawed. Those of us who keep the faith and don’t wear it on our sleeves are the true people of faith, in my opinion. God bless you all. The process of Man’s justice is not over and you ALL are the true angels.

Much Love,

Colin

First Post Concerning Trial (2 witnesses)

This first post about legal and trial items will be low on substance and is intended more as a first volley. Many more postings will follow. This really is the reason I have decided to make any posts at all. There are too many issues raised during the trial that went unreported that are vital to understanding the process that led to an innocent woman being convicted of murder. Some of them you will find extremely surprising.

Again, I will rely on transcripts, quotes, and even audio to lay down an empiric framework. From that empiric framework, it will then be possible for me to make a clear argument based on facts. Any postings will have to be cleared through Mechele’s lawyers and some of what I plan to post already has been cleared. What I would like to do now is to talk about some facts surrounding witnesses that testified for the state. The quotes from the legal transcripts will be added in later and this will just be a brief opening. I plan on adding much more, but I would like to point out some of the dubious testimony from a few individuals.

To be clear, there were four character witnesses that the prosecution called to impugn Mechele’s character. These were the individuals that the prosecution relied on to paint Mechele as “evil”. As a legal team, it was decided not to bring any character witnesses during the trial. This was decided because the witnesses of the prosecution were, to us, so unreliable and full of contradictions. Also, Mechele’s character wasn’t a legal factor. She could have been a junkie with no scruples with the worst attitude and demeanor known to man, but that wouldn’t have mattered per the judge’s own instructions. The case wasn’t about who Mechele was, but about whether the state could prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the scant circumstantial evidence left no doubt that Mechele planned a murder.

The latter posts will examine that circumstantial evidence in great detail and point out the many contradictions that the prosecution has yet to explain. They will involve testimony, emails and allegations. Let me start, however, with a few of the character witnesses. There were four witnesses used by the prosecution to paint Mechele as “evil”, greedy beyond measure, and completely selfish. The witnesses are Scott Hilke, Laura Aspiotis, Brett Ridell, and John Carlin IV.

1. Laura Aspiotis:

a. Laura is in individual who worked at the Bush Company with Mechele. Laura claimed to be friends with Mechele and stated that she hung out with Mechele outside of work multiple times. Unfortunately, for her credibility, she contradicted herself on the stand and Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out the fact that in her previous interviews she stated she only went over to Mechele’s house a few times.

b. Mr. Fitzgerald also pointed out that her previous statements indicated that she was anything but a “friend” and that Mechele and her were not close. In fact, she previously stated that she didn’t like Mechele at all.

i. One of the reasons Laura stated that she didn’t like Mechele was that Mechele helped to get John Carlin IV inpatient psychiatric treatment. This was because John was missing school, doing drugs, and had a suicide attempt. Since Mechele cared for John IV like a son, she demanded that he get help. When Laura was asked on the stand whether she felt an individual that was doing drugs, missing school, and attempting suicide might need psychiatric care, her response was, “I don’t know”.

c. Miss Aspiotis was also the individual that stated Mechele had a fictional “hero” from the movie “The Last Seduction”. If you have time, you can read my letter to the judge where I explain my knowledge of Mechele’s admiration of the actress Linda Fiorentino. I sat in court, amazed, that the judge was even considering letting the jury watch this movie that had no relation to the crime that the prosecution alleged. In fact, its sole purpose for the prosecution was to tie Mechele to a fictional sociopath (more on that later).

i. The prosecution had Miss Aspiotis’s journals entered into court the day of her testimony. In them, she repeats her disdain for Mechele. More importantly, however, she has a very strange habit of recording all the movies she watches. She has it down to the date she watched them, the story, and then gives a little review.

1. “The Last Seduction” is indeed listed in her journal. However, it states she watched it alone with her husband.

d. The prosecution asked the jury if they could stay a little later so they could finish up their questioning. After all, Miss Aspiotis had to get back to the East Coast to take care of her autistic child and this ordeal had been a great hardship on her.

i. Miss Aspiotis spent the next two days in Anchorage getting drunk with certain members of the media.

e. One of the jurors mentioned that a factor in determining Mechele’s guilt was that Mechele was “staring daggers” at Ms. Aspiotis during her testimony.

i. Really… Wow.

2. Brett Ridell:

a. Mr. Ridell is a convicted child molester who was brought in to testify that Mechele had manipulated him and stolen her property.

i. The property in question was a big red truck. I can’t even remember the make, but I can remember that when I met Mechele she had a big red truck parked in front of her house. She explained to me that it wasn’t hers and that she was trying to get it back to its owner.

1. I remember multiple times she was on the phone trying to track down Brett so he could come and get his truck or pay for it to be shipped up to AK.

2. I know that having this truck was a big pain in the butt, and, on a selfish note, it was taking up a parking spot.

3. It is hard to contact someone to give back their property that they lent you when that person in incarcerated for molesting children.

b. Mr. Ridell also made statement during trial about his relationship with Mechele. Every one of those statements was contradicted by his own voice during a police interview that was played back to him by Mr. Fitzgerald (more on this later) during the trial.

More on the other two witnesses in future posts. I am actually kind of working under a deadline with these posts as I want to get them up before the NBC broadcast. I have been super busy with work at my clinic, work with the Army, medical issues at Hiland, and participation with the appellate case. More importantly, I have been busy with my two main jobs: Husband and Father. Many pots on the stove, but none are burning.

Thanks to all of you who have read these posts with an open mind and are interested in learning more. Because, folks, there is a lot more.

Colin Linehan

"48 Hours Mystery" and "Dateline NBC"

Mechele and I made the decision from the beginning of the discovery of the pending indictment that the facts of the case, State of Alaska vs. Mechele Linehan, belonged in the courtroom and not in the media. There were numerous fabrications that the prosecution leaked to the press in order to build their case (More on these in future posts). They went unanswered by us. Why wouldn’t we want to defend Mechele’s character and life and answer allegations as they came? For one, what does a media narrative have to do with the facts in the courtroom? Should not a legal case be decided on just the facts presented in the legal arena? Why escalate a legal battle by adding a media battle? To play that game would lead to more hurt and attention and detract from the tragedy of Kent Leppink’s death. Unfortunately we are past that.

As for the media, it is difficult for me to not insert opinion when discussing the facts. The irresponsibility of many who have reported on this case makes it difficult for me to not opine. I will discuss our interactions with CBS and NBC and their subsequent magazine broadcasts in this post. Of note, I have not watched the CBS program “48 Hours Mystery” episode about Kent Leppink’s death. I also don’t plan on watching the upcoming NBC “Dateline” episode.

I did, however, participate in both. It was an incredibly difficult thing to do. For one, I do not like television news in general. What can one learn from sound-bites and selective editing? In many cases the selective editing will lead to a bias that the producer’s have. Rarely is television news ever “Fair and Balanced”. So why participate?

I participated because, in part, these two magazine shows were going to air regardless. We felt it necessary, at this time, to at least attempt to point out many of the irresponsible inaccuracies presented by the prosecution as fact. But, this doesn’t matter legally at all, so why reverse course and open ourselves up to hypocrisy? That is a good question that is difficult to answer. Probably the best way to answer that is to reverse the question. If your beloved family member, be it your daughter, wife, or spouse, was vilified and portrayed as someone she is absolutely not, would you defend her? Would you open your home and life to some crappy television show that is the main outlet available to defend her? Well, we did. To a point. There is no mention of my daughter’s name and no pictures of her face. I had to fight like hell for that, and even then our participation hinged on the availability of the television crews to film part of our life. I limited that as much as possible. I was told by both organizations that this is a “must” for television because it is “visual”.

I have no illusions about what the networks are interested in first and foremost. That is ratings, which equal advertising revenue. The tabloid nature of the state’s narrative is manna for the network executives that they can use to excrete money. There is something, however, that I was unprepared for. Let me explain.

Those of you who watch these magazine shows will notice that Mechele participated with CBS but not NBC. Why was this? First of all, producers from both of these shows contacted us very soon after the indictment. Our family and lawyers actually developed a personal relationship with a reporter and producer from “48 Hours”. By the end of the trial, they had our trust. This is one instance where you can use the word “naive” to describe us and our legal team.

So, Mechele decided to be open to the idea about appearing on the CBS broadcast. Unfortunately for Mechele, she got blindsided. Remember, Mechele does not have unlimited phone usage. In fact, it is very limited. I told Mechele not to do anything with CBS without Kevin present. The producer, who I will not name out of my own twisted sense of honor, pleaded with our attorney to let Mechele appear. Mr. Kevin Fitzgerald, however, could not accompany Mechele in the timeline that CBS insisted was necessary. Kevin then made a very clear verbal agreement with an individual he trusted. The agreement made by the producer of “48 Hours” was that he would not ask Mechele anything pertaining to the case or her relationships with individuals involved in the case. This was clear and explicit.

CBS then showed up with their camera crew and told Mechele that Kevin said it was “OK” for her to talk with them if they didn’t ask about the case. Mechele, in her continuing regret, agreed. Needless to say, the correspondent for CBS peppered Mechele with many questions regarding the case and associated relationships. Mechele was defensive at many times and looked to the producer and cameraman for help. She, I am told, even told the crew to turn off the cameras when they wouldn’t let up.

Needless to say, the network decided to air those instances where Mechele was defensive and upset at the questioning. The questions that were not supposed to be present, on the word and honor of the CBS producer, surprised and upset her. She was alone and felt ambushed.

The reason Mechele considered appearing on “48 Hours” was, on assurances from people working for CBS that we trusted, that it would help counter the negative images of Mechele during and after the trial. We were told that they wanted to capture “the Mechele we know”, the one that was “completely opposite” of the portrayal “so far”. However, they used a tactic that is unsavory to me. You say to a person, we won’t ask you about X and Y, and then proceed to ask compassionate questions. Then, when the “subject’s” guard is down, you ask them about X and Y.

It is a tactic that does a few things. For one, you can get combative emotion from this. You can catch someone off guard and get them to be angry and upset. However, it works best if you trust the journalists that are using this tactic because the emotions will be rawer. It is why I told Mechele not to interview with anyone unless Kevin was present.

The breach of trust was not with me. It was breeched by CBS to a lawyer who had been nothing but open with the producer. Mr. Fitzgerald is a man of high honor, and a verbal agreement with a producer who had earned his trust was good enough for him. Mr. Fitzgerald, needless to say, was genuinely shook up at this. I think “disgusted” is the more appropriate term. In my opinion, it is example of when someone uses the positive traits of an individual against them for another purpose.

My complaint and critique of CBS is not with their questions to Mechele or is it with Mechele’s answers. You must remember that when your lawyer says to you that you should not answer certain questions, a person’s response might be to deny and obfuscate. My complaint comes with the tactics they used to put Mechele in that position. To many of us, we still take the words and vows of a person we trust as having implicit honor. That again is a minor critique because certain media will use whatever they can to get their desired story. Fair enough. But when you decide to air specific responses of an interview that paint an individual in an unfavorable light, it is important that your news organization doesn’t use verbal betrayal to obtain them. In other words, to have someone say they want the cameras turned off because of a question that wasn’t supposed to be asked, it is an ethical move to not air the footage of the person asking your organization to turn off the cameras.

One of the reasons we decided to cooperate with CBS was because of their history of journalistic integrity. Recently, I read about their nightly news program asking a presidential candidate a question and then editing a response to a different question as the answer to the question asked! Is that technique taught at the journalism departments at prestigious universities? I would guess, “No”.

In fairness, again, I have not seen the program. However, I have heard enough about it and their selective editing of Mechele, to make me sad. Also, in fairness, I understand that they did attempt to show that the evidence Mechele was convicted on was sparse and open for much interpretation.

Of note, and to the credit of CBS, their cameraman was also a journalist. He managed to track down an important witness that we were unable to contact prior to the trial. She was nowhere to be found. This cameraman, with a former FBI agent, managed to find the remote location where she was. Her name is Honi Martin and she is an incredible person. She knew Mechele when Mechele was up in Alaska and also knew Kent Leppink. She has incredible insight into the relationship and into who Mechele was at that time. Coincidently, it is the exact same Mechele that all her family and friends know too. It does not include a “spider queen” cartoon presented by the prosecution.

As another caveat, CBS decided to not air any of Ms. Martin’s interview and instead relied on a former co-worker of Mechele’s, who didn’t even hang out with Mechele, for a portrayal of someone who knew Mechele in the past. Her name is Tina, and she is incredibly gracious and caring. However, she had nothing to add of substance, other than to show that exotic dancers are human’s too and not monsters. So, CBS’s angle was to focus on Mechele’s occupation that she had for less than two years in Anchorage and where she wasn’t even working at the time of the death of Kent Leppink.

I don’t know what NBC will do with their interviews but the one thing they won’t do is manipulate Mechele’s image any more than it has already been. I can only hope that they portray substance over tabloid. But, as we all know, tabloid sells. I can also say that the producers and correspondent for NBC have been very gracious. I will, however, rely on friends and family who watch their program to inform me if it had any journalistic integrity or if it was a tabloid story for the ratings.

I never have wanted to be on television. I can think of a million things, off of the top of my head, which I would rather do. I felt compelled, on my honor, to defend my wife from irresponsible speculation based on flimsy circumstance. The only way to interpret the circumstantial evidence the prosecution used to infer guilt was to portray Mechele as “evil” and soulless. Again, if someone tried to do that to your loved one, what would you do?

Colin Linehan

The Olympian

This newspaper used to be called “The Daily Olympian”. When I was growing up in Olympia, it was referred to as “The Daily O”. Before I present a personal critique, let me share an anecdote.

I remember waking up early in 4^th grade and I went out to get the paper. Snow was everywhere. It was covering the driveway, the cars, the fauna, and the newspaper. The white was blinding even in the early morning sun. For those of you not familiar with the Puget Sound, this is rare sight. I wiped the snow off of the plastic covering of the hometown “community” newspaper, thrown at the doorstep from a “paperboy” in those days. The headline that day, taking up the majority of the “above the fold” portion, was “It’s Snowing!” I thought to myself, “Really?”.

My family arrived in Olympia in 1979 and there I remained until after high school. My father was a family physician who delivered hundreds of children in the area. I meet people all the time who let me know my father caught ‘em while they were leaving the comfort of their mother’s womb. He was old-school. He saw low income patients and insurance was an afterthought. When living out on some acreage in Boston Harbor (Yes, there is a strip of land in Olympia bordering the Puget Sound called Boston Harbor. Go figure.), my pop even took some chickens as payment once. We were part of the community. The population of Olympia, at that time, was just over 20,000. It was a small town.

I have always felt part of the community. I was overjoyed when the Army sent me back to the Puget Sound to fulfill my active duty commitment. I was home. We even bought a house in Olympia. Mechele immersed herself in the community with volunteer work, service at the local Catholic Church, and neighborly good will.

Let me now explain how this “community” paper acted when my wife was indicted. The day of the indictment they sent a photographer to take a picture of our home. The picture ended up taking up most of the front page with the obligatory mention of “stripper” permeating their story. I have written previously what I think of basing the media narrative on Mechele’s work as an exotic dancer during a short period of her life. It is inane. But, it does indeed sale newspapers. My home, where my daughter lives, however, is not a story.

The Olympian also sent some journalists to my daughter’s school to ask questions of staff who knew Mechele. My daughter actually remembers the commotion to this day. One journalist tried to contact us on multiple occasions. I have nothing against the guy personally, but his dealings with our personal space leave something to be desired. When he first contacted us, on our home phone, we were very gracious and let him know that any communication must first go through our lawyers. We informed him that our lawyers would then relay his requests to us and we would go from there. He didn’t seem to get it. Multiple times he would call our home and ask to speak with us. I have them all recorded. It is crazy to me that a journalist, who really wanted to communicate with us, would ignore our simple request. He even called as recently as two months ago, without contacting our lawyers first. Why would they do that? What are the responsibilities of a "community" newspaper?

Colin Linehan