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

[flourish]

There is also the problem of timing. Kent's last email on May 2, 1996 was at 2:19 AM. John's first email that morning was at 4:15 AM. That left 1 hour and 55 minutes for John to have made a three hour trip to and from Hope. He could not have done it, and the killer certainly would not have wanted to speed enough to make up the time and risk calling attention to his whereabouts after killing Kent. The objection has been made that the time on the email could have been doctored. Well, all the emails could have been doctored, but they were verified as authentic. Also, the date on the emails at that time of the year was in Eastern Standard Daylight Savings Time. That's the time that was placed in the email by the Internet. There would be no reason for an Alaskan to use EDT in his laptop to change the date.

It's my understanding that for some reason, Mechele's airline records were never attained. Is that true as far as you know? Again, did she have alternate identification with which she could travel? If so, are the airline records for those aliases available? Do we even have confirmation that Mechele was in the seat that supposedly brought her back from California? And this was asked many pages ago, but do we know her shoe size?

Is it known which computers were used for these last emails? Also, there has been discussion about Kent allegedly hacking in to Mechele's email, so do we even really know for sure who sent the above mentioned emails? Thank you for the information regarding the timing, though. That's interesting.

 

[flourish]

There is also the problem of the car that carried Kent to Hope. It was not his car and he had his car keys in his pocket when his body was found. The prosecutor's witness, John Carlin IV testified that his father's car could not have been used since the dog howled every time the garage door was opened and would have awakened John IV. There is also a problem with John III even knowing that Kent would leave after 2:19 AM and returning to Hope five days after going there with John III and being told that Mechele and the renoved cabin were not there. John III and Kent had separate rooms. John III had no way of anticipating that Kent would return to Hope and would not know Kent had left the house. Whoever carried Kent to Hope killed him, but how could that be John III? The assumed conspiracy is not a magical thing that just informed John of things that even Mechele would not know.

Huh, who's car took him there? Were there only one set of keys for his car? Most people have more than one set...you know, in case one gets lost? It's my understanding that Kent's car was found parked outside the Anchorage house, with the driver's door locked but the passenger door unlocked?
If the time frame we're discussing is based solely on emails, again did someone witness Kent sending his email and John sending his? These two guys lived in the same house...chances are they spoke to each other between the first time they went to Hope together and the second time at least Kent was in Hope.

As for the youngest Carlin, well, that is interesting if the consistently barking dog did not bark. That Carlin's testimony is something I've always found interesting...

 

[flourish]

The main purpose of the so-called Seychelles email as I said before was for Mechele to ask how Kent took to being told she was in Barrow, but it is just ridiculous to think that it is a get-away plan. There was no way either John or Mechele could come up with $10 million for citizenship for immunity to extradiction. John's gun was never proved to be the murder weapon. That he washed his son's fingerprints off the gun only proves that John was afraid his gun was the murder weapon, not that he knew it for sure. If John was trying to hide the gun, he sure wouldn't have put it in the hallway closet where his son had to go to get the dog's leash. Whoever put the gun in the hallway closet wanted it to be found. John thought it had to be a framing.

It is doubtful there was a serious plan to try to go to the Seychelles, but, again, it's possible that Mechele overestimated, or was led to believe, that Carlin had more money than he really did. Seems to be a weird thing to just randomly state in an email. IMO.

So you say John's gun was never proved to be the murder weapon. How could it be when it wasn't seen after the bathroom-cleaning incident. Please correct me if there is more information about the movement of the gun and it's final destination. I wonder...if John really thought it was a framing, who did he think was framing him? Who had access to the hall closet? Mechele, Kent, and the Carlins did.

As for Kent arranging his own murder to frame Mechele, I have to go back to Occam's Razor for this--the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that this case is anything but the obvious--manipulative, greedy, impulsive con-person swindles folks out of money and kills someone who stood in their way...of either further cons, or money, or both. My opinion, of course :angel:

 

[flourish]

In any case, barring an extension for the state's decision re: a new indictment, which I doubt is even possible, it's only a matter of weeks until Mechele either braces for a new trial (hopefully not postponed again...it's still on the docket for this Spring) or goes home and tries to forget Alaska even exists? Is that it, then? As someone asked above, if the state doesn't file a new indictment, or whatever it is they file to say the are going to seek a new indictment, is Mechele safe forever from prosecution? Anyone know?

I go back and forth as far as my opinion on whether or not they will seek a new indictment. On the one hand, the state has been dealt some blows to the case. The movie, I agree was stupid to even bring into the case in the first place, but the letter I continue to believe was a legitimate piece of evidence...I've explained why and am not going to rehash here. But at the same time, I'm wondering if the state was actually sort of in support of dismissing the first indictment as now they get to start from scratch and not worry that a new trial could be messed up due to an alleged faulty grand jury indictment.

Additionally, there's not only the question of seeking a new indictment, but having a grand jury sanction a new one...although I don't really see that as a problem. Stranger things have happened, but I expect if they seek one, they'll get it. We'll see!

Thanks to jaokguy and trvl4lyfe (sorry if I butchered your names there) for posting today, as I would feel like I'm talking to myself here if I didn't see the visitor action and view count going up. It's so much nicer to have other people post, though, so thanks! Don't be strangers

 

[flourish]

this sickening excuse for a woman is guilty and always will be guilty. any person who can't see that fact after hearing the evidence on this case has an iq very similar to their shoe size. the ignorant, inept, wimpy, and severely lacking in common sense judge who dismissed the indictment on her should no longer have a position as a judge. linehan's character and job as a stripper had NOTHING to do with the first verdict. you really didn't have to be a brain surgeon to understand this woman was responsible for leppink's death. if you can add 2+2 and get the right answer then you also know she's guilty of murder. the prosecution has just under a month to re-indict her for murder and they better damn well do it. if they don't she'll be shot in the head for sure.:woohoo:

RBBM
Actually, the judge who dismissed the indictment was also the judge who originally sentenced her to 99 years. Her supporters have implied that he, and the Prosecution (and the State of Alaska in general) have it out for Mechele and have pursued her not out of a quest for justice, but because they don't like her because she was a stripper and/or are punishing her for leading Kent on and being a manipulative woman.

There's even been references, among the supporters, about how Mechele's husband used to work at a Sunglass Hut, but he's never referred to as a "former Sunglass Hut employee." If he had murdered someone, or been accused of murdering someone, during his foray into sunglass sales, he very well may have been referred to, as a former Sunglass Hut employee. I don't find it unusual to refer to someone's employment or student or military role when discussing them in a news piece, particularly when it's completely RELEVANT. Mechele met the involved parties at her job. They were her customers. A customer-client relationship is different than if they had met each other socially and were friend-friend at the beginning, not customer-client. So, in that sense it was an integral part of the case, and was "important" that way, but I agree that doesn't translate into "she was convicted because of her job."

 

[Turtlepace]

Mechele Linehan's conviction was thrown out on appeal. The hearsay letter from Kent Leppink and the reference to the movie were not allowed. John Carlin's lawyer was too busy blaming Mechele to enter evidence that John was not at the murder scene. A rule would not allow Mechele's defense to enter any evidence that contradicted John's conviction, but John's conviction was lifted since he died before his appeal was complete. Now Mechele's defense can enter the evidence that was never allowed before.
-
Below is the email where Mechele talks about meeting separately with Kent's father and also meeting separately with Kent.

 

[flourish]

Mechele Linehan's conviction was thrown out on appeal. The hearsay letter from Kent Leppink and the reference to the movie were not allowed. John Carlin's lawyer was too busy blaming Mechele to enter evidence that John was not at the murder scene. A rule would not allow Mechele's defense to enter any evidence that contradicted John's conviction, but John's conviction was lifted since he died before his appeal was complete. Now Mechele's defense can enter the evidence that was never allowed before.
-
Below is the email where Mechele talks about meeting separately with Kent's father and also meeting separately with Kent.

Thanks for the info, Turtlepace
So did Mechele make that flight on the 29th?

 

[flourish]

Mechele Linehan's conviction was thrown out on appeal. The hearsay letter from Kent Leppink and the reference to the movie were not allowed. John Carlin's lawyer was too busy blaming Mechele to enter evidence that John was not at the murder scene. A rule would not allow Mechele's defense to enter any evidence that contradicted John's conviction, but John's conviction was lifted since he died before his appeal was complete. Now Mechele's defense can enter the evidence that was never allowed before.

Again, did Carlin file any sort of complaint or appeal based on ineffective counsel? I know he was appealing, but was it based on that?

Is this "rule" an Alaskan law involving suspects who are co-conspirators? If so, is Mechele and/or her Alaskan supporters lobbying for legislative changes, do you know? Do you happen to know which code specifies this? It seems odd that a defendant wouldn't be allowed to have a complete defense. I'm not doubting you, I'm just wondering the history and "logic" behind a law like that...has it been fought in higher courts?

I'm definitely interested in seeing how the second trial goes (assuming the will try her again which I'm suspecting they will). I'm also interested to see what kind of defense evidence is presented that wasn't presented in the first trial.

Sure wish we had a lawyer on this thread again...I wish even harder we had an Alaskan lawyer here

 

[flourish]

And she was charged with Murder 1, not any conspiracy charges, so how does that even work if they aren't charged with conspiring...that doesn't even make sense. Is it that a defendant can't argue against something that's already been "proven" in court? That doesn't make sense, either.

On another topic, I wonder if there will be a new judge for the new trial. Probably not but I think it's a good idea...not b/c I think Volland is incompetent or anything like that, and certainly not "out to get Mechele," but because perhaps a fresh judge would possibly, but not probably, inhibit some of the accusations that are sure to come about if/when there's a second conviction. In my opinion, of course.

eta: Well, according to the information on the Alaska courtview site, Volland is listed as the judge in the Spring 2012 trial date that has been set up for quite some time now and hasn't disappeared since the last event. I wonder if that is not unusual at all and that it isn't changed one way or the other until after the hearing where the state says whether or not they intend to seek a second indictment...yeah it's probably that as that would make sense. I wonder if that hearing will address a judge change...anyone know if Mechele can file a motion for a change of judge???

*flourish tries to conjure up an Alaskan attorney*

 

[flourish]

Okay one more thing...I suppose conspirators and accomplices are two different things. So perhaps I need to look into that more another day, as I am
fftobed:

 

[Turtlepace]

The problem with assuming Mechele would conspire to kill because she is accused of being manipulative, greedy, impulsive con-person is that you have to assume she is a sociopath or a psychopath who would do it. Also, I would question how an impulsive person could think to leave so many ruses to confuse the police.
-
The thing about sociopaths and psychopaths is that they cannot be "cured." It's not a matter of Mechele being innocent of murder because of how good a person she is now, but that the person she is could never have been a sociopath or a psychopath.
-
"In five hours of testimony, Washington, D.C., forensic psychiatrist Mark Mills said that after an extensive evaluation, Linehan 'is unlikely to be someone who schemed or planned the murder of anybody.' Mills described the 35-year-old former stripper, who later lived in Olympia as a wife, mother and businesswoman, as being highly intelligent and extremely social. But she also is naive and sometimes in denial about circumstances around her, he said. She does not like to be told what to do, but she is not a sociopath or psychopath, he said. 3/29/2008 ADNews "Linehan sentencing a slow process"
-

"Other family members and friends testified or wrote letters on her behalf, describing her as a caring, community volunteer who is known for taking in stray animals and helping the homeless and elderly." 4/3/2008 ADNews "Linehan sentenced to 99 years"
-
"She loved to care for strays, said Honi, animals - or humans - in need of friendship. If Mechele had a fault, said Honi, it was a surprising degree of naíveté." 5/22/2009 NBC Dateline
-
"Bob Zeigler, a former coordinator of the social-justice committee at St. Michael Catholic Church in Olympia, said he was struck by Linehan's sincerity and caring when she approached him several years ago to inquire about getting involved with the church's social-justice programs. 'She had called me to find out about what she could do to make a better world,' Zeigler said." 9/16/2007 The Olympian "LINEHAN PROFILE: Acquaintances stunned by court"
-

"Neighbor Debby Saunders said she often talked to Linehan working in her yard or walking her dog. She was struck by her neighbor's gentle and kind nature, she said." 4/5/2008 The Olympian "Verdict surprises Linehan neighbors"
-
-
A sociopath or a psychopath could never care about friends, pets, or strangers enough to help them. And I didn't even bring in the aid Mechele provided to people after Katrina. Mechele's enemies could insist on these being ruses, but for Mechele to act a part 24/7 since Kent's death it would have to be so second nature as to be first nature all along. I have severe doubts that Mechele is or was ever sociopathic or psychopathic. When it comes down to the bottom line, Mechele's enemies assume she is a sociopath or psychopath because they assume she conpired to murder. And they assume she conspired to murder because they assume she is a sociopath or a psychopath.
-
It's questionable if Mechele was a swindler. Most of her customers who got emails similar to the March 31, 1996 email she sent to Kent would understand that it was a stripper fantasy. And where are the other love emails or love letters that Mechele was supposed to have sent Kent? Where these the letters Kent forged to show his parents?
-
The Ha-Ha email was not sent to Kent at all.

 

[Turtlepace]

In Alaska there is no difference between conspiracy to murder and murder 1. Mechele was charged with conspiracy to murder but it doesn't make any difference in the punishment. I don't know why John's defense lawyer didn't try to enter evidence that John was not at the murder scene. She just didn't. I have never heard of another state where a defense cannot contradict a conviction, but Alaska has such a rule.

I think the history of John's gun is a good question. John, Mechele, and John's son were all surprised that the gun was in the hallway closet. Anyone in the house would have had access to the hallway closet. John probably thought Kent's killer had put the gun there. It doesn't matter that John had no idea who that would be. The gun appeared in an improbable place where somebody intended for it to be found. If it were not an intruder, then that only leaves Kent. Kent had stolen Mechele's gun that Scott had given her. It isn't so farfetched that he might have appropriated John's gun also. But if Kent put John's gun into the hallway closet after 2:19 AM May 2, 1996, and it wasn't discovered until John's son went to the hallway closet looking for the dog's leash, then John's gun must have been in the hallway closet at the time Kent was killed. John wouldn't have known where it was until his son found it.

Somewhere I read that Mechele returned to Anchorage the night that Kent was killed. That would mean that she arrived in the morning after he died. There was no testimony from John's son that Mechele was in the house the night that Kent died. There was one other factor that is remarkable for its absense: the condition of Kent's, John's, and Mechele's car on the morning of May 2, 1996. If someone left the paved streets of Anchorage and drove the gravel road to Hope, that person's car would be filthy from gravel muck and mud. This is a major cleanup job I'm talking about. Is there testimony from a car wash?

There were 60+ emails extracted from the two computers associated with the household. How are we to decide that some were genuine but not others? It was Kent whom Mechele was accusing of hijacking her email. Why would Kent forge his own email at 2:19 AM May 2, 1996? How could Kent have forged John's email at 4:15 AM May 2, 1996 since Kent did not return from Hope?

Mechele's lawyer did produce the false passport and driver's license during the first trial. Mechele's claudistine travels took place before 911. Identification was not so strict. I don't remember having to produce identification when I went to Anchorage in 1998. I already had paid for tickets and that was all they were looking for then.

Taking pictures of general landscape and taking pictures of details like footprints are two different things. The mud and snow would have provided a ready medium, but the light is another problem. An eye-witness would see closeup and at multiple angles and could have noticed the huge difference between Kent's footprints and John's footprints if they had been there.

I still think that Mechele's intention for having separate meetings with each of Kent and of Kent's father was to confront Kent with his obsession telling him she was not going to marry him and to be sure that Kent's father understood that also. There was just one stripper email that was total fantasy which Mechele had sent to others also. There are no other emails or letters she sent to Kent that anyone has bothered to talk about. It really doesn't matter if there were others. If she didn't want to marry him, what difference does it make? You cannot buy a bride. My point is that Mechele certainly did not expect Kent to be dead before she returned.

I have never found anything where Mechele is recorded as asking John to kill Kent. There is Mechele's email asking John to tell Kent she went to Barrow instead of Hope. If Mechele's enemies find it realistic to believe that Mechele asked John to kill Kent, I think it is easier to accept that Mechele asked John to tell Kent she went to Barrow. So now that Barrow is on the table, it's supposedly not necessary to the conspiracy that Kent to be killed in Hope. This is a rather elastic conspiracy. If Kent had died in Barrow, would Brett have been accused of being the triggerman instead of John? I doubt that John would have been exonerated like Scott was. If Kent had died in anywhere in California, I suspect that Scott would have been accused of being the triggerman?

How do you prove that Mechele's asking John to tell Kent she went to Barrow was a ruse? The simplist thing for me to think is that she meant what she wrote and that John did what he was asked. That Kent didn't rush off to Barrow doesn't prove that John didn't tell him. It could be that this story of Barrow was what inspired Kent to write his spite letter to his parents asking them to have Mechele punished for not marrying him.

 

[Turtlepace]

Mechele believed that Kent was stalking her. She believed she had to avoid Kent to go to California to see Scott.

"A former Alaska State Trooper investigator testified that among the items found in Leppink's Dodge Omni after the murder were personal papers belonging to Linehan and photographs of her with other men. Also among the items were Linehan's application for state of Alaska benefits, a business card for one former boyfriend, Scott Hilke, vacation photographs of Linehan and Carlin in Amsterdam, and a receipt signed by Hilke for a resort in Mississippi, where Linehan had vacationed with him. Before they were a couple, Leppink followed Linehan to the resort and served her and Hilke coffee in bed." 9/25/2007 ADNews "Witness says Linehan tried to get refund on insurance"

"Hilke testified that he dated Linehan and got engaged to her on Thanksgiving, 1994. They spent a lot of time together, sometimes with Linehan's nephew or traveling to visit relatives. Leppink showed up unexpectedly at one of their vacations in Louisiana. He must have known they were dating, Hilke said. Within a year, Hilke and Linehan's relationship soured and Leppink stepped in. Linehan kept in touch with Hilke, though. 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"

"There was already plenty of evidence that Leppink acted like he was obsessed. They (the appeal judges) noted he knew about Linehan's other relationships with men and still pursued her, followed her and a boyfriend to Louisiana and served them coffee in bed, and collected information about the boyfriend." 6/10/2010 ADNews "Court overturns Linehan conviction"

"T.T. wrote on a check, 'Will you marry me?' and I think the diamond ring went into an ice cream sundae. ... Mechele told everybody about the check. Everybody, everybody, knew that T.T. had proposed to Mechele. And, during all that time ... Scott and Mechele are boyfriend, girlfriend." (This was John Carlin speaking.) 10/19/2007 ADNews "Man convicted of killing Leppink disputes testimony"

"The next day, April 19th, Leppink returned to Brundins office, asking about the possibility of suing North Star Hospital (a mental care hospital in Anchorage). According to Brundin, Leppink said that he visited North Star Hospital because he had heard that Linehan was getting counseling there, and he wanted to check up on her. The hospital staff told Leppink that they could not discuss another persons treatment with him and then the hospital staff apparently alerted Linehan that Leppink had been making inquiries about her. This upset Leppink; he believed that the hospital staff had violated some duty of confidentiality by revealing that he had come to the hospital asking questions about Linehan." ap-2253 Linehan v. State (02/05/2010)

"They were all infatuated, but she says she truly loved only Hilke. Carlin, she says, was like a big brother, and Kent became a bother. He'd been obsessively collecting information about her, including her Social Security number, credit cards, and phone bills. He was even reading her e-mails, and tracking her every move. Asked if she was afraid of him, Mechele says, 'I think I had become afraid of him toward that time.'" 2008/03-08 (2008/09-12) CBS 48 Hours

"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, and I want to find her; I need to find her. And I have learned that she's in Hope. Leppink's mother tried to talk him out of it. She said, Kent, have you even been in Hope? ... t's [just] a little ... village. There's just nothing there. Where would she be in Hope?" ap-2253 Linehan v. State (02/05/2010)

 

[flourish]

It is not necessary to be psychopath or a sociopath to kill someone. There are sociopaths who don't kill, and there are people who kill that are not sociopaths.

Some con people kill and some don't. I think Mechele is one who did.

I don't buy for one second that she actually thought Kent was stalking her. As for the defense that she sent marriage emails to a bunch of guys instead of just leading on the ones we knew about...that does nothing to make her appear less of a con person...exactly the opposite. Fantasies are not reality. Spending real money on real engagement rings is not fantasy. That's actual, real money, not Monopoly money...not magic stripper money, real United States Federal Currency.

I believe that blaming a victim of a con for believing in the con, or assuming that a person being conned was a willing participant is abhorrent. I'm sure there are some masochistic people who are the exception to the rule, but the entire reason there have been con people since the dawn of time is because it works.

And again:

• What size shoe did Mechele wear?

• Is there documentation of which flight she took to get back to Alaska?

• Was she using aliases and multiple passports/identification?

• What is the law in Alaska which prohibits one defendant from using relevant pieces of defense simply because they contradict pieces of evidence from a trial someone has already been found guilty?

• Did Carlin make any legal complaints re: ineffective counsel? Were there any concerns regarding his mental ability to stand trial?
• Exactly what kind of terrain, as in the snow to mud ratio, was there at the scene where Kent was discovered? How many viable prints were found?
• Did more than one set of car keys for Kent's car exist?

 

[flourish]

I agree-- the whole "sham marriage" cover-up theory doesn't seem to square with the emails-- I think I posted one which got deleted or else I just can't find it-- one which indicates Mechele was getting angry because Leppink's family wouldn't pay for the wedding dress she wanted or something and Kent was scrambling to appease her. But this email segment from Mechele to Kent seems to confirm the prosecution theory that Mechele was clearly stringing Kent along into believing she wanted to be his actual wife and wanted to make him a "happy husband."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877731/

Coupled with the nasty email she sent her mom about the marriage--
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877752/

I don't see how the defense can get around that. Being nasty and manipulative (in tricking Leppink into believing she wanted to marry him) doesn't necessarily translate into being guilty of murder. I don't understand why the defense didn't just admit Mechele was nasty and manipulative in stringing Kent along-- creating the strange sham marriage story just makes everything else in Mechele's story seem highly suspect.

:bump:

 

[flourish]

"i hope i can make you a happy husband..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877731/

 

[Turtlepace]

The assumption that Mechele is a con-person who will kill is just that: an assumption. The prosecutor had to and will have to portray Mechele as a sociopathic or psychopathic monster who can be expected to kill for what she wants. The facts are that she is not a sociopath or a psychopath. So I doubt that she would conspire to kill just because there was a life insurance that she tried to cancel.

I'm not trying to keep Mechele from looking like a con-person. She was manipulative and her friends and family will tell you so. Since she sent the same type of marriage email to other men that she sent to Kent, it proves that what she sent to Kent was a striptease fantasy that was not a real interest in getting married. The business of a striptease artist is to create a fantasy. If you want to see that as a scam or worse, it still doesn't prove murder.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877752/ is not an email Mechele sent to Kent. Outside of the striptease fantasy email of http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877731/ , what and where are these other email that Mechele is supposed to have sent Kent expressing her desire to get married? I don't consider the striptease fantasy email as being a sincere agreement to get married. I think the meetings Mechele was talking about in the email of http://i40.tinypic.com/16ifb4x.jpg were to explain that.

I have no idea what shoe size Mechele takes or what flight she took to get back to Alaska. I know it takes something like eight hours to fly from Phoenix to Anchorage. Maybe it wouldn't take that long from some parts of California, but there is no proof that Mechele could have gotten to the murder scene in time for killing Kent, and as I wrote before, there is no proof that her car had travelled over the gravel road to Hope.

"An interesting piece of information I found out is that when the body was initially discovered, they had an officer survey the scene before it was trampled (they never took any footprint or tire info down). However, the officer at the scene described the footprints which were not Kent's as apparently far to big to be Mechele's and too small to be Carlin's. Carlin has very unusual feet--extra, extra wide. It's very unlikely that the footprints found were his." 4/25/2008 ADNews commenter: MandyK

"The physical evidence was spare: three shell casings, two sets of footprints going up this rise and only one set coming back down again. In his pockets at the time of his death: a copy of the change of beneficiary form on his life insurance policy, a receipt for the package he'd sent to his parents, and a name: Mechele Hughes." 7/27/2008 NBC Dateline

I don't know the conditions of the mud and snow at the murder scene, but from the picture flourish described, I know that mud and snow were there. It was not a dry surface. There were reports that footprints were there, and John's footprints would have been noticable.


"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" (Capitals used for emphasis)

"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"

Mechele was concerned about Kent following her to California, and used various means to avoid that.


I'm not a lawyer much less an Alaskan lawyer. I don't know the code number prohibiting the contradiction of an existing conviction, but the strategy the defense of Mechele's first trial makes no sense if it wasn't limited that way. It also makes little sense that the prosecutor is so avid to get John conviction reinstated now that John is dead unless the prosecutor wanted to limit Mechele's defense strategy again. I know about the legal rule against contradicting an existing conviction because I had to ask why Mechele defense didn't try to prove John could not have committed the murder. In the next trial, that limitation won't exist. So her defense will be able to present evidence I have mentioned.


Mechele was answering police questions in seven interviews without a lawyer present. She told them about the Hope Note and the life insurance. I believe her that Kent was telling his parents that he was engaged to her even though he wasn't. Afterall, Kent told his parents that the life insurance was a wedding gift from Mechele's grandfather. Kent was the only person saying it was.

 

[Turtlepace]

I cannot remember who told me about that Mechele's defense in her first trial could not contradict the legal fact of John's conviction. It may just have been somebody recapping the defense strategy of trying to show that John's motive was not something that Mechele was part of. That the murder was supposedly all about John and not Mechele was what the interest the defense had in Kent's alleged homosexuality was all about. Her defense was trying to show that John allegedly killed Kent because of homosexual advances Kent supposedly made toward John's son. It made no sense that for Mechele to fear Kent's stalking because he might be gay. I only commented on the legal rule blocking a challenge to John's conviction to indicate how the new trial would be different from the first trial. If there is no such rule, then perhaps there will be no such difference in the new trial. I do hope that her defense does present evidence that John could not have been at the murder scene.

 

[otto]

I cannot remember who told me about that Mechele's defense in her first trial could not contradict the legal fact of John's conviction. It may just have been somebody recapping the defense strategy of trying to show that John's motive was not something that Mechele was part of. That the murder was supposedly all about John and not Mechele was what the interest the defense had in Kent's alleged homosexuality was all about. Her defense was trying to show that John allegedly killed Kent because of homosexual advances Kent supposedly made toward John's son. It made no sense that for Mechele to fear Kent's stalking because he might be gay. I only commented on the legal rule blocking a challenge to John's conviction to indicate how the new trial would be different from the first trial. If there is no such rule, then perhaps there will be no such difference in the new trial. I do hope that her defense does present evidence that John could not have been at the murder scene.

It was bad enough that the victim was shot along a lonely, snowy road (where he was meant to never be found), but to suggest afterwards that he was a stalker and homosexual? Adding insult to injury? ... or is that murder?

Kent, by all reports, had a healthy interest in women. John's son described seeing John and Mechele with the murder weapon ... the gun that John suddenly threw away at the same time as the murder. We have to look past so much slander and logic to believe that Mechele is anything but a woman involved in murder for insurance money.

 

[otto]

The assumption that Mechele is a con-person who will kill is just that: an assumption.

<snipped>

Mechele is a con woman. She conned several men into believing that she wanted to marry them, conned them into giving her expensive gifts and a place to live. She conned men using sexuality and false promises to obtain money and gifts. In my opinion, it is an established fact, not an assumption, that Mechele Linehan is a con woman. In fact, one look at her husband tells everyone that he is completely under her control (there's a better word for that, but it's probably not appropriate). Through her husband, she gains a reputation that she could never establish on her own. She tried to con the court by baby talking throughout the trial. I don't see anything authentic in Mechele Linehan.