CONVICTION OVERTURNED AK - Kent Leppink, 36, murdered, Hope, 2 May 1996

So does Mechele actually claim that Kent asked her to participate in a decoy relationship for the benefit of his family? If not, who is it that concocted the idea to begin with? If so, did she ever mention it to anyone else back then?
 
Mechele mentioned Kent wanting to pretend she was his fiancee in the first interview. (Audio at www.adn.com/linehan) In that interview she said she wasn't sure if Kent was homosexual or bisexual. It doesn't really matter since proving John's motive to be protecting his son from Kent's alleged molestation won't be the strategy of Mechele's new trial.
 
ReaderSpeak is a commenter, but not a random commenter. He contributed a lot of comments and knew Kent personally. This reference to pretty eyes does not prove they were homosexual, but it does show why Mechele would be confused about what relationships Kent had. I believe her that she thought Kent needed somebody to make his parents believe he had a normal relationship with a girl. Of course that leaves it a mystery why Kent was so obsessive about her if he were homosexual.

The defense of the first trial was limited by the rule that her lawyers could not introduce evidence that contradicted the conviction of John Carlin. That meant that they had to use evidence that would suggest that John's motive was his own and not hers. This is why they tried to prove that Kent was homosexual and that John's motive was protecting his son from sexual advances by Kent. Since John's conviction has been lifted, the prosecutor cannot rely on the assumption that John is the killer Mechele conspired with. He can try to prove that John did kill Kent, but Mechele's defense can present evidence that John did not kill Kent.

I do not know why John's lawyer did not present evidence that John could not have been at the murder scene. She just didn't do it. I'm not a lawyer to know the code for the law that hamstrung Mechele's defense from contradicting John's conviction in her first trial, but I have already quoted a ADNews article explaining that the prosecutor cannot rely on that assumption this go-around.

So we're supposed to believe that Kent was gay but he spent his free time in strip clubs? How does that add up?

Other than the accused murderer, is there any link or information supporting this claim? It seems really farfetched.
 
Mechele mentioned Kent wanting to pretend she was his fiancee in the first interview. (Audio at www.adn.com/linehan) In that interview she said she wasn't sure if Kent was homosexual or bisexual. It doesn't really matter since proving John's motive to be protecting his son from Kent's alleged molestation won't be the strategy of Mechele's new trial.


I agree with you there, I think they would do well to leave that all out. I agree as you said in an earlier post that he WAS obsessive about her marrying him but I do not believe he was homosexual, I believe he was unusually fixated with her. - in my granted somewhat limited experience someone trying to marry for coverup would try to marry another gay person, that way they both understand and are both sorted.

I'm not gonna comment on any dirty tricks her defense played, I never like the dirty tricks but I recognise that they pretty much all do it. that's partly why I say I do not like any defense than depends on blaming the victim, in this particular instance, that carlin was "protecting" his son. I dont believe that at all. it seems to me that linehan jumped on that bandwagon partially to explain how she NEVER intended to marry leppink, but while I agree she never intended to marry him, it was because she was stringing him along, which is an awful dirty trick, not because he was gay.

but to me, this crime is motiveless as far as I can fathom, if it was linehan (and I know you know that I believe it was her & carlin) then WHY? I dont think it was the money (insurance), I truly dont. I know there doesnt have to be a why but people do my head in sometimes.

I'd desperately love to know the flights and that in detail. too damn bad no one had cell phones then much so we'd have the pings too.
 
It doesn't matter whether the strategy of the defense of the first trial "adds up" or not. Mechele's lawyers won't try to prove that Kent was gay in the second trial anyhow. Since the prosecutor cannot assume John's conviction in the second trial, the defense will not have to limit the defense to proving John's motive excluded Mechele and that John was on his own in allegedly killing Kent. The defense won't have to try to prove that John killed Kent to stop Kent's alleged molestation of John's son.
 
It doesn't matter whether the strategy of the defense of the first trial "adds up" or not. Mechele's lawyers won't try to prove that Kent was gay in the second trial anyhow. Since the prosecutor cannot assume John's conviction in the second trial, the defense will not have to limit the defense to proving John's motive excluded Mechele and that John was on his own in allegedly killing Kent. The defense won't have to try to prove that John killed Kent to stop Kent's alleged molestation of John's son.

Clearly it didn't add up ... that's why she was convicted.
 
Mechele mentioned Kent wanting to pretend she was his fiancee in the first interview. (Audio at www.adn.com/linehan) In that interview she said she wasn't sure if Kent was homosexual or bisexual. It doesn't really matter since proving John's motive to be protecting his son from Kent's alleged molestation won't be the strategy of Mechele's new trial.


Ah yes the "conventional marriage" interview, where Mechele seems quite tongue-tied trying to explain her engagement to Kent. Yeah, I'm with otto and 2goldfish--considering the source...

So what will be the strategy in Mechele's new trial?

As for motive, while the money appears obvious, Kent's body was found in such a rural area that it may have never been found, making it difficult for Mechele to cash it in. Perhaps the money played no part in the motive, but was just the cherry.

I'm wondering what all Kent knew about Mechele and her activities, or even what Mechele perceived Kent knew about her and her activities...I think his letter may have mentioned something about her possibly being guilty of fraud.

It's been stated (in the Rosen book) that when police came to talk to Carlin and Mechele, they found them at the house in Wasilla, where apparently they were going through Kent's personal belongings. We know in the ALL CAPS letter that Mechele seemed to take issue with Kent keeping personal belongings in a shed. Additionally, Kent apparently accused her of stealing some furnishings from him at on point. Also, Hilke accuses Mechele of stealing two items from him, although it sounds like they had more sentimental than financial value (which makes one wonder if she was just being cruel stealing them from him...assuming that's true). Mechele also sent Kent's computer to her sister very shortly after the murder, so I've always wondered if there was more on there for her to worry about than the damning emails.

When it comes right down to it, though, motive is in the eye of the beholder.
 
I know that Kent's letter makes unsubstantiated accusations of fraud. Are there any links confirming this fraud? Even if these accusations of fraud had more validity than smears in spite for her not marrying him, how would they be motive for murder? Isn't this just pleading up the accusations?

By the way, if you're going to refer to Kent's letter, where is the link that shows the original of that letter in its entirety? The parts that the prosecutor released do not mention the fraud accusations.
 
I thought the police found John and Mechele going through Kent's car to retrieve belongings Kent had taken from them. Is there a link for verifying which it was?
 
I know that Kent's letter makes unsubstantiated accusations of fraud. Are there any links confirming this fraud? Even if these accusations of fraud had more validity than smears in spite for her not marrying him, how would they be motive for murder? Isn't this just pleading up the accusations?

By the way, if you're going to refer to Kent's letter, where is the link that shows the original of that letter in its entirety? The parts that the prosecutor released do not mention the fraud accusations.

Extra: Kent's ominous letter - 48 Hours - CBS News


At ~1:21 of this video, the camera focuses on part of Kent Leppink's letter, and the word "--Fraud--" is clearly visible.

Edited to add: Dang it, we had this issue pages ago where we tried to re-link it for 2goldfish and the link keeps coming up with a different case.
It is really easy to find, though, if the link doesn't work. I googled "48 Hours Mechele Linehan" and it was the third link down, entitled "Love and Death in Alaska--cbsnews.com." Then I clicked on "Extra: Ken't ominous letter," and watched the video that popped up.

Edited again to add: When I click on the title of the video box that appears in this post, it takes me to the correct place.
 
I thought the police found John and Mechele going through Kent's car to retrieve belongings Kent had taken from them. Is there a link for verifying which it was?


As discussed pages and pages ago, before your time:), the Fred Rosen "book" contained a lot of information, but unfortunately the "author" didn't bother to cite anything. So feel absolutely free to take that with a big 'ole cellar of salt.

If I have a chance, I can try to find the passages in the book where it discusses it, but it's the kindle edition, so there aren't page numbers, it's "locations." Anyway, I think it was discussed way back in the thread by Nancy Botwyn.
 
I have read the comments from ages ago. Never once do they give a link to the entire original Kent's letter. There are just the links to the four pieces that the prosecutor was willing to publish. They don't even show the part that deals with Kent's accusations of fraud. The video was not meant to let anyone read the whole letter.

And where are the links that validate Kent's unsubstantiated accusations of fraud? Was there any action by the people or companies Mechele was supposed to have defrauded?

But my question still remains: how do Kent's unsubstantiated accusations of fraud prove that Mechele was conspiring to kill him?
 
I have read the comments from ages ago. Never once do they give a link to the entire original Kent's letter. There are just the links to the four pieces that the prosecutor was willing to publish. They don't even show the part that deals with Kent's accusations of fraud. The video was not meant to let anyone read the whole letter.

And where are the links that validate Kent's unsubstantiated accusations of fraud? Was there any action by the people or companies Mechele was supposed to have defrauded?

But my question still remains: how do Kent's unsubstantiated accusations of fraud prove that Mechele was conspiring to kill him?

well, I'll bite...they dont. and I dont think they have anything to do with the case either.

I wish they'd release the full letter. I've been spoiled rotten by the anthony case (if you dont know, FL has laws that require transparency and so information is released to anyone who requests as soon as it becomes available) and I have a really rough time now especially with a case that happened so long ago. I want to see ALL the evidence.

now, to answer your question with another - if kent leppink's "letter from the grave" is full of lots of unsubstantiated accusations, why did linehan's DT never use it themselves? or did they? because that's a bit telling if they did not, if they could prove that much of the rest was lies, when one could go a step further and enter reasonable doubt as to the murder part.

until I know anything about the contents of the rest of the letter I cant form any opinions on any of that obviously but I really REALLY cant get over how completely .....well, "coincidental" it was that leppink writes that if something happens to him, have a look at linehan and carlin. because HE TURNED UP DEAD.

I'm just saying....while I do agree that poor kent was almost stalkerish (I believe this was a very stubborn innocence, he desperately wanted to believe mechele loved him when there surely was lots of evidence to the contrary) it was not MECHELE LINEHAN who turned up dead....it was kent leppink. I see NO evidence of her stalking HIM and if there WERE, I could see where he came up with that "letter from the grave" but since she wasnt stalking him....where did he get the idea?? what did he know or what did he guess?

I'm not gonna go for him suiciding by any means, that's not rational and there is NO evidence supporting it. so that's out. thinking carlin was going to kill him, I do see how he could link carlin to linehan (at that time) because of uncertainty so it makes sense that he linked them together.

so the question is now, as it has always been, did carlin act alone and if so why? as a rival love interest with it being somewhat obvious that linehan had NO feelings for leppink, what was his motive?

or did carlin, adoring linehan in the same desperate manner that leppink did, simply do what linehan wanted him to do? that's the way the evidence goes, the evidence goes, the evidence goes....


just so I know, are we all in agreement that carlin was definitely involved? cause to me, I dont see anyone EVER arguing HIS innocence or lack thereof.
 
I do not agree that John Carlin was guilty. You can discount my reasons because they come from other commenters, but you cannot say that I agree that John was guilty.

"The physical evidence was spare: three shell casings, two sets of footprints going up this rise and only one set coming back down again." ----- NBC Dateline
 
I have read the comments from ages ago. Never once do they give a link to the entire original Kent's letter. There are just the links to the four pieces that the prosecutor was willing to publish. They don't even show the part that deals with Kent's accusations of fraud. The video was not meant to let anyone read the whole letter.

And where are the links that validate Kent's unsubstantiated accusations of fraud? Was there any action by the people or companies Mechele was supposed to have defrauded?

But my question still remains: how do Kent's unsubstantiated accusations of fraud prove that Mechele was conspiring to kill him?

I suspect the links to Kent alleging fraud may be in the same place as valid links to Kent being a homosexual pedophile ... in the Land of Imagining & Pretend.
 
I do not agree that John Carlin was guilty. You can discount my reasons because they come from other commenters, but you cannot say that I agree that John was guilty.

"The physical evidence was spare: three shell casings, two sets of footprints going up this rise and only one set coming back down again." ----- NBC Dateline

I guess that eliminates any discussion of suicide.
 
oohhh for heavenly cupcakes' sakes, alaska is +10 hours for me!! flourish I expect an "interoffice memo" or something when I wake up in the morning!!
 
I do not agree that John Carlin was guilty. You can discount my reasons because they come from other commenters, but you cannot say that I agree that John was guilty.

"The physical evidence was spare: three shell casings, two sets of footprints going up this rise and only one set coming back down again." ----- NBC Dateline

my bold

I wouldnt dream of it :crazy: that's why I asked :D
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
2,255
Total visitors
2,453

Forum statistics

Threads
589,955
Messages
17,928,266
Members
228,016
Latest member
ignoreme123
Back
Top