Page 21 of 28 FirstFirst ... 111213141516171819202122232425262728 LastLast
Results 501 to 525 of 677

Thread: Mechele Linehan, 99 Years for Murder of Kent Leppink,-UPDATE Won Appeal of Conviction

  1. #501

    Whether her enemies agree or not....

    Whether her enemies agree or not that Mechele believed Kent was stalking her, Mechele was avoiding Kent while she was on trips to see Scott.



    "On the Hope note, he [Carlin] said, 'In my mind -- and I wrote it -- it's nothing.' It was just a diversion, he said, written so Linehan could visit a boyfriend in California and not have Leppink follow her, as he had before." 10/23/2007 ADNews Jury finds Olympia mother guilty in decade-old slaying


    "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



    "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



    "Carlin says the prosecution's theory is wrong. He says he knew Linehan would get nothing if Leppink died. He, in fact, drove Leppink to his lawyer's the day Leppink tore up his will. 'He wanted me to know ... for me to tell Mechele, so she would call him,' Carlin said." 10/19/2007 ADNews Man convicted of killing Leppink disputes testimony



    "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



    "FACT: Mechele sent an email to her Mom about a bogus trip to Homer. The same place Leppink was murdered. I know, the FACTS aren't as exciting as your stories and lack the 'ifs'." 5/3/2010 ADNews commenter: Nostalgia1

    [NOTE: Homer is further from Hope than Anchorage is.]




    "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...." ap-2253 Linehan v. State (02/05/2010)
    (underlined bold added for emphasis)



    "In fact, according to the defense, Mechele was convinced a snooping Kent had discovered her car at the Anchorage airport and knew she wasn't in Hope. And therefore she wrote this to Carlin from Tahoe: E-mail Mechele to Carlin: 'Tell T.T. I flew to Barrow... if you see him tell him Brett got hurt and I went to take care of the girls...'" 5/22/2009 NBC Dateline


    "WELL, I HAVE TO SAY I AM WONDERING WHAT DID HE SAY WHEN YOU SAID I WAS 2 1/2 HOURS AWAY." "Seychelles email from Mechele to John on 4/28/1996. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877670/

    "Mr. Riddell testified that the flight to Barrow to Anchorage was 2.5 hours total transit time." 5/29/2009 Free Mechele Blogspot Colin's blog

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25877670/

  2. #502
    I don't know if Mechele broke any laws accepting gifts from many men with no intent on marrying them. If she accepted the gifts under the supposition of marriage, I agree that it was unethical and she should have returned the gifts. But I don't think she could be made to do so, and I question pleading up these accusations to murder. I also think it's immoral for Kent or any other man to think he could buy Mechele as a wife.

    www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com

  3. #503
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,987
    Quote Originally Posted by flourish View Post
    So nice to see you, 2goldfish!!!!
    Yeah, there's a hearing next Tuesday, the 17th, at 2:30pm Alaska time. I do not know if it will be aired live, I think perhaps some of the hearings have been. Also, if I understand correctly, this hearing is where the state will announce whether or not they intend to seek another indictment, but they don't actually have to have had the Grand Jury hearing yet.

    What's everyone's predictions? I think they will go for another indictment.
    my snip I dont even know, I cant guess, I feel like I can never guess what any SA or DA may do, but I feel that after all that trouble and all this time and their (IMO) very stong case, they'd be fools not to.

    I had a dream they decided NOT to, I hope it's not a precog type dream, ugh. I was halfawake thinking it was real and I was like wtf how could they??....what is flourish gonna say...!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtlepace View Post
    Whether her enemies agree or not
    my snip here because I wanted to mention your use of the word enemy/enemies throughout the thread, clearly you are entitled to any and all of your own opinions and they may or may not match up with any or all of anyone else's opinions....however sensitive I may be it sounds or seems as if you're addressing anyone who has seen the same evidence as you, and has come to a different conclusion as you, is being addressed as "mechele's enemy"

    en·e·my (n-m)
    n. pl. en·e·mies
    1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.
    2.
    a. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
    b. A member or unit of such a force.
    3. A group of foes or hostile forces.

    I, personally, myself, and quite possibly other members who post, are absolutely none of those choices which the definition of "enemy" gives.

    I do not feel hatred towards, I do not intend injury to, I suppose possibly I MIGHT oppose the interests of (although should that count towards a criminal, I would say not), I am not a foe of mechele, nor am I a hostile nation or whatnot and so on and etc.

    the facts as I know them have led me to the same conclusion as her previous jury, and I also agree the movie was BS and it didnt MATTER if it was included or not as it was meaningless, and I also believe the note from kent leppink VERY MUCH should be evidence but, that's not going to happen.

    In addition, I do not care in any way that mechele was a stripper, I do not care if she is a nasty person or a fabulous one, I do not care that she has straightened her life out, got a degree, had a child, is or was manipulative, I dont even care that she and I seem to both like avocados but that unlike her, I am able to type an email without using the caps lock key.

    what I do care about is that the evidence shows that for whatever her reasons were, she very much appears to have been either directly or indirectly responsible for the very ugly crime of the murder of kent leppink, and there is no statute of limitations on murder.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 2goldfish For This Useful Post:


  5. #504

    Enemies by their own definition

    I think "enemy" is quite descriptive of those who oppose Mechele Linehan and wish her in prison for the rest of her life. They certainly oppose her interests. I think they have demonstrated their hostility to her on this board and elsewhere. It is extreme pettiness to object to my use of the word when it is my opinion that they are her enemies.

    en·e·my (n-m)
    n. pl. en·e·mies
    1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.2.
    a. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
    b. A member or unit of such a force.
    3. A group of foes or hostile forces.

  6. #505
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Turtlepace View Post
    I think "enemy" is quite descriptive of those who oppose Mechele Linehan and wish her in prison for the rest of her life. They certainly oppose her interests. I think they have demonstrated their hostility to her on this board and elsewhere. It is extreme pettiness to object to my use of the word when it is my opinion that they are her enemies.

    en·e·my (n-m)
    n. pl. en·e·mies
    1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.2.
    a. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
    b. A member or unit of such a force.
    3. A group of foes or hostile forces.

    that's why I say that definition doesnt particularly work in the case of a criminal. yeah sure ted bundy didnt want the DP, neither do those jerks in the petit case, charles manson probably doesnt like life in prison but them being there makes no one their enemy, their enemy truly is his or herself....however they could also be seen as enemies of the people.

    although, carry on, please, I am sure when you say "enemy" you dont mean any insult, but mean it as affectionately as possible

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to 2goldfish For This Useful Post:


  8. #506
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by 2goldfish View Post
    that's why I say that definition doesnt particularly work in the case of a criminal. yeah sure ted bundy didnt want the DP, neither do those jerks in the petit case, charles manson probably doesnt like life in prison but them being there makes no one their enemy, their enemy truly is his or herself....however they could also be seen as enemies of the people.

    although, carry on, please, I am sure when you say "enemy" you dont mean any insult, but mean it as affectionately as possible
    1st bold: how true that is
    2nd bold:


    Synchronicity, 2goldfish! I logged in to post about this very subject and found your amazing posts.
    The term "enemies" is definitely not applicable here. The reference to the "adversarial" court system in the U.S. appears to be the justification for the use of the term, so one would think that "adversaries" would be an appropriate term that conveys a clear meaning. However, it simply doesn't have the same emotional charge as "enemies," which is why, IMO, enemies is the preferred term.

    Thinking about that reminded me of something mentioned pages ago by Nancy Botwyn. She discussed how despite the claims of Mechele's supporters that the media was, and continues to be, so unfair to her, there are several examples that appear to be exactly the opposite--Mechele didn't just volunteer at her child's school, she volunteered at her child's Catholic school--didn't just go to university in Washington, she went to a respected university in Washington--we all know how deliberate wording can be.

    Your post reminded me of another thing--I was appalled to read a comment somewhere from one of Mechele's supporters stating that whether or not she did it, she's certainly paid her price by now and they should just let it go. Wow, by that logic, people who manage to get away with murder for a while and during that time, manage not to kill anyone else, then 2.5 years in prison is just plenty dandy fine. I wonder how many people who agree with that commentator would feel the same if an adult male murdered an adult female and then got away for a while and managed not to murder anyone else....well, you see where I'm going with this.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  10. #507
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by 2goldfish View Post
    my snip here because I wanted to mention your use of the word enemy/enemies throughout the thread, clearly you are entitled to any and all of your own opinions and they may or may not match up with any or all of anyone else's opinions....however sensitive I may be it sounds or seems as if you're addressing anyone who has seen the same evidence as you, and has come to a different conclusion as you, is being addressed as "mechele's enemy"

    en·e·my (n-m)
    n. pl. en·e·mies
    1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.
    2.
    a. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
    b. A member or unit of such a force.
    3. A group of foes or hostile forces.

    I, personally, myself, and quite possibly other members who post, are absolutely none of those choices which the definition of "enemy" gives.

    I do not feel hatred towards, I do not intend injury to, I suppose possibly I MIGHT oppose the interests of (although should that count towards a criminal, I would say not), I am not a foe of mechele, nor am I a hostile nation or whatnot and so on and etc.

    the facts as I know them have led me to the same conclusion as her previous jury, and I also agree the movie was BS and it didnt MATTER if it was included or not as it was meaningless, and I also believe the note from kent leppink VERY MUCH should be evidence but, that's not going to happen.

    In addition, I do not care in any way that mechele was a stripper, I do not care if she is a nasty person or a fabulous one, I do not care that she has straightened her life out, got a degree, had a child, is or was manipulative, I dont even care that she and I seem to both like avocados but that unlike her, I am able to type an email without using the caps lock key.

    what I do care about is that the evidence shows that for whatever her reasons were, she very much appears to have been either directly or indirectly responsible for the very ugly crime of the murder of kent leppink, and there is no statute of limitations on murder.
    Respectfully snipped by flourish, for emphasis and clarity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtlepace View Post
    I think "enemy" is quite descriptive of those who oppose Mechele Linehan and wish her in prison for the rest of her life. They certainly oppose her interests. I think they have demonstrated their hostility to her on this board and elsewhere. It is extreme pettiness to object to my use of the word when it is my opinion that they are her enemies.

    en·e·my (n-m)
    n. pl. en·e·mies
    1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.2.
    a. A hostile power or force, such as a nation.
    b. A member or unit of such a force.
    3. A group of foes or hostile forces.

    The "subtitle" of the second quoted post is "Enemies by their own definition."
    So, is the free dictionary an enemy of Mechele?
    That sure wasn't 2goldfish's "personal" definition.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enemy

    Please refrain from any further implications that the posters of Websleuths, individual or plural, are enemies of anyone. It's inaccurate, offensive, and I am respectfully requesting that you choose a more respectful and accurate alternative.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  12. #508
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,987
    Quote Originally Posted by flourish View Post

    Please refrain from any further implications that the posters of Websleuths, individual or plural, are enemies of anyone. It's inaccurate, offensive, and I am respectfully requesting that you choose a more respectful and accurate alternative.
    my snip

    I absolutely prefer the term "persons of a differing opinion"

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to 2goldfish For This Useful Post:


  14. #509

    It wouldn't matter what I used.

    I will use the terms that have meaning for me. I have other descriptive terms for people who declare Mechele guilty of murder without proof. I think that "enemy" is the most neutral of them. I find the insistance that Mechele be given injustice in order for Kent to have justice shows something stronger than disagreement.

  15. #510

    The prejudice started with Kent's letter.

    Kent's letter has been called a letter from the grave, but Kent wrote it two days before he died. It is not a death bed statement. It is not an artifact of the murder scene. It is not an eye-witness account. The accusation that Mechele and her friends were "probably" the persons who killed him, is just the last of smears against Mechele because she did not marry him. Kent gave no reasons for his accusation.

    Kent accused Mechele of having a false passport and a false driver's license because these were tools she used for avoiding him while she was seeing Scott.

    Kent accused Mechele of not declaring the interest of her mortgage on her income tax. This is not illegal. How does this prove she was conspiring to murder him?

    Kent accused Mechele of using John's health insurance. This is a serious accusation, but there is no report of the health insurance following up on it. How does this prove Mechele was conspiring to murder Kent?

    Kent accused Mechele of being on Scott's insurance. He doesn't say what kind of insurance, but since he had specified John's health insurance, Kent probably means Scott's automobile insurance. It is not illegal to have other people on your automobile insurance. In fact since Mechele was probably using Scott's car while she was visiting him, the insurance company would probably require it. How does this prove Mechele conspired to murder Kent?

    Kent accused Mechele of fraud taking money from him under the impression they were getting married. I think it would have been hard for him to win that even if he had lived to sue her. How does that prove that Mechele conspired to murder him?

    The main point of Kent's spite letter was that he would have destroyed the letter if Mechele had married him. The rest including the vague accusation of murder were just smears.

    www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com

  16. #511
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,987
    I dont really like a defense of a person that primarily rests on blaming the victim

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 2goldfish For This Useful Post:


  18. #512
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Turtlepace View Post
    I will use the terms that have meaning for me. I have other descriptive terms for people who declare Mechele guilty of murder without proof. I think that "enemy" is the most neutral of them. I find the insistance that Mechele be given injustice in order for Kent to have justice shows something stronger than disagreement.
    Again, no one here wants Mechele to have an unfair trial. So again, we do not fit in the definition of enemies. Again, please refrain from any further implications that the posters of Websleuths, individual or plural, are enemies of anyone. It's inaccurate, offensive, and I am respectfully requesting that you choose a more respectful and accurate alternative.

    Using such negative terms is not conducive to convincing people to see things your way.

  19. #513

    Critical thinkers are willing to take Kent's word.

    Those against Mechele's interests in freedom and justice are willing to take Kent's word for it that Mechele and her friends were "probably" responsible for his death, but when I ask what Kent could possibly mean by his letter other than wanting revenge for Mechele's not marrying him, I am accused of blaming the victim. That sounds like heckling to me. Those of the opposed opinion don't want to see the evidence for what it really is.

    I don't know why Kent went to Hope after 2:19 AM May 2, 1996, but I doubt that it was looking for Mechele. He had already been there on April 27, 1996 and been told that Mechele and the recently renovated cabin were not there. Mechele arrived back in Anchorage at least by 1 AM May 2, 1996 and called John when Kent didn't show up to pick her up. Kent was still in the house until 2:19 AM. Why didn't Kent know that John was going to the airport to pick her up?

    If Kent had already left the house by the time John and Mechele returned home, how were John and Mechele to know where Kent had gone? John gone with Kent to Hope on April 27, 1996 and knew that Kent had been told that Mechele and the cabin were not there. There is no reason for John or Mechele to believe that Kent would return there five days later.

    Justice for Kent does not depend on injustice for Mechele.

    www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com

  20. #514
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Again, is there documentation of flight records which PROVE that Mechele came back to Alaska on the flight she claims to have returned on? TIA

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  22. #515
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Turtlepace View Post
    "But Tina Brady, an exotic dancer who knew Mechele, says - in her world - that's just business as usual. 'I'm not gonna lie to you. I have gotten fur coats, cars, jewelry,' she says. Tina reminded us that Mechele's fiancΘs also were her customers, and they were all at least 10 years older than she was. 'I don't think that she had any intent on marrying anyone,' Tina says." ----- CBS 48 Hours
    Respectfully snipped by me.
    I thought the inclusion of the interview with Tina Brady was similar to the prosecution's use of the movie---meaningless, fluffy filler. Ms. Brady obviously is not an unbiased party--she may or may not have received the gifts she claims to have received--I doubt she'd admit to 48 Hours if she didn't. The clincher with her, however, is when she referred to Mechele as a "showgirl." Strippers and showgirls are not the same thing, and her statement was absolutely ridiculous, in my opinion, and was a needless addition to the show.
    Last edited by flourish; 01-13-2012 at 05:37 PM. Reason: missed a word

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  24. #516
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    How is Mechele being tried in a court of law an injustice to her?

    Websleuths is victim-friendly forum.

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  26. #517
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Kent probably felt like he was going crazy--getting mixed signals, literally being lied to, led on, pushed away, sucked back in...no one ever wants to actually believe their loved one could harm them. I totally understand where he was coming from with the whole "letter would have been destroyed had she married me" thing--he was feeling paranoid (with good reason) but didn't have the self-esteem to break off the relationship with Mechele and was really hoping he really was having some over-reactive paranoia. Until that first bullet burst into his back, that is.

    How sad
    Last edited by flourish; 01-13-2012 at 05:57 PM. Reason: wording

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  28. #518
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,987
    Quote Originally Posted by flourish View Post
    How is Mechele being tried in a court of law an injustice to her?

    Websleuths is victim-friendly forum.
    I will add that saying negative things about leppink has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was MURDERED. we are all in agreement he was murdered, right? it has no more to do with his personality than linehan's would if she'd been the one turned up murdered. and I myself, I cant speak for anyone else here but I suspect I am not alone, would be right here defending HER if it was her shot dead in the woods and not leppink.

    of couse, were the tables turned no one would hesitate, with this SAME evidence, of convicting leppink had he been the one to be responsible for linehan's death. after all, he was just the nerdy taxidermist from tennessee, eh?


    the fact is, whether we like it or not, the fact the linehan is not black, fat, or poor makes it exceeding unlikely she ever WOULD be convicted, you see it in courtrooms all the time. people think criminals are either men, esp men with the above characteristics, or women with those characteristics.

    the fact that one jury found her guilty even though she is female, white, not fat, and not poor speaks for the strength of the evidence - the fact that another may find her also guilty speaks further. if they dont, well....thin white women walk off with nothing or next to nothing all the time.

    and I also think it's a shame that more evidence isnt before us, the flights and whatnot. I truly hope they televise the next trial if indeed there is one. I would very much like to know all the evidence, because of course, my opinion is only based on what I know.

    as one of her "enemies" you may not realise, that for kent leppink, I wish it wasnt her, wasnt someone he loved or a friend of his. that's a terrible thing to know before one's death. for him, I think it would be fan-freaking-tastic if it turned out that it was no one he knew. however the evidence I have seen shows much to the contrary.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to 2goldfish For This Useful Post:


  30. #519
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by 2goldfish View Post
    I will add that saying negative things about leppink has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was MURDERED. we are all in agreement he was murdered, right? it has no more to do with his personality than linehan's would if she'd been the one turned up murdered. and I myself, I cant speak for anyone else here but I suspect I am not alone, would be right here defending HER if it was her shot dead in the woods and not leppink.

    of couse, were the tables turned no one would hesitate, with this SAME evidence, of convicting leppink had he been the one to be responsible for linehan's death. after all, he was just the nerdy taxidermist from tennessee, eh?


    the fact is, whether we like it or not, the fact the linehan is not black, fat, or poor makes it exceeding unlikely she ever WOULD be convicted, you see it in courtrooms all the time. people think criminals are either men, esp men with the above characteristics, or women with those characteristics.

    the fact that one jury found her guilty even though she is female, white, not fat, and not poor speaks for the strength of the evidence - the fact that another may find her also guilty speaks further. if they dont, well....thin white women walk off with nothing or next to nothing all the time.

    and I also think it's a shame that more evidence isnt before us, the flights and whatnot. I truly hope they televise the next trial if indeed there is one. I would very much like to know all the evidence, because of course, my opinion is only based on what I know.

    as one of her "enemies" you may not realise, that for kent leppink, I wish it wasnt her, wasnt someone he loved or a friend of his. that's a terrible thing to know before one's death. for him, I think it would be fan-freaking-tastic if it turned out that it was no one he knew. however the evidence I have seen shows much to the contrary.
    I totally agree with all of what you just posted, particularly about wishing that Kent was murdered by someone unknown to him and not someone he loved.

  31. The Following User Says Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  32. #520
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    2,125
    Quote Originally Posted by 2goldfish View Post
    I will add that saying negative things about leppink has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was MURDERED. we are all in agreement he was murdered, right?
    Respectfully snipped and emboldened by me

    One would think that it's a no-brainer to think that being shot in the back, stomach, and face is murder. However, many of her supporters actually choose to believe that Kent arranged his own assisted suicide (which is still murder per Alaskan law, so technically I suppose everyone agrees he was murdered). Why would Kent do this? Oh of course, to simply to punish Mechele for not marrying him.

    As if that is even remotely likely.

    It seems to comes back to the "it's all about Mechele" attitude. The audacity astounds me at times, and disgusts me always.

    And where is this evidence that Kent hired someone to kill him? Any evidence found on his laptop? The person who it's been intimated (on adn comments) to have been the "suicide" shooter is himself now dead. Apparently people suspected him b/c Kent wanted him to have his fishing boat. And that's supposed to be more believable and logical than the idea that Mechele had something to do with it.

    Seems blaming dead people is a favorite strategy because, after all, they can't defend themselves.

    I have never seen one tiny slice of evidence that indicates in any way that Kent had someone kill him.

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to flourish For This Useful Post:


  34. #521

    Tina Brady talked about what's normal for a stipper.

    Tina Brady talked about what's normal for a stripper. They do get gifts outside of the club. Calling what she said "fluff" like the prosecutor's movie doesn't change that what Mechele was doing is normal for a stripper and that her email to Kent on March 31, 1996 was just a stripper fantasy that had no bearing on whether Mechele was seriously considering marriage.

    www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com

  35. #522

    I don't know when Mechele really returned to Anchorage.

    I don't know when Mechele really returned to Anchorage. I cannot hear what Mechele actually said in that first interview with police. I only asked questions about what it would mean if her loyal opposition was right in what they think she said. It doesn't change much except to make Kent less understandable.

    That Kent said in his letter that he wanted Mechele punished for not marrying him doesn't mean that he committed assisted suicide to achieve it. It just says that he left the letter to be sure she was punished even if he died before he did it himself. Since he starts the inner letter by saying that his parents must be assuming he was dead, he had no idea how he might die. He only listed the probability that Mechele and her friends were the cause as the last of smears he accused them of. He gives no reason for suspecting them, and he wrote that he would have destroyed the letter if she had married him.

    I don't have to know who killed Kent to doubt that John and Mechele didn't.

    www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to Turtlepace For This Useful Post:


  37. #523

    For the sake of anyone to punish?

    Since Mechele's loyal enemies want to ignore the evidence that points to her innocence, I suspect them of wanting injustice for her in their pursuit of "justice" for Kent. Punishing Mechele and John as proxies in place of the real killer is not justice.

  38. #524

    Consider this.

    "I knew Kent Leppink on a business level. I did not know John Carlin III or Mechele. Kent Leppink was a well spoken, mild mannered, very polite, gentleman, from a very respectable, fine family. He was a tall, good-looking guy, with a nice smile and very pretty eyes." 5/3/2010 ADNews commenter: ReaderSpeak

    As far as I can tell by the style of writing ReaderSpeak used, he is a man. If somebody wants to make a big deal about the defense in the first trial positing that Kent was a homosexual, consider this comment.

    Could Kent have been killed because somebody didn't like that he was homosexual?

  39. #525

    Why ignore what Kent actually did?

    2Goldfish's comment came right after mine. I explained how Kent's letter was used to prejudice the case against Mechele, and 2Goldfish took that as an attack on Kent. Whether 2Goldfish likes it or not, Kent's letter was in spite for Mechele not marrying him. Also, if 2Goldfish was writing about Mechele's avoiding Kent while she was on trips to see Scott, the March 31, 1996 email doesn't change the fact that Mechele really was avoiding Kent on those trips.

    Quote:
    Turtlepace 01-13-2012 11:53 AM
    ________________________________________
    The prejudice started with Kent's letter.

    Kent's letter has been called a letter from the grave, but Kent wrote it two days before he died. It is not a death bed statement. It is not an artifact of the murder scene. It is not an eye-witness account. The accusation that Mechele and her friends were "probably" the persons who killed him, is just the last of smears against Mechele because she did not marry him. Kent gave no reasons for his accusation.

    Kent accused Mechele of having a false passport and a false driver's license because these were tools she used for avoiding him while she was seeing Scott.

    Kent accused Mechele of not declaring the interest of her mortgage on her income tax. This is not illegal. How does this prove she was conspiring to murder him?

    Kent accused Mechele of using John's health insurance. This is a serious accusation, but there is no report of the health insurance following up on it. How does this prove Mechele was conspiring to murder Kent?

    Kent accused Mechele of being on Scott's insurance. He doesn't say what kind of insurance, but since he had specified John's health insurance, Kent probably means Scott's automobile insurance. It is not illegal to have other people on your automobile insurance. In fact since Mechele was probably using Scott's car while she was visiting him, the insurance company would probably require it. How does this prove Mechele conspired to murder Kent?

    Kent accused Mechele of fraud taking money from him under the impression they were getting married. I think it would have been hard for him to win that even if he had lived to sue her. How does that prove that Mechele conspired to murder him?

    The main point of Kent's spite letter was that he would have destroyed the letter if Mechele had married him. The rest including the vague accusation of murder were just smears.

    www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com
    Snipped


    Quote:
    2goldfish 01-13-2012 02:46 PM
    ________________________________________
    I dont really like a defense of a person that primarily rests on blaming the victim

    Snipped

Page 21 of 28 FirstFirst ... 111213141516171819202122232425262728 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. MT Barry Beach '85 murder conviction appeal
    By UdbCrzy2 in forum Archived Cases
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-12-2014, 12:39 AM
  2. Appeal filed in jy murder conviction
    By Landonsmom02 in forum Michelle Young
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 01-23-2014, 12:40 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-02-2010, 01:11 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-21-2010, 03:48 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-13-2009, 01:29 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •