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

[flourish]

Couple of things:

• Mechele's conning is not the same as the usual "stripper fantasy" thing. Most strippers leave the usual fantasy at the strip club. In fact, they usually go out of their way to NOT interact with club clients outside of the club. Mechele took it outside the club, developing outside relationships with men and conning them outside of the club. That is not how it usually happens. Mechele went above and beyond the usual stripper fantasy and into the land of full-on con job.
• Mechele cheated on her husband not only with her ex, Hilke, but with one of her husbands co-workers while out on bond for the first trial. That indicates to me that she hasn't changed her way too much!
• It is not a Grand Canyon type of leap to consider that someone who is morally bankrupt enough to con men into giving her money and expensive gifts and trips may also be morally bankrupt enough to kill a mark in order to get even more money. As otto mentioned, there really is no reasonable argument that could be presented to support the idea that Mechele is anything but a con person.
• It is, however, a HUGE leap to consider that a spurned lover like Kent had himself brutally murdered simply to "get back" at Mechele. There has been no proof or even a hint of evidence that suggests that Kent planned his own murder--no emails from him and his "co-conspirator.
• turtlepace, you stated as fact that Mechele was unable to present a complete defense at her trial b/c of Carlin's earlier conviction. However, you haven't been able to provide any evidence that that was true. Therefore, I'm taking that as rumor and giving it the same weight I would give any other rumor.
• The youngest Carlin was asked if Kent had every been inappropriate with him and Carlin stated that KENT HAD NOT SEXUALLY MOLESTED HIM.
• And as turtlepace mentioned, if Kent really was a gay pedophile (which there is absolutely no evidence of), then why would he be obsessively stalking Mechele?
• I continue to be amazed at how some people seem to think it's reasonable to accuse a deceased person of all sorts of wrongdoings with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, but these same people think it's unreasonable to think that someone who has had no problem conning people and taking large amounts of their money might make the leap to having someone killed for money. Yes, conning is not proof of murder. But dying isn't proof of suicide, either.

 

[otto]

Couple of things:

• Mechele's conning is not the same as the usual "stripper fantasy" thing. Most strippers leave the usual fantasy at the strip club. In fact, they usually go out of their way to NOT interact with club clients outside of the club. Mechele took it outside the club, developing outside relationships with men and conning them outside of the club. That is not how it usually happens. Mechele went above and beyond the usual stripper fantasy and into the land of full-on con job.
• Mechele cheated on her husband not only with her ex, Hilke, but with one of her husbands co-workers while out on bond for the first trial. That indicates to me that she hasn't changed her way too much!
• It is not a Grand Canyon type of leap to consider that someone who is morally bankrupt enough to con men into giving her money and expensive gifts and trips may also be morally bankrupt enough to kill a mark in order to get even more money. As otto mentioned, there really is no reasonable argument that could be presented to support the idea that Mechele is anything but a con person.
• It is, however, a HUGE leap to consider that a spurned lover like Kent had himself brutally murdered simply to "get back" at Mechele. There has been no proof or even a hint of evidence that suggests that Kent planned his own murder--no emails from him and his "co-conspirator.
• turtlepace, you stated as fact that Mechele was unable to present a complete defense at her trial b/c of Carlin's earlier conviction. However, you haven't been able to provide any evidence that that was true. Therefore, I'm taking that as rumor and giving it the same weight I would give any other rumor.
• The youngest Carlin was asked if Kent had every been inappropriate with him and Carlin stated that KENT HAD NOT SEXUALLY MOLESTED HIM.
• And as turtlepace mentioned, if Kent really was a gay pedophile (which there is absolutely no evidence of), then why would he be obsessively stalking Mechele?
• I continue to be amazed at how some people seem to think it's reasonable to accuse a deceased person of all sorts of wrongdoings with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, but these same people think it's unreasonable to think that someone who has had no problem conning people and taking large amounts of their money might make the leap to having someone killed for money. Yes, conning is not proof of murder. But dying isn't proof of suicide, either.

I hope her husband gets help to improve his self esteem. He seems like he perceives himself as having no self-worth without his adulterous and criminally inclined wife. I find it astounding that he is unable to cut his losses and seek a happy life for his daughter and himself.

 

[marilhicks]

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.

You seem to be rehashing most of the points that have been thoroughly discussed on this forum and elsewhere (Alaska Daily News). Rather than respond to specific points that you have raised, I would recommend that anyone new to this forum read this thread thoroughly and if possible search out relevant discussions on ADN.

Many of the links in previous posts probably won’t work since it appears those sources have been removed.

All I can hope for is another trial with a group of competent jurors who will use their intelligence and common sense to sort through the evidence and render justice.

 

[Turtlepace]

We've been rehashing the same facts for four years. If there are really any new readers, they are welcome to read my opinions here and at www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com. I rehash opinions that are not popular among Mechele's enemies. That means my opinions have been criticized as old for a long time. That doesn't make them irrelevant. Mechele's enemies' opinions are also old. That doesn't make them right.

 

[Turtlepace]

The rule against contradicting a conviction was what forced Mechele's defense to use the strategy that John Carlin acted alone to protect his son against Kent's alleged homosexuality. I don't need Kent's homosexuality to defend Mechele since I'm not limited by that rule in my opinion.

I hope that the defense in Mechele's new trial will present evidence that John was not at the murder scene and that the emails prove that Mechele was merely trying to avoid Kent following her to California while she was visiting Scott. The evidence proves that Kent was invading Mechele's privacy and she had a history of lying to him to keep him from doing so. If her enemies don't like calling that stalking, it's just too bad. It's my opinion that he was.

At http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81172&page=10 there is an email from Mechele to Kent that shows what she thought of his invasion of her privacy. Kent's being dead gives Mechele's enemies no rights to distort Kent's actions. Mechele was trying to avoid him, and avoiding Kent was the only conspiracy represented by the Hope Note.

 

[Turtlepace]

You can take my opinion as rumour if you want, but because of the lifting of John's conviction, it is my rumour that Mechele's defense in the new trial will not be limited by the legal fact of John's conviction.

As far as the fantasy email of March 31, 1996 goes, as long as she was sending others the same type of email, I see those other emails as doubt that her email to Kent was a serious intention to marry him. Certainly the email of April 9, 1996 shows serious doubt that she really intended to marry him.

Even if there is nothing authentic about Mechele, how does that prove that she conspired to kill Kent? I don't dispute that she was manipulating him into giving her money, but there is no evidence that she manipulated John into killing Kent. You have to assume she is a sociopath or sychopath to declare her guilty without proof. I have already expressed my doubt that she is a sociopath or a psychopath.

 

[otto]

We've been rehashing the same facts for four years. If there are really any new readers, they are welcome to read my opinions here and at www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com. I rehash opinions that are not popular among Mechele's enemies. That means my opinions have been criticized as old for a long time. That doesn't make them irrelevant. Mechele's enemies' opinions are also old. That doesn't make them right.

Does Mechele have enemies? Are the prosecutors her enemies?

 

[Turtlepace]

I am curious how a school teacher knows what is "normal" for a stripper in manipulating her marks to give her money. I have never said that what Mechele did outside the club was ethical, but that is a Grand Canyon leap from saying that Mechele was immoral enough to conspire to murder.

As far as protecting Kent's reputation from his own actions, where is the morality of that? There is plenty of evidence that Kent was invading Mechele's privacy and that's all I'm saying she was trying to avoid. Which of my references on http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81172&page=18 about Mechele believing Kent was stalking her is false? These references come from the ADNews, CBS 48 Hours, and the Appeals Decision. I know that the ADNews and CBS 48 Hours are quoted on this board. The Appeals Decision is a public document. If there is some question of stories being pulled from the ADNews, I've noticed that they are still available on the Olympian, but in any case, I'm not making this stuff up.

 

[otto]

The rule against contradicting a conviction was what forced Mechele's defense to use the strategy that John Carlin acted alone to protect his son against Kent's alleged homosexuality. I don't need Kent's homosexuality to defend Mechele since I'm not limited by that rule in my opinion.

I hope that the defense in Mechele's new trial will present evidence that John was not at the murder scene and that the emails prove that Mechele was merely trying to avoid Kent following her to California while she was visiting Scott. The evidence proves that Kent was invading Mechele's privacy and she had a history of lying to him to keep him from doing so. If her enemies don't like calling that stalking, it's just too bad. It's my opinion that he was.

At http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81172&page=10 there is an email from Mechele to Kent that shows what she thought of his invasion of her privacy. Kent's being dead gives Mechele's enemies no rights to distort Kent's actions. Mechele was trying to avoid him, and avoiding Kent was the only conspiracy represented by the Hope Note.

This sounds like something out of the Anthony case. George molested the 2 year old and so he drowned her in the pool. There was no evidence whatsoever that this ever happened. Same with any suggestions that the murder victim was a pedophile or that he was murdered for molesting a teenage boy. There is no evidence that the victim was anything but a heterosexual with a healthy interest in women, and the teenage boy has clearly sworn to the fact that he was never molested. Therefore, what we are left with is a con woman that is concocting any kind of crazy allegations to avoid suffering the consequences of planning and carrying out a murder.

Mechele wasn't trying to avoid Kent, she was stringing him along allowing him to believe that she would marry him. Since when do women buy life insurance policies for their stalkers?

 

[otto]

You can take my opinion as rumour if you want, but because of the lifting of John's conviction, it is my rumour that Mechele's defense in the new trial will not be limited by the legal fact of John's conviction.

As far as the fantasy email of March 31, 1996 goes, as long as she was sending others the same type of email, I see those other emails as doubt that her email to Kent was a serious intention to marry him. Certainly the email of April 9, 1996 shows serious doubt that she really intended to marry him.

Even if there is nothing authentic about Mechele, how does that prove that she conspired to kill Kent? I don't dispute that she was manipulating him into giving her money, but there is no evidence that she manipulated John into killing Kent. You have to assume she is a sociopath or sychopath to declare her guilty without proof. I have already expressed my doubt that she is a sociopath or a psychopath.

There is evidence that Mechele manipulated three men. John was no exception.

 

[otto]

I am curious how a school teacher knows what is "normal" for a stripper in manipulating her marks to give her money. I have never said that what Mechele did outside the club was ethical, but that is a Grand Canyon leap from saying that Mechele was immoral enough to conspire to murder.

As far as protecting Kent's reputation from his own actions, where is the morality of that? There is plenty of evidence that Kent was invading Mechele's privacy and that's all I'm saying she was trying to avoid. Which of my references on http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81172&page=18 about Mechele believing Kent was stalking her is false? These references come from the ADNews, CBS 48 Hours, and the Appeals Decision. I know that the ADNews and CBS 48 Hours are quoted on this board. The Appeals Decision is a public document. If there is some question of stories being pulled from the ADNews, I've noticed that they are still available on the Olympian, but in any case, I'm not making this stuff up.

Mechele was not being stalked, she was the stalker. She preyed on at least three men. She manipulated them to gain their trust, money and gifts. No one buys a life insurance policy for someone they later claim to be a stalker unless they have deadly intensions.

 

[Turtlepace]

"I wonder if there is more in his letter to his parents about what initially made him suspcious." 1/8/2011 Websleuths registered user: otto http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81172&page=14

There is nothing else in Kent's letter to indicate what made him suspicious, but the prosecutor did not want more than small bits of the letter to be used. I know what else there is, but I dare anyone to find a link to the actual entire letter. You cannot find it on the Internet. So if references I use that may be unavailable are suspect, then forget about the letter.


"Because the older Carlin died before the Appeals Court could hear his appeal for a new trial, the higher court has also thrown out his conviction, leaving prosecutors for this next trial against Linehan in murky legal territory. Volland said he believed prosecutors would have to take a different approach in their theory of the murder, one that absolves Carlin of the crime." 4/29/2010 ADNews "Judge OKs bail for Linehan; $25,000 gets her out of prison"


I think the way the ADNews expressed it is strange, but it does explain the "legal fact" that I've talked about.

 

[otto]

"I wonder if there is more in his letter to his parents about what initially made him suspcious." 1/8/2011 Websleuths registered user: otto http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81172&page=14

There is nothing else in Kent's letter to indicate what made him suspicious, but the prosecutor did not want more than small bits of the letter to be used. I know what else there is, but I dare anyone to find a link to the actual entire letter. You cannot find it on the Internet. So if references I use that may be unavailable are suspect, then forget about the letter.


"Because the older Carlin died before the Appeals Court could hear his appeal for a new trial, the higher court has also thrown out his conviction, leaving prosecutors for this next trial against Linehan in murky legal territory. Volland said he believed prosecutors would have to take a different approach in their theory of the murder, one that absolves Carlin of the crime." 4/29/2010 ADNews "Judge OKs bail for Linehan; $25,000 gets her out of prison"


I think the way the ADNews expressed it is strange, but it does explain the "legal fact" that I've talked about.

Isn't it possible to convict someone of conspiracy to commit murder when one party to the conspiracy is dead?

 

[Turtlepace]

Sure, the State can re-try Mechele if it gets another indictment, but the State can no longer assume John's guilt in re-trying Mechele. That's what I've been talking about with the "legal fact" that Mechele's defense in the first trial could not contradict John's conviction. It limited the evidence that Mechele's defense could present. This time around, the State doesn't have that presumption of John's guilt. If the prosecutor wants to prove a conspiracy to murder, he has to prove John killed Kent and get around evidence that the defense will present that John did not kill Kent.

www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com

 

[Turtlepace]

At the time Kent died, he was madly chasing around looking for Mechele. Mechele was doing her best to keep Kent from following her to California while she was seeing Scott. There is no evidence that John was at the murder scene May 2, 1996. The email of 4/9/1996 makes it plain that Mechele was telling Kent to stop stalking her. It was not ethical of Mechele to manipulate Kent into giving her money under the supposed prospects of marriage, but it is a motive for Kent to stalk Mechele when he realized she wasn't going to marry him. His spite letter to his parents asked them to punish her for not marrying him. I call it a spite letter since the accusation that Mechele and her friends were "probably" responsible for his death was just one unsubstantiated smear among many to discredit her. Kent said he would have destroyed the letter if she had married him.

www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com

 

[otto]

Sure, the State can re-try Mechele if it gets another indictment, but the State can no longer assume John's guilt in re-trying Mechele. That's what I've been talking about with the "legal fact" that Mechele's defense in the first trial could not contradict John's conviction. It limited the evidence that Mechele's defense could present. This time around, the State doesn't have that presumption of John's guilt. If the prosecutor wants to prove a conspiracy to murder, he has to prove John killed Kent and get around evidence that the defense will present that John did not kill Kent.

www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com

John doesn't have to be guilty for Mechele to be guilty. There appears to be quite a bit of evidence implicating her in the murder. The insurance policy, fake identities, con-artistry, manipulations and emails should be enough to put her away for life.

 

[otto]

At the time Kent died, he was madly chasing around looking for Mechele. Mechele was doing her best to keep Kent from following her to California while she was seeing Scott. There is no evidence that John was at the murder scene May 2, 1996. The email of 4/9/1996 makes it plain that Mechele was telling Kent to stop stalking her. It was not ethical of Mechele to manipulate Kent into giving her money under the supposed prospects of marriage, but it is a motive for Kent to stalk Mechele when he realized she wasn't going to marry him. His spite letter to his parents asked them to punish her for not marrying him. I call it a spite letter since the accusation that Mechele and her friends were "probably" responsible for his death was just one unsubstantiated smear among many to discredit her. Kent said he would have destroyed the letter if she had married him.

www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com

At the time of Kent's murder, Mechele was madly manipulating him until his head was spinning. Fortunately he had the good sense to remove her from the insurance policy that she purchased. She was yanking his chain until he was blinded by jealousy. She accepted his offer of marriage, accepted his gifts, purchased a wedding gift for him in the form of an insurance policy, lied about the origin of that insurance policy and when he assumed that they were engaged and wanted to be with her, suddenly he's a stalker? That seems absurd.

Do you have a link to a letter from Kent asking his parents to punish her for not marrying him? If he sent this letter to his parents, how could he destroy a letter that was no longer in his possession?

 

[Turtlepace]

I've already said that the letter that Mechele's enemies love to quote and which the Appeals Court ruled cannot be used in trial does not have a link on the Internet. I have to quote it just like the rest of you.


"When the family learned of Kent's murder, they followed that strange instruction he had given them, and opened the second envelope, the one sealed inside his letter, and were stunned by what Kent had written: 'Since you're reading this, you assume that I'm dead. Don't dwell on that. It was my time and there is nothing that can change that.' Then: 'I hate to be vindictive in my death, but paybacks are hell.'" 5/22/2009 NBC letter Dateline
(Underlined bold added for emphasis)


"In portions of the letter not shown to the jury, Leppink tells his parents to give or sell his boat to a friend, to take his $1 million life insurance money to pay off his debts, and to take some of his life insurance money to go on a nice beach vacation. He also gives them detailed information about Linehan, who then went by her maiden name, Hughes. He accuses her of using Carlin's medical insurance as her own and not reporting her exotic dancing income to the Internal Revenue Service. He gives them contact information for insurance companies, Linehan's mother's address, and Linehan's Social Security number." 10/11/2007 ADNews B "Attorneys in murder case dissect Linehan e-mails"



"Mechele, John, or Scott were the people, or persons that probably killed me. Make sure they get burned." Kent Leppink's letter
(Underlined bold added for emphasis)



"'Sorry about giving you all this stuff to do,' reads Leppink's letter to his father. 'I would have done it, but I wanted to make things work. I wanted to marry Mechele. If that would have happened, this would have been destroyed. I have kept it as my "insurance policy." Use it! I'll rest easier.'" 10/5/2006 Olympian "Former exotic dancer held in 1996 slaying"
(Underlined bold added for emphasis)

 

[Turtlepace]

Even if Mechele's enemies don't want to call it stalking, in the email that Nancy Botwin transcribed at http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81172&page=10 indicates to me that Mechele was not very interested in marrying Kent and was tired of his invading her privacy. The Hope Note and the email asking John to tell Kent that she had gone to Barrow when she didn't think Kent would believe she was still in Hope, and the "Seychelles" email asking John how Kent took to being told that she was the 2 1/2 hours of air time away from Anchorage at Barrow tell me that Mechele was trying very hard to avoid Kent's following her to California. I do not accept that Kent had bought Mechele for his wife and that she had no right to say no. I think she was planning to make it clear that she was not going to marry him when she mentioned in the email of 4/27/1996 that she wanted to meet separately with each of Kent and Kent's father when she returned. That Mechele's enemies accuse her of a scam or unethicalness in stringing Kent along with his obsession with marrying her does not prove that Mechele conspired to kill Kent. How did Mechele lie about the life insurance? She told the police about it. It is Kent who lied about the life insurance. He is the only one who ever said it was a wedding gift from Mechele's grandfather. Since Mechele paid for it, she would think she could ask to have it cancelled which she did.

Since Kent was able to change the life insurance policy, he must have borrowed the money to pay for it.

 

[flourish]

It seems the word "enemies" is used to refer to anyone who does not support Mechele. Seems so childish! LOL, although usually they're referred to as Mechele's "vulgar enemies."