flourish
Now With 30% More Emo
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 6,392
- Reaction score
- 6,796
My comments in green
I agree that there are various ways to interpret his decision to look for her and the cabin but, given everything else that we know of Kent, I can understand it. On the one hand, we have to wonder why, if he knew that he could be murdered (per his letter), he placed himself in a situation where the murder could be easily carried out. On the other hand, given that he was inexperienced with women, could sense that something was off and couldn't get a straight answer out of Mechele, it's understandable that he wanted to see with his own eyes what was truly going on.
RBBM I can understand why he would go out to Hope not only once, but twice. As you said, he didn't have a lot of experience with women. Here he is, he is getting these seriously mixed messages from Mechele (emails stating how much she wanted a life with him vs. disappearing act(s) and blowing off the visit with his dad). Think of all the battered women--and men--who return over and over to their abuser, in the hopes that they will be able to work it out. Essentially, Mechele's treatment of Kent was at best emotionally and mentally abusive. At worst it was murderous.
Mechele and John set a trap for him, he saw it, and still he walked straight into it. Although jurors said that this was obvious during the trial, I do wonder if another jury will see it as clearly if they do not have access to the letter, and are not allowed to know about John Carlin's conviction. Carlin's trial included a lot of information about Mechele, and vice versa. Do you know how much information about John can be included in a re-trial of Mechele? Although his conviction can't be mentioned, can all the other information about the gun and the big picture be introduced at trial?
RBBM Good question that I do not know the answer to. I wonder, too, if Kent's parents can testify regarding the letter or if all mentions of the letter are off limits. I understand the argument that she can't face her accuser, but one would think that there would be exceptions in cases where the accuser can't be faced because the defendant killed them...it's like a Catch-22 almost.