was mark, as clients could clearly tell. he just thought she was beautiful, wonderful, smart. never, never ever said anything bad about her, never. keith morrison: seemed to be in love. he was, he was totally, totally crazy about her. keith morrison: it wasn t his father, wally opdycke, who owned kiket island. mark and linda lived there on wally s island, and grew their very successful business together. and then in 2002, they made their union permanent, an intimate wedding ceremony in the presidential suite of the las vegas four seasons. wally opdycke: mark, welcome to the opdycke family. keith morrison: but maybe nothing is forever. it was just three years later when linda told the employees she was taking an extended vacation, alone. and that vacation kept extending and extending. and she just never came back.
oh, it s beautiful, it s a wonderful place. keith morrison: kiket island is what it s called. an 84-acre teardrop of primeval forest and meadows and beaches plunked a few feet offshore, a 90 minute commute north of seattle. the dogs could go swimming in the water there. there s plenty of trail walks and it s just really, really outdoorsy and beautiful. keith morrison: outdoorsy and beautiful are words which also happen to describe the human love of mark s life, linda opdycke, the willowy blonde daughter of wally opdycke, the wealthy investor who d once helped found chateau saint michele winery. linda s seemed a perfect match for mark, according to the clients and friends who knew him best. she was mark two. you know, i mean they were peas in a pod. they had similar hobbies, hunt and fish, you know, go camp somewhere, you know, that kind of stuff. he just thought she was the most wonderful thing since sliced bread basically. keith morrison: very protective of his linda,
yes. keith morrison: big time stuff. big time stuff, yeah. keith morrison: why did, was it, was an explanation provided for this? no. keith morrison: before police left linda opdycke s house here in winthrop, they arrested michael oakes on suspicion of murder. and back in western washington, a local buzz began to grow. if michael oakes did kill mark stover, was someone else involved somehow? buzz is discouraged, however, in police work, in favor of actual evidence, which in this case, arrived in a phone call to police from her. michael oakes, it turned out, had an ex-wife who volunteered a remarkable story about disturbing visits and puzzling messages from mr. oakes. what did that say to you? well, it says a lot to me. keith morrison: coming up. jennifer thompson: yeah, cause he just was sitting there, in a frenzy, just, just stressed out.
jennifer thompson: he told me that there was a potential job coming up that he was interested in taking about a woman and an ex-spouse that was harassing her. the father of the woman was initiating the job. keith morrison: a father with a daughter named linda. and it seems there was a plan in store for linda s ex-husband. jennifer thompson: and they would basically use linda as sort of bait to lure the ex-spouse toward her. and then they would, were to show signs of hurting her or killing her, then they would take him out. sheriff: ok, and by taking him out, you meant, or you understood that to be they would kill him. jennifer thompson: right. keith morrison: linda and her father? could that be wally and linda opdycke, the police wondered, mark stover s ex father-in-law and ex-wife plotting to kill him? it was a wild story jennifer told,
he has absolutely no plan. none. and if there s no plan afterwards, i think it leads you to the conclusion that there was no plan beforehand. keith morrison: really? here was the prosecutor s closing. i will say this. the more charitable view of motive would be that miss opdycke and mr. oakes, perhaps they really did fear for their safety for some reason. but the evidence doesn t support it. now, the less charitable view is that the defendant set out on a path of cold, calculated execution. was it because there were some feelings of revenge after this incredibly contentious divorce? was it to prove himself to miss opdycke for some reason? the fact is, we ll never know, because the defendant has taken all steps necessary to obscure the truth. and the deceit needs to stop now. thank you.