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

How is Mechele being tried in a court of law an injustice to her?

Websleuths is victim-friendly forum.
 
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:(
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :snooty:

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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
"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?
 
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
 
"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?

I'm confused...how does one person's flattering description of Kent make anyone gay or targeted because of their possible perceived gayness? also, do you have a link to that comment so we can all read it in context?
 
From the Rules Etiquette & Information
"Posting Links / URLs / Email Addresses:

While we prefer that all content be posted in the forums themselves (unless it is a copyright violation to do so) so our members will always be able to access it, we realize that some information must remain on remote sites as it may be too extensive to re-post. Posting links/URL’s in the WS forums is allowed as long as they substantiate a post, or are summarized. Don’t post links with a comment such as, 'Check out this link'. Let members know what the link is about, rather than surprising them with it."



This is as close to something about the use of links I could find. I know from reading the rules that I cannot say just anything I want to, but there is no requirement to use links and there is no 10% limit on how many can be used. I'm indicating my sources to show I'm not making stuff up.
 
Men don't normally notice how "pretty" another man's eyes are, and we sure don't comment about it.
 
The 10% thing refers to not posting more than 10% of an article for copyright reasons.
The mods are very receptive to questions about clarification on the rules, and can probably be more specific as to what item prompted the "10%" reminder above. Hope that helps.
 
I didn't understand that the 10% had to do with the amount of an article that was quoted. I thought it had to do with the amount of my comment. I'm sorry that I jumped to a conclusion.

As far as the link to ReaderSpeaks comment, it's like the link to Kent's letter. ADNews deleted both. I only quoted a portion of it for brevity. Here's the rest of it if you are interested:

"ReaderSpeak wrote on 05/03/2010 07:42:42 PM:
I am totally underwhelmed that some bloggers, hammer out one lie after another, in an attempt to further assasinate Kent Leppink's character, as if it wasn't enough that Leppink has already been brutally assasinated/murdered; and has been dead for 14 years (almost to the day)! It is as if these same people, seem to think that if they can make Kent Leppink look bad enough, even after the brutal murder, of this innocent man; that somehow their slander will make Kent Leppink's once convicted killer, Mechele Linehan, look less guilty. Kent Leppink is not here to defend himself against his character assasination, because he has already been assasinated, by those whom he could not defend himself against in life! (But then who could have imagined, that the person who was sending you love emails and discussing marriage, could be capable of the manipulation, the lies, the game-playing, the set-up, and co-conspiring your murder!)

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.

Kent Leppink did not deserve what he got. And (in my opinion) Mechele Linehan does not deserve what she is getting, to be free on bail, and possibly for life!

Rest in peace Kent Leppink. There are many who still care about seeking justice for your murder.
Recommend(1) Report abuse"

The irregular line breaks may have to do with the difference in original display and the present display.
 
perhaps I misunderstand, is the comment from ReaderSpeak a random person posting a comment from a news article?

I rather say I agree with whomever it is, not that that matters, I believe your point is that as this person knew kent leppink, and noted he had pretty eyes, appears to be male, therefore may be gay, therefore kent leppink may have been gay?
 
ReaderSpeak is a commenter, but not a random commenter. He contributed a lot of comments and knew Kent personally. This reference to pretty eyes does not prove they were homosexual, but it does show why Mechele would be confused about what relationships Kent had. I believe her that she thought Kent needed somebody to make his parents believe he had a normal relationship with a girl. Of course that leaves it a mystery why Kent was so obsessive about her if he were homosexual.

The defense of the first trial was limited by the rule that her lawyers could not introduce evidence that contradicted the conviction of John Carlin. That meant that they had to use evidence that would suggest that John's motive was his own and not hers. This is why they tried to prove that Kent was homosexual and that John's motive was protecting his son from sexual advances by Kent. Since John's conviction has been lifted, the prosecutor cannot rely on the assumption that John is the killer Mechele conspired with. He can try to prove that John did kill Kent, but Mechele's defense can present evidence that John did not kill Kent.

I do not know why John's lawyer did not present evidence that John could not have been at the murder scene. She just didn't do it. I'm not a lawyer to know the code for the law that hamstrung Mechele's defense from contradicting John's conviction in her first trial, but I have already quoted a ADNews article explaining that the prosecutor cannot rely on that assumption this go-around.
 
From the Rules Etiquette & Information
"Posting Links / URLs / Email Addresses:

While we prefer that all content be posted in the forums themselves (unless it is a copyright violation to do so) so our members will always be able to access it, we realize that some information must remain on remote sites as it may be too extensive to re-post. Posting links/URL’s in the WS forums is allowed as long as they substantiate a post, or are summarized. Don’t post links with a comment such as, 'Check out this link'. Let members know what the link is about, rather than surprising them with it."



This is as close to something about the use of links I could find. I know from reading the rules that I cannot say just anything I want to, but there is no requirement to use links and there is no 10% limit on how many can be used. I'm indicating my sources to show I'm not making stuff up.


Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Social Networks
Regarding Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and other social networking or blog websites: Links may be used to direct posters to view something on a social networking page. But postings on social networking sites are not considered fact; they are rumor. Copying and pasting, or taking screen caps, directly from these pages is not allowed. Paraphrasing is okay. (Exception: If the Twitter or Facebook post belongs to a verified news station, it may be copied. But a link should still be provided.)
Also, social networking pages may only be linked if they are directly related to a case, i.e. the victim or suspect. We don't want to post to someone's mother, brother, employer, milkman, or postal carrier just because they know the main player. We also NEVER link to minor's pages (unless they are the victim). And be sure that the page actually belongs to the person being discussed. Do not link to someone if you are not 100% sure it is the correct person. And if a social networking is set to private and you get in the back way, you may not post what you find. Private means private!

NEW Copyright - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Copyright
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please only copy no more than 10% of an article and do not forget the link!
Posts that copy more than that will be edited and posts with no link will be removed entirely.
Please, please follow this rule.
If you copy an image or picture from another site, please provide a link to the original source or the picture will be removed.
Be courteous to the work of others.
Please do not cut and paste information from pay sites or password protected sites.
Thank you.

Hi Turtlepace,

These are the rules on copyright and for posting to social websites. A link should be provided if someone asks for it or if you are posting something as fact. Some websites and social media sites are not allowed at all but generally if it pertains to the case or main stream media is allowed. Hope that helps. If you have any other questions feel free to pm me or any Mod happy to help out.

Ima
 
It's my opinion that the random commentator from ADN, who mentioned Kent's eyes, was attempting to re-humanize Kent due to the original literal and additional posthumous character dehumanizing which had been done to him.

Oddly enough, when I had my husband watch the 48 Hours months ago, he said something to the effect of "[Mechele] finally found one that was smarter than her. He was the best-looking of those three, too." Now, that is just anecdotal, and my husband does appreciate another man's beard, but he's not gay, he's simply secure enough with his masculinity to be able to recognize beauty everywhere and comment on it. Just my obligatory :twocents: :)

I think that it is far-fetched and stereo-type based to look at that statement and make any assumptions about anyone's sexual orientation. Is there any actual verifiable evidence that indicates that Kent's sexual orientation was a) in question by his family or anyone else and that his family wouldn't approve of him if he was gay and/or b) Kent had enemies due to a perceived sexual orientation?

Anyone know of any statistics or anything regarding any homophobia-related violence in Anchorage at the time? If he was gay and "out," he'd probably be at gay bars, not strip clubs, though, I'd imagine.

And even if Kent was gay:
1) His parents lived far away. He did not need an actual woman to pretend to be his girlfriend except for when his family was actually in town, and it looks like Mechele only managed to pull through on that once, if that was even the case. If his family didn't visit frequently, he could just tell them about a woman, or simply tell them he was dating around...

2) Why would Kent's being gay be at all related to the veracity of the claim that he was sexually inappropriate to a minor, which the minor denies even happened. There were never any formal complaints made, that I'm aware of, either.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
74
Guests online
2,345
Total visitors
2,419

Forum statistics

Threads
590,084
Messages
17,929,993
Members
228,062
Latest member
Countrygirlwv
Back
Top