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

[nancy botwin]

Hey Nancy,
Have I told you lately how awesome you are? Thank you for putting this into much more eloquent and kind words than I could have. I would love to read more information, too, and have wondered why it's not so available particularly in light of the amount of support.

Anyway, one of those "thanks" button wasn't enough moments

Thanks, flourish. You're awesome
I'm pretty baffled by the lack of substantive info available in light of all the support as well! Particularly the emails-- Linehan won her appeal, those emails are going to be in evidence at the retrial; it can't hurt the defense to release the email history that purportedly blows the entire prosecutorial narrative (and the charges themselves) out of the water.

I hope rolena will return and take our requests into consideration. If not, I think we should form a coalition to send Musikman to Alaska! :smile:

 

[Blastfunnee]

Seems like the jury chose that option.

Whoops.

Someone didn't hear about the Court of Appeals decision.

 

[Maznblu1]

Whoops.

Someone didn't hear about the Court of Appeals decision.

You mean another case of someone found guilty getting off on a technicality? I heard about it. I also know that the jury that listened to her entire trial found her guilty.

 

[flourish]

Well, Blondie, I am an Alaskan currently, but I was a born and raised Washingtonian before that so I feel qualified to answer your question. Most of the Washingtonians I know would think your question is a silly non-issue and most Alaskans don't give a rip too much about what anyone Outside thinks about much of anything.

Um, I'm not Blondie, and Blondie isn't the one who stated what I was discussing, which was the idea that Mechele shouldn't be prosecuted because she lives out of state now and isn't a threat to Alaskans. That idea is certainly silly.

 

[rolena]

Um, I'm not Blondie, and Blondie isn't the one who stated what I was discussing, which was the idea that Mechele shouldn't be prosecuted because she lives out of state now and isn't a threat to Alaskans. That idea is certainly silly.

Yes, if she were dangerous or circumstances were different, probably all Alaskans would agree with you. The reasoning some have expressed in their local board posts though isn't quite that simple. It is a position a lot of people would argue with, but what I've read is that those who've included something like that in their arguments do so because there isn't enough evidence against her, there wasn't before and now there is even less, the state already spent God knows how much money on trying to get her and failed, so since she is no threat to Alaskans and doesn't even have any ties to here, it is more waste to pursue prosecuting her.

 

[flourish]

Yes, if she were dangerous or circumstances were different, probably all Alaskans would agree with you. The reasoning some have expressed in their local board posts though isn't quite that simple. It is a position a lot of people would argue with, but what I've read is that those who've included something like that in their arguments do so because there isn't enough evidence against her, there wasn't before and now there is even less, the state already spent God knows how much money on trying to get her and failed, so since she is no threat to Alaskans and doesn't even have any ties to here, it is more waste to pursue prosecuting her.

I respectfully disagree that Alaska should not prosecute her. The crime occurred in Alaska. It doesn't need to get more complicated than that, IMO. As for the evidence, like we've mentioned before, we don't have access to everything and have looked at things using what we do have.

Can you address the laptop computer issue? Why go to such pains to erase someone else's computer if you've nothing to hide or worry about?

Also, I'm confused. Not that it really matters to me, but if Colin's not in the army anymore, he's not an army doctor anymore. Family practice doctors and botox and laser centers don't sound like the same thing to me. Any clarification there?

 

[Carolina Girl]

I don't have a problem w/ her getting bond; others do and I don't think she plans to vanish.
Sheree Miller in Michigan is out on bond pending another trial for arranging the murder of her husband.

Innocent until proven guilty...in a court of law by her peers please.

 

[flourish]

Why do you assume all other people are too stupid to think about how they would feel if it had been their relative? Do you ever stop long enough to consider that perhaps not everyone accused of a crime is guilty (well, we know they aren't because all those people released from death row because it turned out they were wrongfully convicted, as well as other cases around the country) and that something is wrong with our system when people are convicted without actual evidence?

Put the shoe on the other foot. I wonder how all these people talking about ridiculous things like whether Mechele Linehan is eating crab or wearing white tank tops would be so shallow and cruel if it were their mother/sister/daughter who lost her life without evidence in a trial that even the state appeals court said was an unfair trial, and people in her community and across the nation ridiculed her, smeared her reputation, humiliated her husband, child, and mother, insulted anyone who dared speak up for her, and took her from her child? Ask yourself if you would be so judgmental if it were you or your loved one that happened to?

Respectfully snipped and bolded by me, for space and emphasis

I was the one who mentioned the white tank tops. I just thought it was notable that she was wearing the same kind of top in 2 of the 3 shots. No real significance there--just me being me and noticing what people wear. :blushing:

Not sure how that makes me cruel...it's not like I was saying that I wished my recently murdered "ex-fiance" had been tortured before dying...now, in my opinion, that would be cruel

As for the crab, that topic is relevant and I stand by my words. People defending Mechele have touted her alleged vegetarianism as some sort of defense like, "she couldn't possibly have killed someone--she can't even eat chicken!" So seeing her eating crab made me stop and go :waitasec:

And I also must reiterate my issue with her being referred to as a "girl." She was a woman. A young woman, yes, but a woman.

Oh--one more thing: I didn't mention her eyebrows previously, but I did notice them in the photo from the bond hearing and wondered about it because I didn't think inmates had access to tweezers. I guess that's just me being shallow, though :crazy:

 

[rolena]

I just have a hard time getting past some of the evidence that I have seen--like the laptop.
.

What aspect of the "laptop" evidence is an issue for you? Can you explain in a little more detail what you've read that you find compelling about it?

 

[cluciano63]

I hope that Mechele's second trial sticks to actual evidence and is judged based on fact. But sadly, attacking character of witnesses or defendant is common practice in US trials and therefore does of course affect the outcome of trials. Juries are all too human and are affected by the portrayal of a person as much as by factual evidence. It is far easier to convict an unlikable, or worse, person, than someone who seems just like you and me. I have no idea if Mechele had anything at all to do with KL's murder or if she learned of it after the fact or never knew anything about it. I totally believe that her beauty played a role in the trial and in a negative way. People are affected by physical appearance and it can either go totally against you or totally the other way, depending upon circumstances; that combined with the hysteria over her being an exotic dancer/stripper was too much to resist by prosecution, in my opinion.
I would just like the trial to be fair, using only evidence and not supposition, and see if another jury feels the state has done its job. We should hope this much for any defendant, regardless of whether we deem her likable or not.

 

[rolena]

I respectfully disagree that Alaska should not prosecute her. The crime occurred in Alaska. It doesn't need to get more complicated than that, IMO.

I agree that the crime occurred in Alaska, and so if there is a prosecution it should be on our dime, but I do not agree that it "doesn't need to get more complicated than that."

First, nothing in our society is more complicated than the law.

Second, if a defendant can't get a fair trial here because of our isolation, small population, and professional coziness, then the defendant deserves to have the trial in a less biased place. (Although, under AK law that is Very difficult, if not impossible. Even her bail is being decided by the same judge who oversaw both Carlin's and Linehan's trials and sentenced them both to 99 years! Checks and balances are hard to come by up here.)

Third, just because the state wants to solve the crime and wants to charge someone does not mean it should be her when they haven't been able to find any physical evidence or substantive circumstantial evidence. Otherwise, why not just pick names out of a hat?

 

[rolena]

According to Wikipedia:

Are you not aware that Wikipedia is open to the public to write on and edit? Anyone can post an article and can make edits. That's why there is incorrect information in the article you refer to.

It isn't the gospel.

 

[flourish]

I hope that Mechele's second trial sticks to actual evidence and is judged based on fact. But sadly, attacking character of witnesses or defendant is common practice in US trials and therefore does of course affect the outcome of trials. Juries are all too human and are affected by the portrayal of a person as much as by factual evidence. It is far easier to convict an unlikable, or worse, person, than someone who seems just like you and me. I have no idea if Mechele had anything at all to do with KL's murder or if she learned of it after the fact or never knew anything about it. I totally believe that her beauty played a role in the trial and in a negative way. People are affected by physical appearance and it can either go totally against you or totally the other way, depending upon circumstances; that combined with the hysteria over her being an exotic dancer/stripper was too much to resist by prosecution, in my opinion.
I would just like the trial to be fair, using only evidence and not supposition, and see if another jury feels the state has done its job. We should hope this much for any defendant, regardless of whether we deem her likable or not.

I would like to see that, too. I'd also like to see that happen without disparaging the victim who can't defend himself.

 

[nancy botwin]

For what it's worth, I've called and tried to get access to the physical transcripts-- thousands of dollars in copying fees. So, that's out. I also looked into getting the audio transcript so I could put the mp3s on a free file sharing site and we could listen here at WS, but discovered Alaska courts exclusively use the FTR audio system (it is incompatible with all mac operating systems and I'm a mac person, so I couldn't do the initial burn and upload). So, that's out.

I REALLY want to see the entire email history. And complete/portions of the court transcript. And any and all exculpatory evidence that may or may not exist. So, I'm going to keep with this thread I nominate myself to be the subject of all personal attacks and belittling. Bring it-- I don't care-- I really want to see the actual court documents/evidence.

 

[txsvicki]

Wow, lots of posts to read since I last read here. I wasn't swayed by TV shows showing the more gossipy aspects of Michele, but definitely noticed the oddities about Leppink. I agree that there really wasn't enough evidence to prove that she conspired to have him killed. After reading here about the sexual harassment accusations by the teen, I am wondering if there was some attempt to set up Leppink as even more of a weirdo. Also, I don't understand why Michele would even have wanted to go into business with him. Still, there really wasn't enough evidence.

 

[nancy botwin]

Club Owner Offers His Property to Cover Linehan Bail, PROPERTY BOND: Anchorage man willing to put up hotel as collateral to free accused killer he hasn't met. Anchorage Daily News 5-6-2010

 

[LadyBug99]

Reasons that I believe Mechele is guilty

1) The call to "cancel" the life insurance policy.
2) The laptop.
3) Seychelles Islands.
4) Her sisters refusal to testify.

Mechele was a manipulative young women, IN MY OPINION. This case was based on circumstantial evidence which is obviously subject to different interpretations. I was surprised when she was sentenced to 99 years. I was not surprised that she won an appeal. She may win this time around. If she does, I am happy that she has at least served some time in prison for her role in Kent's murder.

 

[flourish]

Thank you. I'm neither ruffled nor upset. You have every right to challenge me and I tried to see where you were coming from. I tried to clarify. To me, there's nothing wrong with having breast implants. Or being gay. Or eating cheeseburgers. I don't think anyone deserves to get sick or be hospitalized. I don't know what else to say.





I'm not sure what specific points you feel we aren't addressing. If you're referring to all the insinuations and accusations about Leppink and his family, I've engaged the idea there's something to what you're saying, but I'm not going to touch any of it with a 10 foot pole unless you show some objective evidence (the emails, investigative reports, interview transcripts etc.) to back yourself up because Leppink is a murder victim and he can't defend himself. And while it's "dehumanizing" and cruel to make incidental remarks about Mechele's tank tops and awesome skin, it's totally within the bounds of productive civilized discourse to mockingly insinuate Leppink was a gay, "imported rug and sculpture"-appreciating "fun uncle." --??? :waitasec:

Beyond that, I have thoughtfully considered all of the other information you've offered. Like I said, I think it's quite plausible the email history reveals a relationship dynamic that's more consistent with your characterization than the prosecution's narrative. I don't really think you'd devote thousands of words to just making random stuff up and pretending you read all this evidence that doesn't exist. I suppose that's possible, but I don't believe you're doing that. I believe you believe the evidence shows what you say it shows. And I don't intend that to resonate as patronizing--I'd just like to read it for myself. I'm completely open to the idea I would read everything and draw the same conclusions you have drawn-- and be just as fired up about it.

I don't expect you to scan and upload 1000's of pages of documents-- DairyGirl's suggestion sounds reasonable:


It's just strange to me that apparently all this mysteriously hidden evidence shows that a woman has been wrongfully convicted and now faces retrial for a crime she didnt' commit. If the evidence says what you say it says, rolena, I think it's in Mechele's interest to bring it out of the darkness-- put it online or get it out there somehow. I think the national media and law makers could rally in support and public pressure could deter a retrial. If she's innocent and people are sitting on exonerating evidence, she deserves to have that brought to light as quickly, clearly and effectively as possible.
If you are interested in sharing any small amount of that evidence here at WS, I would be happy to give you links to the best free file sharing sites for documents and/or audio files.





I agree-- very well said. Also, ahem:

Okay, I'm gonna have to start a WS's Nancy Botwin fan-site

I agree with you and Darnudes...show us! Kent can't defend himself against the unproven and hateful things being said about him.

 

[Belinda]

My take is that Rolena is somehow involved with the family or is simply way over emotionally invested in this case. Anyone who says something she doesn't like, gets bashed. I haven't been posting on here much, but I have been reading all the back and forth. What I see is that, instead of discussing and surmising about the case, everyone is constantly defending themselves from Rolena's attacks. This isn't a court of law, Rolena. People here are free to throw out their thoughts for discussion. They don't need to have a lawyer's pre-approval to do so. No one is asking that you agree with them. But, constantly berating everyone else does nothing but annoy everyone. It doesn't further the goal of ruminating about the case. Further, everyone is not required to agree with everything you say, when you have yet to provide a shred of evidence. Stop shoving your superior attitude down everyone's throat.

 

[Tricia]

LISTEN UP EVERYONE​

.

I will not tolerate name calling or rude posts. DO NOT ENGAGE IN A DISCUSSION IF SOMEONE IS RUDE TO YOU. Hit the red triangle in the upper right hand corner of offending post. That will alert a moderator to the situation. BE PATIENT. We won't get to your complaint right away. It may take up to a day.

If you chose to engage in a discussion with someone who is calling you a name or being snarky then you too will either be timed out or banned.

NO PICTURES THAT CAN'T BE LINKED BACK TO. DO THIS AGAIN AND YOU WILL BE BANNED.

One more thing. Please stick to the facts. Don't state your opinion as fact. People complain about rumors then post all these "facts" with nothing backing them up.

It is greatly appreciated when you provide links to your source for your facts.

Thank you.

Tricia Griffith
Owner/Websleuths.com