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

There is no proof that Mechele's grandfather gave the life insurance to Kent as a wedding gift. There is no proof that Mechele gave the life insurance to Kent as a wedding gift. Kent is the only person who said that the life insurance was a wedding gift. Kent lied.

www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com
 
Regardless of how manipulative Mechele was, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877695 still proves that Mechele knew John didn't have enough money to make the Seychelles a real get-away plan. Talking about the Seychelles was just small talk after Mechele asked how Kent took to being told she was at Barrow.
 
Since Mechele was supposed to have arrived in Anchorage by 1 AM May 2, 1996 and since Kent was in the house that evening until at least 2:19 AM when he sent his last email, why did Kent go to Hope looking for Mechele? According to the first police interview, Kent was supposed to go to pick up Mechele, but he didn't arrive. So Mechele had to call John. Now if they got back to the house before Kent left, why did Kent leave? If they arrived at the house after Kent left, how would they know where he went? Even if they arrived in time to find out he was leaving after 2:19 AM, how would they get to Hope and back in time for John to send his first email that day at 4:15 AM? It's a three hour round trip and they had one hour and fifty-five minutes.

www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com
 
If Kent's body was not found, how was anyone going to collect the life insurance? It was a miracle that Kent's body was found before bears tore it to pieces. I doubt that the life insurance was the motive for Kent's death. Whoever Kent's confederate was turned on him.

www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com
 
I'll make a prediction. If another indictment is not made by January 17, 2012, it's over and Mechele will never be charged again.
 
Whether her enemies agree or not that Mechele believed Kent was stalking her, Mechele was avoiding Kent while she was on trips to see Scott.



"On the Hope note, he [Carlin] said, 'In my mind -- and I wrote it -- it's nothing.' It was just a diversion, he said, written so Linehan could visit a boyfriend in California and not have Leppink follow her, as he had before." 10/23/2007 ADNews Jury finds Olympia mother guilty in decade-old slaying


"About the same time, Linehan also had a passport and driver's license in her sister's name, but with her own photos, defense attorneys showed during cross-examination." 3/28/2007 ADNews STRIPPER: First defendant in Hope killing points to greedy girlfriend and her several other relationships.



"Hilke testified that Linehan told him disparaging things about Leppink, including that he stole her love letters, watched them have sex while they were living in Wasilla and Leppink was staying with them, and that he took $500 from Hilke's bank account. She said she traveled under the alias Sue Wong to EVADE LEPPINK'S STALKING while she tried to pull away from him." 9/28/2007 ADNews Prosecutors contend Linehan based crime on film



"In some of the last correspondence between Linehan and Leppink, Linehan was mad at him. In one e-mail she wrote: 'I knew you were smoking pot, taking those pills, and drinking. If you were trying to piss me off it worked but you hurt me more because you damaged the agreement we had about drugs and hurt our trust.'" 10/10/2007 ADNews Both sides cite e-mails in Linehan trial



"Carlin says the prosecution's theory is wrong. He says he knew Linehan would get nothing if Leppink died. He, in fact, drove Leppink to his lawyer's the day Leppink tore up his will. 'He wanted me to know ... for me to tell Mechele, so she would call him,' Carlin said." 10/19/2007 ADNews Man convicted of killing Leppink disputes testimony



"Leppink became obsessed with Linehan, though, to the point where she traveled under a different name to keep him from following her, according to trial testimony." 3/27/2008 ADNews Linehan faces up to 99 years



"FACT: Mechele sent an email to her Mom about a bogus trip to Homer. The same place Leppink was murdered. I know, the FACTS aren't as exciting as your stories and lack the 'ifs'." 5/3/2010 ADNews commenter: Nostalgia1

[NOTE: Homer is further from Hope than Anchorage is.]




"Leppinks mother, Betsy Leppink, also testified about conversations she had with Leppink in April 1996. Mrs. Leppink testified that she received a telephone call from her son toward the end of April. Leppink told her that he was calling from Girdwood, and that he was on his way to Hope. He added, Mom, you know [that] often I can't find Mechele. She's missing again...." ap-2253 Linehan v. State (02/05/2010)
(underlined bold added for emphasis)



"In fact, according to the defense, Mechele was convinced a snooping Kent had discovered her car at the Anchorage airport and knew she wasn't in Hope. And therefore she wrote this to Carlin from Tahoe: E-mail Mechele to Carlin: 'Tell T.T. I flew to Barrow... if you see him tell him Brett got hurt and I went to take care of the girls...'" 5/22/2009 NBC Dateline


"WELL, I HAVE TO SAY I AM WONDERING WHAT DID HE SAY WHEN YOU SAID I WAS 2 1/2 HOURS AWAY." "Seychelles email from Mechele to John on 4/28/1996. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877670/

"Mr. Riddell testified that the flight to Barrow to Anchorage was 2.5 hours total transit time." 5/29/2009 Free Mechele Blogspot Colin's blog

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877670/
 
I don't know if Mechele broke any laws accepting gifts from many men with no intent on marrying them. If she accepted the gifts under the supposition of marriage, I agree that it was unethical and she should have returned the gifts. But I don't think she could be made to do so, and I question pleading up these accusations to murder. I also think it's immoral for Kent or any other man to think he could buy Mechele as a wife.

www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com
 
So nice to see you, 2goldfish!!!!
Yeah, there's a hearing next Tuesday, the 17th, at 2:30pm Alaska time. I do not know if it will be aired live, I think perhaps some of the hearings have been. Also, if I understand correctly, this hearing is where the state will announce whether or not they intend to seek another indictment, but they don't actually have to have had the Grand Jury hearing yet.

What's everyone's predictions? I think they will go for another indictment.

my snip :blowkiss: I dont even know, I cant guess, I feel like I can never guess what any SA or DA may do, but I feel that after all that trouble and all this time and their (IMO) very stong case, they'd be fools not to.

I had a dream they decided NOT to, I hope it's not a precog type dream, ugh. I was halfawake thinking it was real and I was like wtf how could they??....what is flourish gonna say...!!

Whether her enemies agree or not

my snip here because I wanted to mention your use of the word enemy/enemies throughout the thread, clearly you are entitled to any and all of your own opinions and they may or may not match up with any or all of anyone else's opinions....however sensitive I may be it sounds or seems as if you're addressing anyone who has seen the same evidence as you, and has come to a different conclusion as you, is being addressed as "mechele's enemy"

en·e·my (n-m)
n. pl. en·e·mies
1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.
2.
a. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
b. A member or unit of such a force.
3. A group of foes or hostile forces.

I, personally, myself, and quite possibly other members who post, are absolutely none of those choices which the definition of "enemy" gives.

I do not feel hatred towards, I do not intend injury to, I suppose possibly I MIGHT oppose the interests of (although should that count towards a criminal, I would say not), I am not a foe of mechele, nor am I a hostile nation or whatnot and so on and etc.

the facts as I know them have led me to the same conclusion as her previous jury, and I also agree the movie was BS and it didnt MATTER if it was included or not as it was meaningless, and I also believe the note from kent leppink VERY MUCH should be evidence but, that's not going to happen.

In addition, I do not care in any way that mechele was a stripper, I do not care if she is a nasty person or a fabulous one, I do not care that she has straightened her life out, got a degree, had a child, is or was manipulative, I dont even care that she and I seem to both like avocados but that unlike her, I am able to type an email without using the caps lock key.

what I do care about is that the evidence shows that for whatever her reasons were, she very much appears to have been either directly or indirectly responsible for the very ugly crime of the murder of kent leppink, and there is no statute of limitations on murder.
 
I think "enemy" is quite descriptive of those who oppose Mechele Linehan and wish her in prison for the rest of her life. They certainly oppose her interests. I think they have demonstrated their hostility to her on this board and elsewhere. It is extreme pettiness to object to my use of the word when it is my opinion that they are her enemies.

en·e·my (n-m)
n. pl. en·e·mies
1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.2.
a. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
b. A member or unit of such a force.
3. A group of foes or hostile forces.
 
I think "enemy" is quite descriptive of those who oppose Mechele Linehan and wish her in prison for the rest of her life. They certainly oppose her interests. I think they have demonstrated their hostility to her on this board and elsewhere. It is extreme pettiness to object to my use of the word when it is my opinion that they are her enemies.

en·e·my (n-m)
n. pl. en·e·mies
1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.2.
a. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
b. A member or unit of such a force.
3. A group of foes or hostile forces.


that's why I say that definition doesnt particularly work in the case of a criminal. yeah sure ted bundy didnt want the DP, neither do those jerks in the petit case, charles manson probably doesnt like life in prison but them being there makes no one their enemy, their enemy truly is his or herself....however they could also be seen as enemies of the people.

although, carry on, please, I am sure when you say "enemy" you dont mean any insult, but mean it as affectionately as possible :blushing:
 
that's why I say that definition doesnt particularly work in the case of a criminal. yeah sure ted bundy didnt want the DP, neither do those jerks in the petit case, charles manson probably doesnt like life in prison but them being there makes no one their enemy, their enemy truly is his or herself....however they could also be seen as enemies of the people.

although, carry on, please, I am sure when you say "enemy" you dont mean any insult, but mean it as affectionately as possible :blushing:

1st bold: how true that is
2nd bold::floorlaugh::innocent:


Synchronicity, 2goldfish! I logged in to post about this very subject and found your amazing posts.
The term "enemies" is definitely not applicable here. The reference to the "adversarial" court system in the U.S. appears to be the justification for the use of the term, so one would think that "adversaries" would be an appropriate term that conveys a clear meaning. However, it simply doesn't have the same emotional charge as "enemies," which is why, IMO, enemies is the preferred term.

Thinking about that reminded me of something mentioned pages ago by Nancy Botwyn. She discussed how despite the claims of Mechele's supporters that the media was, and continues to be, so unfair to her, there are several examples that appear to be exactly the opposite--Mechele didn't just volunteer at her child's school, she volunteered at her child's Catholic school--didn't just go to university in Washington, she went to a respected university in Washington--we all know how deliberate wording can be.

Your post reminded me of another thing--I was appalled to read a comment somewhere from one of Mechele's supporters stating that whether or not she did it, she's certainly paid her price by now and they should just let it go. :thud: Wow, by that logic, people who manage to get away with murder for a while and during that time, manage not to kill anyone else, then 2.5 years in prison is just plenty dandy fine. I wonder how many people who agree with that commentator would feel the same if an adult male murdered an adult female and then got away for a while and managed not to murder anyone else....well, you see where I'm going with this.
 
my snip here because I wanted to mention your use of the word enemy/enemies throughout the thread, clearly you are entitled to any and all of your own opinions and they may or may not match up with any or all of anyone else's opinions....however sensitive I may be it sounds or seems as if you're addressing anyone who has seen the same evidence as you, and has come to a different conclusion as you, is being addressed as "mechele's enemy"

en·e·my (n-m)
n. pl. en·e·mies
1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.
2.
a. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
b. A member or unit of such a force.
3. A group of foes or hostile forces.

I, personally, myself, and quite possibly other members who post, are absolutely none of those choices which the definition of "enemy" gives.

I do not feel hatred towards, I do not intend injury to, I suppose possibly I MIGHT oppose the interests of (although should that count towards a criminal, I would say not), I am not a foe of mechele, nor am I a hostile nation or whatnot and so on and etc.

the facts as I know them have led me to the same conclusion as her previous jury, and I also agree the movie was BS and it didnt MATTER if it was included or not as it was meaningless, and I also believe the note from kent leppink VERY MUCH should be evidence but, that's not going to happen.

In addition, I do not care in any way that mechele was a stripper, I do not care if she is a nasty person or a fabulous one, I do not care that she has straightened her life out, got a degree, had a child, is or was manipulative, I dont even care that she and I seem to both like avocados but that unlike her, I am able to type an email without using the caps lock key.

what I do care about is that the evidence shows that for whatever her reasons were, she very much appears to have been either directly or indirectly responsible for the very ugly crime of the murder of kent leppink, and there is no statute of limitations on murder.

Respectfully snipped by flourish, for emphasis and clarity.

I think "enemy" is quite descriptive of those who oppose Mechele Linehan and wish her in prison for the rest of her life. They certainly oppose her interests. I think they have demonstrated their hostility to her on this board and elsewhere. It is extreme pettiness to object to my use of the word when it is my opinion that they are her enemies.

en·e·my (n-m)
n. pl. en·e·mies
1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.2.
a. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
b. A member or unit of such a force.
3. A group of foes or hostile forces.


The "subtitle" of the second quoted post is "Enemies by their own definition."
So, is the free dictionary an enemy of Mechele?
That sure wasn't 2goldfish's "personal" definition.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enemy

Please refrain from any further implications that the posters of Websleuths, individual or plural, are enemies of anyone. It's inaccurate, offensive, and I am respectfully requesting that you choose a more respectful and accurate alternative.
 
Please refrain from any further implications that the posters of Websleuths, individual or plural, are enemies of anyone. It's inaccurate, offensive, and I am respectfully requesting that you choose a more respectful and accurate alternative.

my snip

I absolutely prefer the term "persons of a differing opinion" :D
 
I will use the terms that have meaning for me. I have other descriptive terms for people who declare Mechele guilty of murder without proof. I think that "enemy" is the most neutral of them. I find the insistance that Mechele be given injustice in order for Kent to have justice shows something stronger than disagreement.
 
Kent's letter has been called a letter from the grave, but Kent wrote it two days before he died. It is not a death bed statement. It is not an artifact of the murder scene. It is not an eye-witness account. The accusation that Mechele and her friends were "probably" the persons who killed him, is just the last of smears against Mechele because she did not marry him. Kent gave no reasons for his accusation.

Kent accused Mechele of having a false passport and a false driver's license because these were tools she used for avoiding him while she was seeing Scott.

Kent accused Mechele of not declaring the interest of her mortgage on her income tax. This is not illegal. How does this prove she was conspiring to murder him?

Kent accused Mechele of using John's health insurance. This is a serious accusation, but there is no report of the health insurance following up on it. How does this prove Mechele was conspiring to murder Kent?

Kent accused Mechele of being on Scott's insurance. He doesn't say what kind of insurance, but since he had specified John's health insurance, Kent probably means Scott's automobile insurance. It is not illegal to have other people on your automobile insurance. In fact since Mechele was probably using Scott's car while she was visiting him, the insurance company would probably require it. How does this prove Mechele conspired to murder Kent?

Kent accused Mechele of fraud taking money from him under the impression they were getting married. I think it would have been hard for him to win that even if he had lived to sue her. How does that prove that Mechele conspired to murder him?

The main point of Kent's spite letter was that he would have destroyed the letter if Mechele had married him. The rest including the vague accusation of murder were just smears.

www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com
 
I dont really like a defense of a person that primarily rests on blaming the victim :(
 
I will use the terms that have meaning for me. I have other descriptive terms for people who declare Mechele guilty of murder without proof. I think that "enemy" is the most neutral of them. I find the insistance that Mechele be given injustice in order for Kent to have justice shows something stronger than disagreement.

Again, no one here wants Mechele to have an unfair trial. So again, we do not fit in the definition of enemies. Again, please refrain from any further implications that the posters of Websleuths, individual or plural, are enemies of anyone. It's inaccurate, offensive, and I am respectfully requesting that you choose a more respectful and accurate alternative.

Using such negative terms is not conducive to convincing people to see things your way.
 
Those against Mechele's interests in freedom and justice are willing to take Kent's word for it that Mechele and her friends were "probably" responsible for his death, but when I ask what Kent could possibly mean by his letter other than wanting revenge for Mechele's not marrying him, I am accused of blaming the victim. That sounds like heckling to me. Those of the opposed opinion don't want to see the evidence for what it really is.

I don't know why Kent went to Hope after 2:19 AM May 2, 1996, but I doubt that it was looking for Mechele. He had already been there on April 27, 1996 and been told that Mechele and the recently renovated cabin were not there. Mechele arrived back in Anchorage at least by 1 AM May 2, 1996 and called John when Kent didn't show up to pick her up. Kent was still in the house until 2:19 AM. Why didn't Kent know that John was going to the airport to pick her up?

If Kent had already left the house by the time John and Mechele returned home, how were John and Mechele to know where Kent had gone? John gone with Kent to Hope on April 27, 1996 and knew that Kent had been told that Mechele and the cabin were not there. There is no reason for John or Mechele to believe that Kent would return there five days later.

Justice for Kent does not depend on injustice for Mechele.

www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com
 
Again, is there documentation of flight records which PROVE that Mechele came back to Alaska on the flight she claims to have returned on? TIA
 
"But Tina Brady, an exotic dancer who knew Mechele, says - in her world - that's just business as usual. 'I'm not gonna lie to you. I have gotten fur coats, cars, jewelry,' she says. Tina reminded us that Mechele's fiancΘs also were her customers, and they were all at least 10 years older than she was. 'I don't think that she had any intent on marrying anyone,' Tina says." ----- CBS 48 Hours

Respectfully snipped by me.
I thought the inclusion of the interview with Tina Brady was similar to the prosecution's use of the movie---meaningless, fluffy filler. Ms. Brady obviously is not an unbiased party--she may or may not have received the gifts she claims to have received--I doubt she'd admit to 48 Hours if she didn't. The clincher with her, however, is when she referred to Mechele as a "showgirl." Strippers and showgirls are not the same thing, and her statement was absolutely ridiculous, in my opinion, and was a needless addition to the show.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
137
Guests online
929
Total visitors
1,066

Forum statistics

Threads
589,930
Messages
17,927,806
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top