The prosecution in George Leniart’s trial for the murder of April Pennington rested today, after the judge permitted one of Leniart’s prior rape victims to testify. Usually the jury isn’t allowed to hear about previous crimes a defendant committed, but the assault on this woman was very similar to the way the prosecution thinks he killed April, so an exception was made because it was a “common scheme.”
I think the victim’s testimony may clinch this case. Let us see the similarities:
1. April and this woman (let’s just call her Jane Doe) were close in age — April was 15, and Jane Doe was 13.
2. Both of them were small and thin.
3. In both cases, they were introduced to Leniart by Patrick “PJ” Allain, one of the major witnesses against Leniart and himself a nasty slimeball.
4. Allain was Jane Doe’s boyfriend, and he says he and April had a sexual relationship, though he claims they weren’t boyfriend and girlfriend.
5. April met up with Leniart and Allain on the night of her (alleged) murder. Jane Doe was supposed to meet Allain that night, but he never showed up so she hung around with Leniart, drinking beer with him, until she tried to leave and then he attacked her.
6. Jane Doe was choked during the rape. The prosecution say Leniart strangled April.
7. After the rape, Leniart threatened to kill Jane Doe if she ran away. The fact that she ran away anyway may have saved her life. No one has seen April since May 29, 1996.
Yeah. Sounds like a “common scheme” to me.
Leniart was awaiting trial for Jane Doe’s rape when April disappeared. He subsequently served a lousy four years in prison for the rape, and went on to sexually assault a teenage boy in 2007. He was still in prison for that when he was charged with April’s homicide.
The Charley Project Blog 
Our justice system is so broken!! These people should never be allowed out of prision. 13 and 15, those are children!!
Right on Jerry!
People who rape children, especially if they do it more than once, should NEVER be let out of prison! What the hell is wrong with people who don’t see that?
I’ve previously mentioned in this blog that in my opinion, violent recidivist sexual predators should be branded or tattooed on their face so everyone who sees them knows exactly what they are up front.
Yes,,,, branded! I’ve wanted that too. It’s way too bad that we have to make sure his rights are not violated.
Are they blaming the victim in this case, does anyone know?
Not that I’ve seen so far. The defense has focused on attacking the other prosecution witnesses, the jailhouse snitches who are testifying in return for reduced sentences and such.
I suppose the defense probably thinks there is nothing to gain from badgering a poor woman who was raped when she was a child — she is testifying to what was already proved in court before, in any case. If I were Leniart’s attorney I wouldn’t even bother to cross-examine her.