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

New Posts

No new news on the judge's ruling regarding the grand jury examination. I'll keep you updated as soon as something's filed on the docket.

As a side note, however, during some recent surfing of other threads and other various sites and blogs on the internets, I was reminded of one of my favorite clips from Fox's "Family Guy," where a stubborn mule insists that Kevin Bacon was not in the movie "Footloose." It seems to have some applicability to this case and it's surrounding discussions.

[video=youtube;W2Rdf0n_Lsg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Rdf0n_Lsg[/video]

If that same mule then insisted that Michael J. Fox wasn't in the "Back to the Future" movies, a person might find themselves disbelieving the mule, even if they'd never even seen the "Back to the Future" trilogy.

Attention-seeking behavior at it's finest.

Point being, when a person shows themselves to be an uneducated fool about one thing, their credibility in other areas disintegrates.

I hope Mechele Linehan and her friends, family, and other supporters are truly cognizant of the credibility of those they choose to let speak for them, and may want to revisit their suggested links on their various blogs and webpages.

:giggle:
:laugh:
 
Oops, looks like the video I posted above has been removed on the youtube site. Despite that, the point was made. If you want a laugh, though, just google "family guy kevin bacon footloose" and you'll be sure to find it.

Also, the question has been posed of how long can the state of Alaska go on without re-indicting Mechele? I do believe that the answer is indefinitely. The deadline given to the prosecution seemed to relate more to the bail/bond issues rather than being a deadline to file an intent to seek a new indictment. Since the original indictment was dismissed without prejudice, and there is no statute of limitations on murder, then the state of Alaska has no limitations on time as far as seeking re-indictment.

So, yes, the state of Alaska does have the right to keep Mechele Linehan under suspicion for the rest of her life.
 
Couple of new items on the docket:

02/14/2012 Unopposed Motion to Accept Late Filed Reply to State's Opposition to Motion for Presiding Judge To Examine Potential Grand Jurors For Bias
Click to expand...

and

02/14/2012 Reply to State's Opposition to Motion For Presiding Judge To Examine Potential Grand Jurors For Bias
Click to expand...

So I suppose the judge will review the original motion, the opposition, and the reply to the opposition, and then rule on the motion.
 
flourish said:
Couple of new items on the docket:



and



So I suppose the judge will review the original motion, the opposition, and the reply to the opposition, and then rule on the motion.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Flourish! As always, I appreciate your hard work on this (and all!) threads. I hope there is a resolution on this whole debacle soon...
 
Nothing new on the docket, however, a little bit of interesting on the free mechele facebook group page (public group).

Mechele herself doesn't seem to have posted since her return to Washington state just over a month ago. Several of her supporters have asked about her and specifically asked to hear from her. However, she has not responded nor posted still.

I find it interesting that people who spent their money sending her things off her amazon wish list while in prison, and presumably after she was released, are asking for one or two sentences from her on facebook and not getting them. I mean, really, she can't login one time and post a simple "I'm doing well and adjusting. It's been difficult, but I appreciate all of your support." See? Not that difficult or time-consuming.

I realize and appreciate that she is having to make some big readjustments, but it really is coming across as ungrateful and cold, IMO, particularly after more than a couple of requests over several weeks. I mean, she should at least continue to offer her appreciation/*cough*string*them*along*cough* until there's more definitive information about a possible re-trial. I mean...she still needs them at least until then and certainly during a new trial, if there is one. :innocent:

No, Mechele has no legal obligation to ever thank anyone for anything. I'm talking about a general societal what-polite-people-do obligation.

And she may be sending private messages to some of those folks, but not obviously not the whole group as someone posted within the last day about wishing she would check in and post.

:twocents: :cow:

P.S. I also realize not every supporter of hers sent her donations and/or gifts, but her list was posted on the blog, along with a place to make donations and buy merchandise, and there were indications that at least some of those things were purchased, so I think it's safe to say at least a few of the people part of the free mechele fb group have supported her in more ways than just emotional.
 
So according to the free mechele facebook group page, Mechele has been "advised" to stay off the internet. Some of her supporters were discussing that Mechele shouldn't say anything publicly until it's crystal clear that the Alaska courts are not going to pursue the case further. I can't say I disagree with that advice, as we all know the kinds of things she posted back when her twitter account was public.

It still doesn't make sense to me as to why she can't give her mother a message to post on the facebook page. Thanking her supporters and making a general statement like "it's great to be home" or "I appreciate all your support" is not talking about her case, and seems to be what her supporters are asking for.

So, in short, I understand that Mechele herself is allegedly staying offline, but since her mother is active on the free mechele page, I don't understand why a simple short message could be conveyed on the page via her mother. Sorta sounded like an excuse, IMO. It's Mechele's business if she'd like to do that, but, again, she may not want to risk alienating her supporters at this point. In my opinion, of course.

And no word on the judge's ruling on the motion discussed upthread.
 
:seeya: Hi Everyone! :seeya:

I just wanted to express some thoughts and perhaps clarify a couple of things.

Websleuths is a victim-friendly "true crime" discussion board. It is not a blog. All people have hobbies and interests--knitting, hiking, shopping, reading-- some people enjoy studying crime and criminals and all the sociological, psychological, philosophical etc. kinds of discussions and issues involved and emeshed in each and every case. Most people are likely to have a variety of interests.

People who personally know a suspect or defendant are frequently understandably upset about accusations, true or false, about their friend or family member. People who feel an injustice has occurred often become quite impassioned, even if they've never met any of the players personally.

I am not, however, aware of any instance where the victim of a crime or their loved-ones has felt offended by having their case being discussed on WS. It's possible it's happened, but I've never seen it. I have seen many posts from victims and/or their loved-ones expressing gratitude that someone, even just lowly discussion board posters, care enough to continue working a case. Just take a visit to the cold cases area to see that even police officers who have retired appreciate the ongoing attention these cases get here. My concern is with them, not the accused. No one wants another Richard Jewell, but the victims in these cases deserve the attention and WS and its posters are happy to offer it.

Often, WS posters find themselves drawn to some cases more than others. Obviously, this is one of those cases for me, as I've posted about a third of the posts on this thread:blushing:. Some of you may wonder if I'm somehow personally involved with the case or some of its players. The answer is no. I was stuck in bed ill a couple of years ago, and ended up watching a Dateline rerun marathon on tv. The show which spotlighted Kent's murder case was one I saw that day. I was intrigued, so when I was well, I did some research on this case. I was pretty surprised at the lack of information available online. Perhaps I'd began to be spoiled by the amount of information which had been released in the Caylee Anthony case. I was also surprised to find that although WS had a thread about the case, there were only one or two posts. I could find some information online on the Anchorage Daily News site, but not a whole lot, and some other information on the free mechele blog page, but very few sources I would consider unbiased and solid, like court transcripts or copies of motions, etc.

Websleuths poster Nancy Botwin provided a lot more information, and when mechelelinehan.com was created, it promised to provide information about the case. Since I'd been seeking additional information, I was excited at the prospect of seeing some of the actual court documents, even if no trial transcripts. However, the site has only provided a small handfull of information and appears to have been "under construction" since its inception.

The information I've had access to is the basis for my opinion. My opinion is subject to change as new information becomes available. I'm not afraid to admit I'm mistaken or wrong about something if I am mistaken or incorrect.

I absolutely understand that Mechele's lawyers have advised her not to speak about the case. Surely that is why there isn't more information on the mechelelinehan.com site. It is frustrating, though, to hear Mechele's supporters insist that anyone who doesn't believe in Mechele's innocence is either uniformed or biased. If I'm uniformed, then INFORM ME! But then there's the problem of releasing information. It's frustrating for me, too, to wonder what all the information is that would supposedly convince me and put all the facts in a completely new light. I'm skeptical that it actually exists, but if it does, I'd be happy to view it with an open mind.

Bottom line--I would like to see Kent's killer brought to justice. If Mechele is not guilty of murdering him or being involved in his murder, then whoever is needs to be prosecuted. As 2goldfish mentioned upthread, it would be preferable to discover that Kent wasn't killed by the woman he wanted to marry. But I can only work with what information I have access to.
 
flourish said:
I've been wondering why this thread isn't more active considering there is a fair amount of internet activity around this case (ie: newspaper discussion boards, etc.)

I see we get frequent visits from guests. Register and come on in and post, folks! Make sure to read the Terms of Service and etiquette rules first, because Websleuths is moderated more heavily and, IMHO, much better than anywhere else on the web. There are rules to follow, so check them out and then join in!
Click to expand...

:bump:
Bumping this as we continue to get frequent visits from guests. Feel free to join and post, you guys! Please read the Websleuths Terms of Service (TOS), though, as there are some definite boundaries for decorum here.
 
Shelby2 said:
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/...045207/decision-expected-soon-on-linehan.html
"
Decision expected soon on Linehan retrial, prosecutors say

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/...n-expected-soon-on-linehan.html#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...


:wagon:

Hi Shelby2!!! I'm so glad you're here, and thank you so much for the linked article--what a great find!

So they'll make an announcement soon. While my understanding was that the state could legally "leave it up in the air" so to speak, but legal or not, it didn't feel fair to the victims' family, and I know Mechele's supporters were upset about that prospect, too. I don't know much, if anything, about the nuances of overturned judgements and indictments.

I'm interested to see how this continues to develop!
 
flourish said:
:wagon:

Hi Shelby2!!! I'm so glad you're here, and thank you so much for the linked article--what a great find!

So they'll make an announcement soon. While my understanding was that the state could legally "leave it up in the air" so to speak, but legal or not, it didn't feel fair to the victims' family, and I know Mechele's supporters were upset about that prospect, too. I don't know much, if anything, about the nuances of overturned judgements and indictments.

I'm interested to see how this continues to develop!
Click to expand...

Me too, I wonder how "soon" soon is..
 
:rant::rant::rant:

I just need to vent a little bit. It seems like every time there is a new article in the news about Ms. Linehan, inevitably someone comments that regardless of her guilt or innocence, the State of Alaska should just let it go now because she became a productive member of society.

:deal:

The short-sightedness and general absurdity of that thinking blows me away no matter how many times I read it. Like, sure, let's all send a message to criminals that if you manage to either not commit any more crimes, or do and just cover them really well, and elude prosecution long enough to get hitched/knocked up/educated/employed then it "makes up" for any past crimes?!?!?!?

REALLY?!?!? :devil: :devil: :devil:

So when does a murder victim get that chance to change and become a productive member of society? Never!!!

*Sigh* I know no one here has made those kind of statements (thank goodness because I like being a member of WS), but biased, illogical statements like that just really rile me up!

I also have to wonder if these [unusual people] who make these comments actually just want Mechele specifically to be let go or if they really feel this way about all criminals. I also wonder if their minds would change if their family member was murdered. Of course, I don't wish that upon anyone, but it sure seems some people are seriously lacking foresight and perspective.
I, too, wonder how soon "soon" is going to be. That announcement reminded me of when people become "engaged to be engaged," like, "we're announcing there's going to be an announcement." It's not like their announcement was even new news, really, although it at least indicates that they're not just going to leave this case hanging forever.

Okay, rant over. :seeya:

Well, almost...I also wanted to add that I've grown beyond weary of seeing Mechele's supporters state that she was either prosecuted for being a woman, or prosecuted for being a stripper.

As if the life insurance policy wasn't suspicious, as if the Hope Note wasn't incredibly suspicious and an obvious lure, as if the emails were never written, the missing gun never purchased, cleaned, and disposed of, as if Mechele didn't refer to her customers/bf's as "marks" and as if Mechele didn't take possession of Kent's computer and ask her sister to erase its hard drive. How conveniently we forget. Or rather, dismiss. Those are just a few of the reasons she was suspected of being involved.

Also, are there statistics showing that Alaska prosecutes strippers at an obvious rate higher than the rest of the country? What about women? Mechele was charged with MURDER, not being a female. Not being a stripper. MURDER. FIRST DEGREE MURDER. It must be a systemic conspiracy if both the old and new set of prosecutors are in on it.

Who refers to other people as "marks?" Grifters, con-people, that's who! No, being a con-woman doesn't make Mechele a murderer, but all that and more certainly led to enough suspicion which led to the evidence used against her.


It's not that I don't believe there are corrupt systems and individuals in all areas of government and life in general--there are, but just saying "Oh she was prosecuted for being a woman" and accusing both prosecution teams of sexism, with nothing to back it up, is, in my opinion, plain untruthful and wrong.
 
Here are some current links for video related to this case, in no particular order:

Brief news clip during first trial of Mechele speaking when asked about her choice to not take the stand:
http://youtu.be/NasRDW783UM

Mechele speaking at her sentencing. She looks understandably terrified. Guilty or innocent I wouldn't want to be sitting there. The speech was, I think, a good summary of the defense's perspective, and was pretty well-delivered. Any of you have any opinions you'd like to share? You need to turn the volume up on this one:
http://youtu.be/gTRjLHJO338

Of course, I wonder what Kent Leppink would have said in his defense had he had the opportunity before being shot in the back, stomach, and face.

This one I found particularly interesting:
http://youtu.be/33n85ziRAw4
--it contains a lot of info in a short video. What are your thoughts on Mechele's facial expressions and body language beginning around 36 seconds in? The audio we're hearing doesn't appear to match the video, but there's something there that reminds me of this:

Cat-Canary.jpg


Is she simply relishing the "outting" of Kent's "deceptive behavior" because it could support her defense? And yes, I have too much idle time, as I paused it, then watched from 36 seconds to 45 seconds in slo-mo, and seconds 42 and 43 are just...well, I wonder what the thousand words are that those stills could tell. Or perhaps I've just seen too many episodes of "Lie to Me" and am trying to be Tim Roth again. :blushing: :crazy:

Ah well, let the field day begin.

Still no word on either the judgement re: grand jury motion, nor the convening or potential or recently passed conveyance of a new grand jury.
 
And I don't know how I forgot to add this one yesterday. I hadn't actually seen it before last week. Very interesting, IMO. It's the testimony of an expert witness discussing the results of some psychological testing on Mechele.

http://youtu.be/yPj_Kg-RCCc

The witness is defensive from the get go...although it appears the video doesn't begin at the very beginning of his testimony.

Quote (as best as I could transcribe, please feel free to correct me, and I punctuated as made sense to me by his tone of voice and pausing, etc.):

Although the psychological report testimony reveals Mrs. Linehan to be far from perfect--she is variously and unflatteringly characterized as defensive, immature, hedonistic, uninhibited and impulsive--she is not callous, thrill-seeking, psychotic, blah blah blah.
Click to expand...
The "blah blah blah" is really what he said. This guy's behavior is just...seemingly unprofessional. I wish the video included the entire testimony so I could see what led up to that. Again, spoiled by the Casey Anthony trial coverage, as hideous and awful as that situation and outcome was.

It seems Mrs. Linehan's lack of diagnosis as a sociopath or psychopath is considered a big point in her favor by her supporters, which I can understand to a point. But it's like there's this idea that only psychopaths and sociopaths kill, which is just not true. Her not being a diagnosed sociopath or psychopath doesn't negate her from having been involved in Leppink's murder. Look at Karla Homolka--her psychological testing results were odd, inconsistent, and unable to really pinpoint an appropriate identified "diagnosis" for her, but she's on video clearly participating in the rape and murder of her baby sister as well as other young women.

:seeya:
 
Two new items on the docket today. Found at http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/pa.urd/pamw2000.docket_lst?54330965

They read as follows:

03/22/2012 Proposed Order Not Used Linehan, Mechele K Case Motion #63 Unopposed Motion to Accept Late Filed Reply to State's Opposition to Motion for Presiding Judge To Examine Potential Grand Jurors For Bias
Click to expand...

and

03/22/2012 Proposed Order Not Used Linehan, Mechele K Case Motion #62 Motion For Presiding Judge to Examine Potential Grand Jury For Bias, As Required by Criminal Rule 6(s)(2), Alaska Rules of Court
Click to expand...

I don't know what "proposed order not used" means.
 
Huh. The docket right now does not have either of those items listed. They were there earlier today. Could be nothing, could be something, could be computers being weird.


:seeya:
 
otto said:
It's sounds like it was an option that was not exercised.
Click to expand...

LOL, thank otto...I actually did understand that much ;)

I just don't know what it really means that the option was not used. Also finding it weird that it disappeared from the docket. However, I'm not an expert in...docket documentation...so it could totally be nothing.

:seeya:
 
:waiting:

As predicted, "soon" appears to have a rather subjective meaning in this case.

Mechele's new trial was scheduled for last and this week IIRC.

:waiting:
 
Latest on the docket:

04/10/2012 Order Granting Motion Case Motion #63: Unopposed Motion to Accept Late Filed Reply to State's Opposition to Motion for Presiding Judge To Examine Potential Grand Jurors For Bias
Click to expand...
http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/pa.urd/pamw2000.docket_lst?54330965

as far as I can tell that just means the judge accepted the defense's late response to the state's opposition to the defense's motion asking for an examination of potential grand jurors

So, still :waiting: it seems. yay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 145 more.
Total: 3,947 (members: 146, guests: 3,801)

Online statistics

Members online
146
Guests online
3,801
Total visitors
3,947
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,432
Messages
17,987,072
Members
229,132
Latest member
softtaillover
Back
Top