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

[flourish]

My input in green

Yay! More people are posting on this thread again!! :woohoo: !!

I know! I love it when more people post!


I agree with your statement analysis! I'm on board. Agree. Kinda highlights her priorities, I guess
I also noted her failure to mention her husband. I was always very impressed by him-- his 18 pg sentencing letter, interviews, and blog posts reveal him to be a very articulate and loyal man. Hopefully he just doesn't want to be mentioned in the blog or something? It IS odd though, IMO, since she posts the name of her young daughter online etc.
I also agree it appears to still be 'all about Mechele' and I hope a bunch of people (especially her husband!) aren't left feeling used/disappointed when all is said and done.

Yes, sometimes absence speaks louder than anything else.

I am impressed by the number of steadfast strangers who have rallied to Mechele's side. While I don't necessarily agree with their perspective/position, it is cool to see that a lot of people do care about perceived injustice. There definitely ARE many rather obviously innocent people in prison and they do need support, so it's just curious to me that so many have lobbed onto Mechele vs. more obviously innocent/sympathetic people or causes. $25k from a stranger, etc!

I know! Seeing such passion in people has been amazing! This hits a very personal spot for many people, it seems. Some of those spots are more...ahem...personal than others, IYKWIM :angel:

Also, Mechele did post three more entries, which I'll link to in case you didn't get to see them yet:
Blog 1
Blog 2
Blog 3
:woohoo:



Yay! I'm glad you also enjoyed the comments-- I found them so interesting!
I agree about the self-serving internet use. It's a double-edged sword, IMO, though. For example, her most recent tweet:
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss

To me this smacks of a sort of defiant narcissistic obliviousness. I imagine a lot of people might mind that she's lazing about and twittering inanely while a lot of people firmly believe she belongs in prison-- for example Kent Leppink's family probably minds. Potential jurors and the prosecutor might mind. All of those people certainly matter. :waitasec:


As always, you say it so well, friend

Yay! I'm glad you're back-- I found the shoplifting info! Initially I thought this was just a rumor, but I see a few sources indicate the shoplifting accusation was brought up at trial. Here's one article. Apparently, the Linehans maintained it was a misunderstanding, the charges were dropped and he wasn't prosecuted. If it wasn't a misunderstanding, I'd definitely put my bet on Mechele being the culprit and not her husband.

bbm, ITA! Although, I actually can see how this could be a misunderstanding, as some people panic and get embarrassed when their babies are crying, as babies are wont to do, and sometimes other people are less than gracious about being around said crying baby and make parents feel more embarrassed than they should.

However... aren't doctors poor during med school? I mean, Colin's letter to the judge discusses how during that time Mechele was working as a waitress and he was paying for school with the military program. I wonder how many waitresses shop at Nordstrom's. The Rack, maybe, but...$700.00??

Oooh interesting! And I'm glad that you also find twitter to be an "abomination in general" haha! Love it. I also noted the grammar/diction struggles that appear to have endured, despite that much-toted Master's Degree. I'd feel badly about being snide, but I'm annoyed by the way this degree is toted in the media and by her supporters-- as if she'd stopped world hunger or become a nun or something.

LOL, seriously! I'll be done with my Master's degree in approx. 4 weeks :woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:and I don't feel like I'm getting more superior and trustworthy by the second...but I'll report after I actually confer...maybe it's like a super time-sensitive kind of effect and it just hasn't kicked in yet.

That reminds me-- I've always been a bit curious about whether it's been alleged that she or the other parties in this case were involved in drug use when the crime occurred. Her emails are painful to read and essentially devoid of punctuation etc. And of course her behavior points to some other sort of serious malfunction... I've always wondered if it was possible she was using a lot of drugs at the time or something? Does anyone know if this has ever been discussed??

I have never heard anything about her doing drugs ever, of even drinking really. The only thing (that I can recall) related to drugs and this case has been some vague mentions of Kent possibly smoking pot at one point in his life or another, and some possible hints at Mechele getting mad at him for it because she didn't approve.

If it's true that she left home at 14, stealing her sister's ID and stripping in New Jersey before going to Alaska, or even with of the "official" story of going to New York at 16 to model, then that would mean she had about what... a ninth or tenth grade education at best? Even if that included some quality private school, if she was a rebellious girl troubled by the loss of her father and quickly learning about the power of seduction, she may not have paid much attention to academics. I've also wondered if she has struggled with a learning disability, but I don't know enough except just to wonder. I suspect the desire for higher education was something that grew out of a feeling of wanting to change her image and better attract and fit into the lifestyle she had honed her lofty aspirations in on.


Also, an update:
Mechele's mother is apparently visiting Mechele and her daughter in Alaska and has blogged briefly about it:

"Hi to all!!! Arrived in Anchorage last night and I cannot tell you the joy I felt in seeing my child free!! There are no words to describe how wonderful it was to hug her and know she did not have to be put back in a cell! Audrey is drinking in her mother's love and trying to make up for lost moments. Thanks to all of you for helping in making this come about. You support got us here. Mechele and I will both post later...just wanted to share the excitement of FINALLY getting here and being with Mechele and *****.

A very excited mom!!

It is going to be so interesting seeing how this case progresses.

And, I AM SO GLAD TOMORROW IS FRIDAY!

 

[LadyBug99]

SNIPPED...

That reminds me-- I've always been a bit curious about whether it's been alleged that she or the other parties in this case were involved in drug use when the crime occurred. Her emails are painful to read and essentially devoid of punctuation etc. And of course her behavior points to some other sort of serious malfunction... I've always wondered if it was possible she was using a lot of drugs at the time or something? Does anyone know if this has ever been discussed??

Great point! I don't remember any discussion of drug use. I will see if I can find anything about that. I DO NOT want to make this about her being a stripper at the time (because I honestly don't care) BUT it is not unusual for the girls working in the clubs as well as some of the regulars to be drug users/dealers. It would be a great avenue to explore!

 

[cluciano63]

I doubt drug use was a factor as I am certain the prosecution would have presented anything at all they could find to put Mechele in an even worse light. I think they looked and probably were disappointed they could not add "drug addict" or "coke *advertiser censored*" to "stripper."

 

[nancy botwin]

I really do not mean to sound or be mean but what her mother has quoted makes me want to puke! Just the way Mechele has treated her mother in the past is disgusting. It seems to me that Mechele's mother is living in a state of denial of the sick behavior of her own daughter. YUCK!!

How has Mechele treated her mother in the past? I feel like I remember reading something about the two being estranged at some point? But I can't remember details. Do you know more about their history?

 

[nancy botwin]

Although, I actually can see how this could be a misunderstanding, as some people panic and get embarrassed when their babies are crying, as babies are wont to do, and sometimes other people are less than gracious about being around said crying baby and make parents feel more embarrassed than they should.

However... aren't doctors poor during med school? I mean, Colin's letter to the judge discusses how during that time Mechele was working as a waitress and he was paying for school with the military program. I wonder how many waitresses shop at Nordstrom's. The Rack, maybe, but...$700.00??

Ooh good point! If they were really struggling financially and had a new baby, etc. it's sort of perplexing to imagine they were walking around with 700$ worth of merchandise they intended to purchase. Hmmmm :waitasec:
I totally think Mechele crammed it in the stroller (unbeknownst to her husband) and was confident that no one would suspect him as he wheeled the baby stroller out of the store. Sort of symbolic of the 'two-mecheles" narrative-- use a wholesome facade to deflect suspicion and conceal bad acts.

If it's true that she left home at 14, stealing her sister's ID and stripping in New Jersey before going to Alaska, or even with of the "official" story of going to New York at 16 to model, then that would mean she had about what... a ninth or tenth grade education at best? Even if that included some quality private school, if she was a rebellious girl troubled by the loss of her father and quickly learning about the power of seduction, she may not have paid much attention to academics. I've also wondered if she has struggled with a learning disability, but I don't know enough except just to wonder. I suspect the desire for higher education was something that grew out of a feeling of wanting to change her image and better attract and fit into the lifestyle she had honed her lofty aspirations in on.

Good points! I also wonder about a learning disability-- seems possible fwiw.
Also, I'm assuming she ended up getting her GED? I wonder when/where that happened?
Also I reread Colin Linehan's sentencing letter last night and noted that he said Mechele was acting upon her abiding sense of ethics when she quit the modeling agency receptionist job. According to Dr. Linehan, she felt the agency was unfairly capitalizing on the hopes and dreams of young girls. :doh: Now, maybe that's true. But it never ceases to amaze me how quick her supporters are to recast Mechele's actions in a positively perfect and noble light. Like, they have a saintly explanation for EVERYTHING, even things that really don't require any explanation.

Also! An early congratulations to you on the completion of your Master's Degree!

:woohoo:artyguy::balloons::star1::applause: :woohoo:​

 

[nancy botwin]

Great point! I don't remember any discussion of drug use. I will see if I can find anything about that. I DO NOT want to make this about her being a stripper at the time (because I honestly don't care) BUT it is not unusual for the girls working in the clubs as well as some of the regulars to be drug users/dealers. It would be a great avenue to explore!

Let me know if you do find anything about drug use! I'm interested. And I agree re: not caring about the stripping. It's weird because it seems like NO ONE CARES about the stripping-- except for Mechele's defenders? :waitasec:

I doubt drug use was a factor as I am certain the prosecution would have presented anything at all they could find to put Mechele in an even worse light. I think they looked and probably were disappointed they could not add "drug addict" or "coke *advertiser censored*" to "stripper."

You think so? Personally, if I knew she was a drug addict at the time, I would extend a little more 'benefit of the doubt' to Mechele's story and I would also look upon her more sympathetically. Of course drug abuse wouldn't be an excuse for murder, but it could help explain the somewhat incoherent communications, the exceedingly strange behavior, the duplicity, contradictory statements, strange relationships, etc. Also, drug abuse can severely compromise a person's ability to empathize and/or contemplate the real consequences of their actions. A drug addict can stop using drugs and recover their ability to empathize and think rationally. I think revelations of drug abuse could actually be helpful to the defense.

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

Wow, Nancy and everyone else...I just got back from reading Eyes for Lies, March 11th blog comments....what interesting info!! Eye-opening to say the least.

What did you think of Sadie's theory? The idea that Kent and MEchele (I love that) were planning on faking his death in order to "make all her dreams come true", only to fear he was being double-crossed at the last minute makes a lot of sense.

I don't recall this particular motive being discussed earlier, just the idea that Kent had planned/paid for his own murder which I just can't see happening.

Thanks for pointing me in that direction (Eyes for Lies), as well. There's so much info there that I think I'll be up all night trying to take it all in!

 

[marilhicks]

To Flourish: Your suggestion of learning disabilities sounds like a very reasonable explanation of her English expression difficulties, especially since her mother and sister seem to be able to write well enough. Still, I wonder how she managed to get through a master's program with such problematic skills.

And congratulations on the upcoming completion of your degree!


One detail has been bothering me - according to the book by Rosen, an investigator went to the house in Wasilla on May 3, a day after Kent's body was found. There he encountered Carlin and Mechele. She explained they were retrieving stuff from Kent's car and storage area that belonged to them. The investigator was surprised since they had not been officially informed of the murder.

Apparently they were not concerned that Kent would appear on the scene and felt free to rummage through his belongings. I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this.

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

If that's true you would think they would have found the "Hope note" and discarded it....wasn't it left in Kent's car?....I thought it had been left in the glove box but I could be wrong. That behavior screams guilt to me and I can't believe the prosecution didn't mention that at their trials!

 

[nancy botwin]

Wow, Nancy and everyone else...I just got back from reading Eyes for Lies, March 11th blog comments....what interesting info!! Eye-opening to say the least.

What did you think of Sadie's theory? The idea that Kent and MEchele (I love that) were planning on faking his death in order to "make all her dreams come true", only to fear he was being double-crossed at the last minute makes a lot of sense.

I don't recall this particular motive being discussed earlier, just the idea that Kent had planned/paid for his own murder which I just can't see happening.

Thanks for pointing me in that direction (Eyes for Lies), as well. There's so much info there that I think I'll be up all night trying to take it all in!

Hmm. I don't know how I feel about the mutual plot to fake Kent's death. I suppose it's possible. If they had been planning this together, they would have been planning it for months because Kent and Mechele applied for the life insurance policies in February 1996. On April 9, 1996 (weeks before his death), Kent sent Mechele this email which, IMO, suggests that they didn't have any grand plan to make themselves rich. To me, it sounds like Kent's trying to cajole Mechele into accepting that they'll be starting a rather ordinary life together and they'll have to work hard to make the money necessary to live the kind of lifestyle she wants.

Also, I believe Mechele was responding to this email or subsequent related emails when she assured Kent "I need a simple life. I have never had a simple life and I want that life now. You can give me that life." So I don't know. I guess I would expect to see some sort of email trail or something if they were really planning something like that together.

So, basically I don't really see any evidence to support that kind of mutual plot (beyond the life insurance). Following Sadie's logic, it seems her hypothesis could just as easily be applied to any case of domestic homicide where one partner had expressed fear of the other shortly before death.:waitasec:

 

[nancy botwin]

...

One detail has been bothering me - according to the book by Rosen, an investigator went to the house in Wasilla on May 3, a day after Kent's body was found. There he encountered Carlin and Mechele. She explained they were retrieving stuff from Kent's car and storage area that belonged to them. The investigator was surprised since they had not been officially informed of the murder.

Apparently they were not concerned that Kent would appear on the scene and felt free to rummage through his belongings. I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this.

If that's true you would think they would have found the "Hope note" and discarded it....wasn't it left in Kent's car?....I thought it had been left in the glove box but I could be wrong. That behavior screams guilt to me and I can't believe the prosecution didn't mention that at their trials!

Very interesting marilhicks! Another piece of information I failed to retain from Rosen's book-- I should have paid more attention :blushing:

I agree, Blondie in Spokane, that does seem very incriminating indeed. Disturbing.

 

[nancy botwin]

Also, I checked the online docket and it looks like there's going to be a hearing regarding Mechele's request to alter her conditions of release. As I recall, she was objecting to the house arrest/third-party custodian provisions. Let us pause and reflect on her third-party custodian's Facebook rant regarding the unfairness of it all. :boohoo:

So, according to the court calendar, Mechele filed the Motion to Alter Conditions of Release on May 14 and the State filed its Response May 19. The hearing is set for June 2.

I also discovered that the third-party custodian augmented her aformentioned Facebook rant and turned it into a bit of a tirade in the comments section of the Free Mechele blog:

"Judge V thoughtfully explained he did not consider Mechele a flight risk this time, reminding the prosecution that she presented no problems while on bail in WA state; she'd already proven her reliability once. Also, she provided bail which accomplishes the same things as a third party (begging the ? why both were imposed).

Yet, after making those reasonable observations, he imposed a more restrictive situation than when she was thousands of miles away in Washington.

In WA there were no stipulations as to where she could go during the day or where she could sleep at night, as long as she was with one of her third parties, of whom she had several. She even went to work each day.

This time, Mechele is restricted to the Anchorage bowl, with only one third party in the entire state for long stretches when her family cannot be here, she is under house arrest, allowed only two outings a week for four hours each. She must be in her own apartment by 8:00 pm, seven nights a week.

In imposing more severe restrictions, Judge V allowed Gullufsen to put her third-party custodian under house-arrest herself so that she is unable to function in her own life. There is no provision for her own dctr appts, to take her dog to the vet or groomer, to take care of household duties, even grocery shopping, for personal errands, to take her husband to medical appts requiring her presence without them using one of Mechele's four hour weekly outings, and seven nights a week she is not allowed to sleep in her own home with her husband of almost 26 years. Monday-Friday, she and her husband will rarely see each other, and will only see each other during the days on weekends. There are no provisions for her third-party and Mechele to even take her third-party's dogs for a walk.

Gullufsen has thus far refused to compromise on allowing Mechele to sometimes sleep at her third- party's house so that she may sleep in her own home with her husband at least part of the time. Gullufsen stated "he needs to know where Mechele is every night." He does have both addresses and phone numbers for both, and Mechele must call her bail bondsman every day as well.

Her third party feels this is unreasonable, and as a responsible citizen who stepped forward to make the system work, Gullufsen is being intentionally unreasonable and she can see no reason for it other than either to be vindictive toward Mechele and a member of the public for whom he works as a public servant, or that he hopes her third-party will abandon her due to the stress, and she will be forced to go back to prison. Given this situation is so much more severe than the last, before Mechele proved her trustworthiness, what other explanation can there be?

If Judge V is going to continue to allow Prosecutor Pat to make the decisions and run the show much like he did Mechele's last trial, then I do not agree he should be her judge. Because while what he said in court was fair and reasonable, as judge he does not owe it to the prosecution to be unjust, unfair, or unreasonable, but thus far, Pat is still the one all parties are answering to, even when he does not offer logical, relevant, justifications for his refusals to compromise.

Thus far, Mechele's local third party has expressed no interest in abandoning her commitment to Mechele, but instead the opposite. Having the unnecessary vindictiveness extended to her as well merely for stepping-up has strengthened her resolve and she intends to seek her own legal counsel if necessary because the law does not provide the prosecution the authority to put third party custodians under house arrest, nor may the court; and to contact her representatives in government with a request for judiciary committee examination of this system by looking at her own involvement and what has happened to her for merely attempting to be a responsible citizen doing no one any harm but responsibly keeping the defendant where she belongs until her trial date."



***
I seriously hope Judge Volland doesn't loosen her conditions of release. They need to find an additional third-party custodian so this woman doesn't have to be with Mechele 24/7. It's not the Court's problem that Mechele's conditions of release are burdensome to the woman who VOLUNTEERED for the job. It's like becoming a plumber and then getting all offended when someone asks you to take a look at their toilet. :waitasec:

The third-party custodian is a bit unhinged, IMO. It's kind of amazing. Can you believe this lady?

 

[flourish]

Also, I checked the online docket and it looks like there's going to be a hearing regarding Mechele's request to alter her conditions of release. As I recall, she was objecting to the house arrest/third-party custodian provisions. Let us pause and reflect on her third-party custodian's Facebook rant regarding the unfairness of it all. :boohoo:

So, according to the court calendar, Mechele filed the Motion to Alter Conditions of Release on May 14 and the State filed its Response May 19. The hearing is set for June 2.

I also discovered that the third-party custodian augmented her aformentioned Facebook rant and turned it into a bit of a tirade in the comments section of the Free Mechele blog:

"Judge V thoughtfully explained he did not consider Mechele a flight risk this time, reminding the prosecution that she presented no problems while on bail in WA state; she'd already proven her reliability once. Also, she provided bail which accomplishes the same things as a third party (begging the ? why both were imposed).

Yet, after making those reasonable observations, he imposed a more restrictive situation than when she was thousands of miles away in Washington.

In WA there were no stipulations as to where she could go during the day or where she could sleep at night, as long as she was with one of her third parties, of whom she had several. She even went to work each day.

This time, Mechele is restricted to the Anchorage bowl, with only one third party in the entire state for long stretches when her family cannot be here, she is under house arrest, allowed only two outings a week for four hours each. She must be in her own apartment by 8:00 pm, seven nights a week.

In imposing more severe restrictions, Judge V allowed Gullufsen to put her third-party custodian under house-arrest herself so that she is unable to function in her own life. There is no provision for her own dctr appts, to take her dog to the vet or groomer, to take care of household duties, even grocery shopping, for personal errands, to take her husband to medical appts requiring her presence without them using one of Mechele's four hour weekly outings, and seven nights a week she is not allowed to sleep in her own home with her husband of almost 26 years. Monday-Friday, she and her husband will rarely see each other, and will only see each other during the days on weekends. There are no provisions for her third-party and Mechele to even take her third-party's dogs for a walk.

Gullufsen has thus far refused to compromise on allowing Mechele to sometimes sleep at her third- party's house so that she may sleep in her own home with her husband at least part of the time. Gullufsen stated "he needs to know where Mechele is every night." He does have both addresses and phone numbers for both, and Mechele must call her bail bondsman every day as well.

Her third party feels this is unreasonable, and as a responsible citizen who stepped forward to make the system work, Gullufsen is being intentionally unreasonable and she can see no reason for it other than either to be vindictive toward Mechele and a member of the public for whom he works as a public servant, or that he hopes her third-party will abandon her due to the stress, and she will be forced to go back to prison. Given this situation is so much more severe than the last, before Mechele proved her trustworthiness, what other explanation can there be?

If Judge V is going to continue to allow Prosecutor Pat to make the decisions and run the show much like he did Mechele's last trial, then I do not agree he should be her judge. Because while what he said in court was fair and reasonable, as judge he does not owe it to the prosecution to be unjust, unfair, or unreasonable, but thus far, Pat is still the one all parties are answering to, even when he does not offer logical, relevant, justifications for his refusals to compromise.

Thus far, Mechele's local third party has expressed no interest in abandoning her commitment to Mechele, but instead the opposite. Having the unnecessary vindictiveness extended to her as well merely for stepping-up has strengthened her resolve and she intends to seek her own legal counsel if necessary because the law does not provide the prosecution the authority to put third party custodians under house arrest, nor may the court; and to contact her representatives in government with a request for judiciary committee examination of this system by looking at her own involvement and what has happened to her for merely attempting to be a responsible citizen doing no one any harm but responsibly keeping the defendant where she belongs until her trial date."



***
I seriously hope Judge Volland doesn't loosen her conditions of release. They need to find an additional third-party custodian so this woman doesn't have to be with Mechele 24/7. It's not the Court's problem that Mechele's conditions of release are burdensome to the woman who VOLUNTEERED for the job. It's like becoming a plumber and then getting all offended when someone asks you to take a look at their toilet. :waitasec:

The third-party custodian is a bit unhinged, IMO. It's kind of amazing. Can you believe this lady?

Um, yeah, I'm gonna go puke now, hang on...:sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick:

Pardon me, I don't know what came over me...perhaps it was something to do with reading yet another letter from a man apologizing to Mechele for not having enough money for her.

The follow-up with the New Enhanced Director's Cut of the third-party rant just tipped it over the edge.

I think I shall go to bed now lest I go completely crazy first, simply from trying to wrap my head around the sheer audacity of these people. Maybe when I awaken, they will have, too. :angel:

 

[flourish]

It appears the entire rant discussion has evaporated from the facebook page...h m m m backpedaling down the crazy, maybe?

 

[flourish]

New post from Mechele on the blog http://freemechele.blogspot.com/2010/05/from-mechele_29.html

includes the following snippet:

Today I am thankful to men who do hair and stop signs.

O k a y

 

[nancy botwin]

It appears the entire rant discussion has evaporated from the facebook page...h m m m backpedaling down the crazy, maybe?

haha! Good catch!

I enjoy how the rant was initially edited to sound a little less crazed :rage: and now it's been deleted?!
Narcissism is my favorite spectator sport. As an avid fan, I instinctively preserve records. So, I maintain a screencap of the original post. :woohoo:

This makes me feel a solidarity with Kent Leppink-- you know how Free Mecheleans are quick to insist that he was deranged/creepy/obsessed/ "sneaky" because he kept records of things related to Mechele & co.? IMO, that's the prudent thing to do when you're dealing with shady people who don't feel they should be held accountable for their actions!

 

[nancy botwin]

Um, yeah, I'm gonna go puke now, hang on...:sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick::sick:

Pardon me, I don't know what came over me...perhaps it was something to do with reading yet another letter from a man apologizing to Mechele for not having enough money for her.

The follow-up with the New Enhanced Director's Cut of the third-party rant just tipped it over the edge.

I think I shall go to bed now lest I go completely crazy first, simply from trying to wrap my head around the sheer audacity of these people. Maybe when I awaken, they will have, too. :angel:

Audacity is right! The persecutory delusions within this rant are amazing. Using this logic, should a defense attorney feel personally attacked when the judge orders his/her client held without bail? Because then the attorney is going to have to truck it to the jail whenever the attorney meets with the client. And that's going to take a lot more time and energy. I bet the Hold Without Bail has nothing to do with the offender/offense and has everything to do with the judge or prosecutor's personal vendetta against the defense attorney. :waitasec:
I also enjoy the delusions of grandeur. Clearly the pretrial release conditions have been crafted as a way to thwart the third-party custodian's noble civic crusade. :waitasec:

Also, bringing it down to logistics-- and ignoring the fact that the entire situation could be remedied by finding additional third-party custodians who do not live and work thousands of miles away from the defendant--
Under the current conditions, Mechele is entitled to TWO 4-hour periods to do whatever she needs/wants to do outside her home every week. IMO many people (who are not wards of the criminal justice system) do not enjoy a guaranteed 8 hrs to run personal errands, bike ride, see movies etc. outside of their home every week. People have jobs, school, kids to take care of and shuttle around, etc.

Mechele doesn't have a job. She doesn't have kids, family members, friends or pets to take care of in Anchorage. She doesn't have a house or car to maintain. She only needs to buy groceries and domestic supplies for one person. Visits with her attorney or any other individual directly associated with her legal representation do NOT count as part of those 8 free hours/week. So IMO the 8 hrs of free/leisure time condition is MORE than fair. I know there are many weeks when I don't have a guaranteed 8 hours of purely personal time to do whatever I want outside of my home.

And, since Mechele is apparently a deeply generous and considerate person now, wouldn't you think she would use a few of those 8 hours to allow the third-party custodian to do what she needs to do? Couldn't they walk the dogs together? If the dogs really needed to go to the vet or get their nails buffed and polished, couldn't animal-loving Mechele give up one of those hours to come along? Couldn't the third-party custodian and Mechele do their necessary shopping together?

So, IMO, this indignant rant is not only logistically unreasonable but also extremely disrespectful. This isn't sleep-away camp?! Mechele is awaiting trial for first degree murder. And she was fortunate enough to have perfect strangers PAY HER WAY out of prison. This indignation sort of reminds me of being a college freshman and listening to fellow dorm residents rage angrily about the oppressive RA's who wouldn't allow them to bring beer into the dorm. Never-mind that they were 18! They were in college now and an adult, etc.

When you're awaiting trial for first degree murder motivated by pecuniary gain, it's probably not a good idea to flagrantly demonstrate that you continue to be a person who believes the rules should not apply to you and that you are entitled to whatever you want. :waitasec::waitasec:

 

[flourish]

haha! Good catch!

I enjoy how the rant was initially edited to sound a little less crazed :rage: and now it's been deleted?!
Narcissism is my favorite spectator sport. As an avid fan, I instinctively preserve records. So, I maintain a screencap of the original post. :woohoo:

This makes me feel a solidarity with Kent Leppink-- you know how Free Mecheleans are quick to insist that he was deranged/creepy/obsessed/ "sneaky" because he kept records of things related to Mechele & co.? IMO, that's the prudent thing to do when you're dealing with shady people who don't feel they should be held accountable for their actions!

Bold: Hilarious!

Yeah, it's obviously a good choice to keep records and confirm things in general and particularly when dealing with anything related to Mechele!

 

[cluciano63]

I am not taking up for Mechele, but just hope her second jury comes into the case with an open mind. Whatever you think of her, the justice system has granted her a new trial and she is no different from anyone else in having rights. If she is so obviously guilty and treacherous, I am sure the jury will see that, I just hope that the jurors, whoever they turn out to be, have not already made up their minds. JMO.

 

[flourish]

Could this whole third-party nonsense been because they were all assuming she'd get to go back to Olympia and didn't bother to plan ahead for an Alaskan release? Can the third-party's husband apply to be a third-party, too?

I'm wondering why Mechele isn't just living with the third-party.

Oh, and delusions of grandeur I agree...it's baffling.