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

Turtlepace said:

I am curious how a school teacher knows what is "normal" for a stripper in manipulating her marks to give her money. I have never said that what Mechele did outside the club was ethical, but that is a Grand Canyon leap from saying that Mechele was immoral enough to conspire to murder.

Click to expand...

• College and grad school are expensive for teachers, too. Mechele isn't the only person to have stripped for college money...of course, I don't know how jewelry and fur coats and down payments on RV's pays tuition--my universities always wanted actual cash.
• I've been friends and/or acquaintances and/or co-workers with women who were employed as strippers. Knowing about this case, I asked questions.
• I've known clientele of strip clubs. Knowing about this case, I asked questions.
• I'm such a hard-core sleuth that I have done surveys at my local strip clubs.
• I have common sense and common knowledge about how it all works simply by paying attention.

Turtlepace said:

I've already said that the letter that Mechele's enemies love to quote and which the Appeals Court ruled cannot be used in trial does not have a link on the Internet. I have to quote it just like the rest of you.


"When the family learned of Kent's murder, they followed that strange instruction he had given them, and opened the second envelope, the one sealed inside his letter, and were stunned by what Kent had written: 'Since you're reading this, you assume that I'm dead. Don't dwell on that. It was my time and there is nothing that can change that.' Then: 'I hate to be vindictive in my death, but paybacks are hell.'" 5/22/2009 NBC letter Dateline
(Underlined bold added for emphasis)


"In portions of the letter not shown to the jury, Leppink tells his parents to give or sell his boat to a friend, to take his $1 million life insurance money to pay off his debts, and to take some of his life insurance money to go on a nice beach vacation. He also gives them detailed information about Linehan, who then went by her maiden name, Hughes. He accuses her of using Carlin's medical insurance as her own and not reporting her exotic dancing income to the Internal Revenue Service. He gives them contact information for insurance companies, Linehan's mother's address, and Linehan's Social Security number." 10/11/2007 ADNews B "Attorneys in murder case dissect Linehan e-mails"



"Mechele, John, or Scott were the people, or persons that probably killed me. Make sure they get burned." Kent Leppink's letter
(Underlined bold added for emphasis)



"'Sorry about giving you all this stuff to do,' reads Leppink's letter to his father. 'I would have done it, but I wanted to make things work. I wanted to marry Mechele. If that would have happened, this would have been destroyed. I have kept it as my "insurance policy." Use it! I'll rest easier.'" 10/5/2006 Olympian "Former exotic dancer held in 1996 slaying"
(Underlined bold added for emphasis)

Click to expand...

Turtlepace said:

Even if Mechele's enemies don't want to call it stalking, in the email that Nancy Botwin transcribed at http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81172&page=10 indicates to me that Mechele was not very interested in marrying Kent and was tired of his invading her privacy. The Hope Note and the email asking John to tell Kent that she had gone to Barrow when she didn't think Kent would believe she was still in Hope, and the "Seychelles" email asking John how Kent took to being told that she was the 2 1/2 hours of air time away from Anchorage at Barrow tell me that Mechele was trying very hard to avoid Kent's following her to California. I do not accept that Kent had bought Mechele for his wife and that she had no right to say no. I think she was planning to make it clear that she was not going to marry him when she mentioned in the email of 4/27/1996 that she wanted to meet separately with each of Kent and Kent's father when she returned. That Mechele's enemies accuse her of a scam or unethicalness in stringing Kent along with his obsession with marrying her does not prove that Mechele conspired to kill Kent. How did Mechele lie about the life insurance? She told the police about it. It is Kent who lied about the life insurance. He is the only one who ever said it was a wedding gift from Mechele's grandfather. Since Mechele paid for it, she would think she could ask to have it cancelled which she did.

Since Kent was able to change the life insurance policy, he must have borrowed the money to pay for it.

Click to expand...

otto said:

Who are Mechele's enemies? Are the people prosecuting her for murder perceived as enemies? Are all prosecutors enemies, or only those seeking justice for Kent?

If Mechele wasn't interested in marrying Kent, what she had to do was break the engagement, return the gifts and not tell him more lies or buy him a life insurance policy. Why should anyone think that Mechele said "black" but she meant "white"? I get the impression that everything that Mechele said should be twisted to mean something else? Why is that? Why would an innocent person require everything they said and did to be twisted around into something different than what it is at face value?

The life insurance policy was paid for my Mechele. That's a verifiable fact. Since when does changing the beneficiary require additional funds?

Click to expand...

nancy botwin said:

Great post!


I agree! And I intensely agree with your bolded observation. There's a general unwillingness to actually engage the content of posts which make the case for her guilt. It's like a cross between blind rage and willful ignorance, replete with ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. It's intense!



These are awesome and important questions-- if the prosecution couldn't use any of these statements, they would have serious problems.


My thoughts:
Carlin IV:
Carlin IV's Prior Testimony Would Be Admissible:
I think Carlin IV can be subpoenaed to testify at the retrial. Of course it is possible that he will still refuse to testify or go into hiding, etc. I think this is unlikely given the fact that he has a pending civil case against the Alaska DOC (alleging the wrongful death of Carlin III while incarcerated). However, if he refuses or otherwise evades testifying, his prior testimony at Linehan's first trial CAN be used at the retrial. This is based on exceptions to hearsay law and an evolving body of jurisprudence which affords for the use of prior statements and testimony when the declarant (Carlin IV) is unavailable but the party against whom the statement is offered (Linehan) has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine that testimony. (Mechele was able to cross-examine Carlin IV at her first trial, i.e. her constitutional right to confront her accuser has been satisfied and the prior testimony can be admitted at the new trial if necessary.)

Carlin III:
The legal issues surrounding the admissibility of Carlin III's prior statements are more complicated and nuanced. The main issue is whether those statements were "testimonial" in nature. If the statements are testimonial, Linehan has a constitutional right to confront/cross-examine the speaker. Generally speaking, testimonial statements are statements which were elicited or made in anticipation of litigation; or when the speaker (Carlin) reasonably believed those statements would be used against (Linehan) in a criminal proceeding.
So the rule is:
In situations where the declarant (Carlin III) is unavailable as a witness (deceased), and that statement is testimonial in nature, it cannot be offered as evidence against Linehan unless she has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness.


Carlin III Police Interviews Are Not Admissible:
Carlin III's taped police interviews are testimonial as a matter of law. (They were formal statements made to law enforcement and solicited in the course of a criminal investigation). This means they can only be offered as evidence against Linehan if she had a prior opportunity to cross-examine him. Because Linehan did not have that opportunity, Carlin III's taped police interrogations will NOT be admitted as evidence against her at the retrial, IMO.

Carlin III's Media Interviews Probably Admissible:
This one involves more subjective interpretation than the other two. Carlin's various interviews with the media were all given post-conviction, as I recall. It was only after both Linehan and Carlin were convicted that he first admitted owning and disposing of a Desert Eagle after Leppink's murder. Because those statements were made in voluntary interviews with journalists and after both Carlin and Linehan were convicted, I don't think the statements were given in anticipation of litigation or with the reasonable belief they would be used against Linehan in a criminal action, i.e. they were not testimonial. Consequently, I think Carlin's statements to journalists CAN be offered as evidence against Linehan at the retrial.

The hearsay exceptions and attendant Confrontation Clause issues are confusing and complicated. This article does a good job explaining the issues and provides a flow-chart for evaluating whether a statement will generally be admissible.

Incidentally (for anyone interested), last week the Sixth Circuit upheld the District Court's reversal of Sharee Miller's conviction. The decision was split 2:1; the majority and dissenting opinions demonstrate how different judges resolve the Confrontation Clause and testimonial hearsay issues very differently. I think the dissenting justice does a great job teasing out the inherent problems in the way testimonial hearsay evidence is currently evaluated by the courts. Opinion can be read here.

Click to expand...

nancy botwin said:

Thank you so much for your (way too :blushing kind words and awesome post!! I agree very much with the emboldened and thank you for writing it so sensitively and eloquently.

About Carlin:
I agree with you about not being fully convinced of his guilt and the fact that he clearly payed too high a price for whatever did or didn't happen in Alaska.
I'm totally up in the air about Carlin-- The way I view the evidence, it's plausible that Mechele set Carlin III up too and that Carlin was being truthful when he said he had no idea who killed Leppink. As such, I also think it's possible that Carlin was being truthful when he said he disposed of the Desert Eagle because he didn't trust Mechele and/or his son's fingerprints were on it. Or, perhaps he figured out what happened after the murder and participated in a cover-up? I don't know. After his conviction, Carlin's defense attorney emphasized the lack of evidence against her client and said something like, "If anyone was involved in Leppink's murder, it was Mechele." That resonated with me.

Then, like txsvicki points out, there were pages and pages of online comments from people purporting to be Carlin's family members, all alleging that Carlin was a pretty sinister and bad man. If you believe they were who they said they were, his step-daughter and brother were posting at ADN.com a lot during both trials. I wonder if things they were saying could be true. I can see how the evidence points to both Carlin and Mechele being guilty. I can also see a scenario where Carlin killed Leppink for Mechele because he correctly or incorrectly believed that's what she wanted. I wish we knew more about Carlin... I recall that he was living in New Jersey at the time of his arrest and had since remarried. I read somewhere that his new wife was a "Russian Mail-Order Bride." I wonder if that's true and what, if anything, his former wife might have to say about all of this.

About Narcissism :dance::
ps: I loved the phrase "gorging herself in cheese heaven" while twittering vacuously! haha!:rotfl:

I also think Mechele appears to have a narcissistic personality. I haven't been able to figure out whether she was actually diagnosed with NPD or any other personality disorder during her psych evaluations?? But I do believe the scales the forensic psychiatrist was being grilled about during the sentencing hearing are scales which correlate to narcissistic features on the MMPI. Whatever the case, her history of manipulating, exploiting, lying and scamming makes me think she could be diagnosed with at least one personality disorder.:waitasec: The baiting twitter posts seem very NPD to me. Whatever the case, I think there's something seriously out of whack!

I'm very curious about Mechele's childhood and what may have shaped her into the person she became. Her mother-in-law's sentencing letter said something about how Mechele had worked through issues and resentments stemming from her childhood and early family life-- I wonder what that's about??

And I agree that it's rather apparent Mechele reads about herself online! and it's silly to pretend otherwise, IMO.:snooty:

And while I wouldn't react with baiting and strange comments of my own, I'm sure I would read about myself/my impending first degree murder trial online if I were in Mechele's shoes. Like marlihicks pointed out, a lot of the pro-guilt online commentary could be helpful to the defense. I think the first trial revealed the defense had a crippling lack of insight on what issues were actually important to jurors-- the defense focused WAY too much on the stripper issue and the supposed demonization of Mechele and focused WAY too little on the substantive issues IMO.

So again, great post! I'm excited to read what you and everyone else thinks of the documents Mechele ends up posting on her website!

Click to expand...

nancy botwin said:

I don't think this email has already been posted, so I thought I'd put it up here to see if anyone has any thoughts about it:

Email sent from Mechele to Kent on 4/9/96:
(recall she paid for the life insurance policies on 4/1/96 and wrote that HAHAHA email to her mother on 3/31/96, mocking the idea of marrying Kent.)


"HEY I GOT A MIN TO WRITE YOU. I JUST WANTED TO SAY YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU AND YOU KNOW OUR LIVES WILL BE FINE. WE HAVE MANY OTHER THINGS TO DO AND SAY TO ONE ANOTHER. I HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO DO BEFORE WE SETTLE DOWN SO PLEASE STOP SNOOPING AND ASKING ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS. I AM SERIOUSLY TELLING YOU THIS...IF YOU CONTINUE TO RUMAGE THREW MY PRIVACY AND SNOOP THREW MY BELONGINGS I WILL NOT MARRY YOU. WHILE WE ARE NOT MARRIED, NOTHING IS YOURS. DO YOU GET IT?

WHEN WE GET MARRIED YOU CAN KNOW WHERE EVERYTHING IS IN THE HOUSE. BUT THEN YOU GO THROUGH MY PURSE AND MY BAGS. YOU ARE INVADING MY PRIVACY AND I WILL NOT TOLERATE IT. SO REMEMBER I THINK YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY. I DID NOT TAKE YOUR PHONE BOOKS AND I TIRED TO LOCATE IT AT THE AIRPORT BUT IT WAS NOT TURNED IN.

I MAY COME TO FLORIDA AND SEE YOU AND YOUR FAMILY IF YOU ASK ME NICELY. STOP DEMANDING YOUR ***** ON ME. I AM SICK OF IT. YOU TRY TO TELL ME WHAT DAY I HAVE TO MARRY YOU. GET OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE. YOU HAVE WAITED THIS LONG YOU CAN JUST CALL IT OFF IF ANOTHER TWO WEEKS REALLY CRAMPS YOUR LIFE. I WILL NOT GET MRRIED UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. I AM FINALLY TELLING YOU THIS BECAUSE I LOVE YOU AND YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE BEEN P*SSING ME OFF.

YOU HIDE SO MUCH ***** FROM ME, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ME? YOUR SAFETY DEPOSIT BOXES YOUR HIDDEN ***** YOUR STORAGE SHED ETC., ETC., ETC. I NEVER PRY INTO YOUR ***** EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE TAKEN MY SENTIMENTAL PRIVATE BELONGINGS AND BROUGHT THEM TO YOUR STORAGE.

THAT WAS STEALING AND IF YOU WANT TO MARRY ME THEN YOU NEED TO REALIZE I LET THAT GO. YOU STOLE FROM ME AND I DID YOU WRONG TOO. YOU CONTINUE TO SNOOP AND PRY. STOP, IF YOU WANT ME TO HAVE YOUR CHILDREN AND SPEND THE LIFE TOGETHER THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THEN YOU NEED TO KNOW THESE THINGS YOU ARE VERY CLOSE TO DRIVING ME AWAY.

ONE THING I WANT YOU TO KNOW IS I DO NOT WANT YOU TO BUY A HOUSE AND I DON'T WANT YOUR PRENUPTUALS. I HAVE MY OWN HOUSE AND IF IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU THEN YOU BETTER SACRIFICE YOUR HIGH HONOR FOR THIS WEDDING. YOU HAVE MADE ME SO ANGRY BY DONG MANY THINGS THESE PAST FEW WEEKS THAT I AM FED UP WITH. YOU WERE SO NICE BEFORE I AGREED TO MARRY YOU.

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO QUESTION ME ABOUT MY FAMILY. UNFORTUNATELY, THEY ARE NOT CONCERNED AND I DO NOT WANT THEM INVOLVED ANY MORE THAN WHAT I EMPLOY THEM INTO. SO YOU CAN STOP SENDING MY MOTHER CARDS. DO NOT SEND HER CARDS AND YOU WONT EITHER IF YOU ARE PART OF ME. I DO NOT INTERFERE WITH YOUR FAMILY UNLESS I AM ASKED OR TOLD I MAY UNTIL I FEEL THAT I AM EXCEPTED AND PART OF THE FAMILY I WILL NOT EMBARRASS MY SELF BY FORCING MYSELF ON YOUR FAMILY.

YOU NEED TO REMEMBER WHERE YOU MET ME AND STOP AND THINK IF I WANT MY FAMILY IN MY LIFE. THEN WHY WAS I IN ALASKA AND DANCING WITH NO FAMILY THERE.

I THINK IT IS VERY OBVIOUS I DONT CARE HOW YOUR FAMILY AND BROTHER HAVE TURNED OUT. THAT IS NOT THE SAME REASONS AND MAYBE ONE DAY YOU WILL KNOW AND UNDERSTAND. UNTIL THEN, PLEASE DONT MEDDLE IN MY FAMILY RELATIONS. YOU CANNOT REPAIR THEM.

WHO I INVITE WILL HAVE TO BE EXCEPTED BY YOU AND YORU FAMILY. IF NOT THEN I WILL BE HEART BROKEN AT THE ALTERNATIVE.
MAYBE YOU SHOULD EXPLAIN TO YOUR PARENTS. TELL THEM I HAVE VERY FINE LINES THAT DETERMINE THE BOUNDRIES OF MY LIFE. AND WHEN SOMEONE VIOLATES TEHM, I HAVE THE OPTION TO ELIMINATE THEM FROM MY LIFE. THAT IS MY CHOICE."

Source: This email email appears in Fred Rosen's "Deadly Angel"
(pgs 102-104 of the ebook edition); Amazon.com: Deadly Angel: The Bizarre True Story of Alaska's Killer Stripper (9780061733987): Fred Rosen: Books

Click to expand...

Turtlepace said:

We've been rehashing the same facts for four years. If there are really any new readers, they are welcome to read my opinions here and at www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com. I rehash opinions that are not popular among Mechele's enemies. That means my opinions have been criticized as old for a long time. That doesn't make them irrelevant. Mechele's enemies' opinions are also old. That doesn't make them right.

Click to expand...

flourish said:

Exactly, otto! The clear animosity and vilification of this vague group that seems to include anyone who doesn't tow Mechele's party line is really rather transparent.

It's always all about Mechele--it hurts her that Kent's family could think she could possibly hurt their child. (according to her 48 Hours interview)

What Mechele wants, Mechele gets. I'm gonna go out on a limb here :innocent: and guess that everyone in her life, then and know, realize that at one point or another.

The letter she sent to Kent, IN ALL CAPS, scolding him for daring to try to get to know her family better...how presumptuous of him to want to communicate with his future in-law(s)...talks about how he better respect her boundaries if he wants to be with her. She also reminds him how she has very specific (if not at all stated out loud or remotely clear to all parties involved) lines and that she has the right to ELIMINATE anyone from her life if they cross those lines. She doesn't tell Kent he's crossed the line and they're done. Nope, she essentially threatens him to get in line or she'll get rid of him. I wonder why she wouldn't tell him that if he was stalking her and she wanted to get rid of him.

There's no evidence of any restraining orders taken out against Kent from Mechele. And in the harshest written communication we have available, from her to him, she doesn't ELIMINATE him from her life...if she was so freaking fed up then why not??? Perhaps he hadn't been bled dry yet. Literally.

And otto, I so agree with you about this odd insistence that everything Mechele is documented to have done and said is really completely different, and, of course, the preferred story paints Mechele in a better light. And again, transparent.

Click to expand...

flourish said:

Here is the ALL CAPS LETTER

Click to expand...

Turtlepace said:

In our adversarial criminal justice system of course the people prosecuting Mechele are her enemies.


"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


I have my own inside information even though I have never been in a strip club. I know that a lot of gifts are given to strippers outside of the club.


Why am I asked how Kent was supposed to destroy his letter if Mechele had married him?

"Thanks for coming up. Sorry Mechele couldn't be here to see you. Please put the enclosed envelope in your safe deposit box. Do not open it. I talked to you about 'insurance policies'. This is mine." Kent Leppink's letter
(Underline bold added for emphasis)


"Mechele, John, or Scott were the people, or persons that probably killed me." Kent Leppink's letter
(Underline bold added for emphasis)

Kent gave no reason for his vague accusation that Mechele and her friends were probably the people responsible for his death.


"Since you're reading this, you assume that I'm dead." Kent Leppink's letter
(Underline bold added for emphasis)


Kent was not even definite about how he would die. He expected that they would not find his body.


"Sorry about giving you all this stuff to do. I would have done it, but I wanted to make things work. I wanted to marry Mechele. If that would have happened, this would have all been destroyed. I have kept it as my 'insurance policy'. Use it! I'll rest easier." Kent Leppink's letter
(Underline bold added for emphasis)

Kent's letter was about marriage, not murder. The letter was Kent's "insurance" assuring him that Mechele would be punished for not marrying him even if he died accidentally before punishing her himself.

Click to expand...

Turtlepace said:

Why should an innocent person's words be twisted into things she didn't mean? If Mechele paid for the life insurance, why didn't she own it to be able to cancel it? If Mechele put up the money, but Kent owned the life insurance, wouldn't he owe her for the money she loaned him? Kent Leppink s the only person who said that the life insurance was a wedding gift from Mechele's grandfather. Kent lied that the life insurance was a wedding gift from Mechele's grandfather.

www.othercircumstances.blogspot.com

Click to expand...

Turtlepace said:

Mechele knew that John didn't have the money to buy immunity to extradiction with citizenship in the Seychelles Islands. There was no way that the Seychelles Islands was a "get-away plan" for committing murder. The Seychelles Islands were just small talk after Mechele asked John how Kent took to being told Mechele was the 2 1/2 hours of flight time away from Anchorage. Mechele had sent an email the night before asking John to tell Kent she had gone to Barrow instead of Hope.

"could .... i have thought i could before and now well look by giving you what i could i have only hurt you because you wont take it anymore.'
Again, we are alike.You are not less of a person for this, just a human being with needs.
You will when you find the happiness and needs you are looking for.
You are beautiful and wonderful.
I love you very much.You are everything to me and you will always be.I really appreciate you giving me what you could.
I am sorry that I feel it is not enough.I can not support you while you live with Scott.
It is not that I do not want to.
I just can not afford to support you while you do this.
I can not financially afford to put thousands of dollars into Scotts home, pay for your tickets to go see him and give you spending money to have fun with him while you are there.
I don't have the money to do that.I wish that I did.
Things would probally be different if I had the money.
I would keep you happy by traveling all over having fun with you and you would forget Scott.
I just don't have the money.I am sorry for that.Please forgive me." 5/8/2010 Websleuths registered user: flourish Email from John to Mechele (part of a bigger article on msnbc, entitled "The Stripper and the Steel Worker," which "originally aired on Dateline NBC," and can be found here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25876168...rime_reports//) http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81172&page=4

Click to expand...

2goldfish said:

so.....are they going to continue with this and pass down another indictment? or what's going on here? dont they only have 2 weeks left to do so, I thought?

Click to expand...