Monday, April 6, 2009

Updates Soon

Thanks to everyone for all your comments and support and all the books sent to Mechele. A special thanks goes out to the lovely individual who sent her a whole box of books a couple months ago. She got them, but without any documentation, so she did not know who to send a thank you to.

Mechele's mom is in town, staying with her family, so she is hoping to get us some updates soon. As far as I know, we are still just waiting on a court date for the appeal, which could be pushed back as far as the fall.

Thanks everyone!

34 comments:

Bmialone said...

Thank you for the update.

Grace said...

She must have many supporters-starngers, yes? It is good to know that. I'm glad she is getting a lot to read!

Grace said...

She is getting a lot to read, that is good - also good to know she has many supporters out here?

Since but a few get published here I wonder about the ballpark numbers. It would be reassuring to know there are no gaps in the stream of "public" support, if you know what I mean (I realize her friends and family are always there, of course).

Diana said...

Again, Mechele, I pray for you all the time. Praise God you have your beauty and your mind and your health and a beautiful daughter. Use this time to read and to think about your future. This experience will make you a stronger person. Sincerely, Diana

LaouidaMajorsDunn'sBlogger said...

I sure hope that they throw out the Conviction. It made Me sad that the Jury thought Mechele did this & I know she did not do it at all. Mechele has My 100% Support. You can do a Petition for Mechele here is some websites for this.
www.thepetitionsite.com
www.ipetitions.com
www.petitiononline.com
petition2congress.com
www.gopetition.com
www.petitionspot.com

I will sign all them Petitions just please write a Petition for Mechele. She is Not Guilty.
I will pray for You All.
If You need any help please call Me or email Me at laouidamdunn@gmail.com if You need any assistance at all& I will give You My Mobile Number there.
God~Bless
Laouida Dunn

Jenna said...

Im doing a whole project on this case in law school. I wish you all the best and i believe she should be set free. Everyone makes mistakes in judgment and i dont believe she ever ment any harm. It was so long ago, shes more than proven that she changed her ways and is living an honest life. I wish you all the best stay strong!

<3 Jenna

Jenna said...

Im doing a whole project on this case in law school. I wish you all the best and i believe she should be set free. Everyone makes mistakes in judgment and i dont believe she ever ment any harm. It was so long ago, shes more than proven that she changed her ways and is living an honest life. I wish you all the best stay strong!

<3 Jenna

Turtlepace said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Turtlepace said...

If I seem to comment in circles, it is because this case has circular reasoning. Kent Leppink was supposedly lured to Hope, Alaska because the Hope Note said Mechele Linehan would be there. She wasn't, but that didn't stop the conspiracy the Hope Note supposedly established. Presumably, John Carlin followed Mr. Leppink wherever he went for the next five days waiting for an opportunity to follow him to Hope, Alaska. Then at 2:19 AM on May 2, 1996 Mr. Carlin had to jump out of bed presumably still in his pajamas to follow (or precede) Mr. Leppink to Hope, Alaska again. Never mind that he had to get back from a three hour journey without awakening the dog who would have awakened his son by 4:15 AM. Never mind his size 9 1/2 FFFF feet didn't leave any footprints discernable from Mr. Leppink's. Never mind that his gun was hidden in the hallway closet where Mr. Leppink was the only one who could have put it there before going out to die. Never mind that Mr. Carlin had no idea that Mr. Leppink would be stupid enough to think Mrs. Linehan would still be in Hope, Alaska after the residents of that small village told him she wasn't there.

So how did Mr. Carlin know that Mr. Leppink would go to Hope, Alaska on May 2, 1996? Because the "Conspiracy" told him to? So how did the "Conspiracy" know that? Because the Hope Note said so? How did the Hope Note that said nothing about May 2, 1996 create such a conspiracy? Because Mr. Leppink died in Hope, Alaska on May 2, 1996? I believe this is where I came in.

But I want to talk about manipulation and seduction now. When it's approved or done by a "proper" person, manipulation is called leadership and persuasion. As far as I know, everyone does it. Some people do it all the time, and they are not accused of murder. When an "approved, proper" leader or salesperson is attractive and good looking, it can be seductive even if that's not the aim of the practitioner. If you ask how manipulation and seduction proves that Mrs. Linehan solicited murder, you get another anecdote of manipulation and seduction.

alaskansheilah said...

I sure hope the real Michele testifies at her appeal. Just be yourself, and tell the truth from your angle Michele.

I'm sure hoping your new defense team has probably uncovered a few things. Like more focus on Mr. Leppink's character!

The Prosecution's saintly love-sick puppy line smacks of S**T.

My prayers remain with the real victim. Truth will out.

AL1G said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Turtlepace said...

If I seem to comment in circles, it is because this case has circular reasoning. Kent Leppink was supposedly lured to Hope, Alaska because the Hope Note said Mechele Linehan would be there. She wasn't, but that didn't stop the conspiracy the Hope Note supposedly established. Presumably, John Carlin followed Mr. Leppink wherever he went for the next five days waiting for an opportunity to follow him to Hope, Alaska. Then at 2:19 AM on May 2, 1996 Mr. Carlin had to jump out of bed presumably still in his pajamas to follow (or precede) Mr. Leppink to Hope, Alaska again. Never mind that he had to get back from a three hour journey without awakening the dog who would have awakened his son by 4:15 AM. Never mind his size 9 1/2 FFFF feet didn't leave any footprints discernable from Mr. Leppink's. Never mind that his gun was hidden in the hallway closet where Mr. Leppink was the only one who could have put it there before going out to die. Never mind that Mr. Carlin had no idea that Mr. Leppink would be stupid enough to think Mrs. Linehan would still be in Hope, Alaska after the residents of that small village told him she wasn't there.

So how did Mr. Carlin know that Mr. Leppink would go to Hope, Alaska on May 2, 1996? Because the "Conspiracy" told him to? So how did the "Conspiracy" know that? Because the Hope Note said so? How did the Hope Note that said nothing about May 2, 1996 create such a conspiracy? Because Mr. Leppink died in Hope, Alaska on May 2, 1996? I believe this is where I came in.

But I want to talk about manipulation and seduction now. When it's approved or done by a "proper" person, manipulation is called leadership and persuasion. As far as I know, everyone does it. Some people do it all the time, and they are not accused of murder. When an "approved, proper" leader or salesperson is attractive and good looking, it can be seductive even if that's not the aim of the practitioner. If you ask how manipulation and seduction proves that Mrs. Linehan solicited murder, you get another anecdote of manipulation and seduction.

Diana said...

Mechele,

I have though about coming to visit you. I am good with people in that I can tell when someone is telling the truth and when they are not. You know, I have the icon to this webiste on my desktop. There have been times when I wanted to erase it, but I can't. I can't forget you. Again, I pray for you and I have faith that God will help you and that this horrible situation will make you stronger. Please be strong, and be thankful for the gifts that God has given you, your beauty, your mind and your daughter. Never loose faith in God. I pray to God everyday, to even HELP me. God is the way, the truth and the light. Sincerely, Diana. You have so much to live for.

Turtlepace said...

Somewhere I read that the prosecutor even used Mechele Linehan's continued correspondence with John Carlin, his son, and Scott Hilke as evidence of her conspiracy to kill Kent Leppink. I think this overdoing the prosecution shows that the conspiracy charge is guilt by association. In other words, it is existential guilt that had nothing to do with what she or Mr. Carlin actually did. He was guilty of being associated with a manipulative seductive ex-stripper. After he was convicted she was guilty of association with someone convicted of murder. It didn't matter that he couldn't travel to and from the murder scene in the less than two hours he had to do it in. It didn't matter that she didn't ask him to. It didn't matter that he never indicated he would if she did ask. And it didn't matter that he didn't follow Mr. Leppink for five days for the opportunity to find him at Hope, Alaska. Mr. Carlin and Mrs. Linehan should not have had to prove their innocence of existential guilt.

Turtlepace said...

I do think that the prosecution marketed guilt by association as a conspiracy. How would anyone defend himself or herself from a charge as nebulous as this charge of murder was? Like a cloud it changes shape to fit whatever container it's in.

Turtlepace said...

Mechele and John did use a deceit called the Hope Note to lure Kent Leppink away from Anchorage for a number of hours on April 27, 1996. But nowhere on that note is anything saying that Mechele would be at Hope, Alaska on May 2, 1996. Only speculation can provide how John would know that Kent was going back to Hope five days later. If John did follow Kent all over the place for five days to get a chance to catch him in Hope, he would have known that Kent had changed the life insurance. Hence no motive. If John had followed Kent leaving the house at 2:19 AM May 2, 1996, he wouldn't have had time to make the three hour round trip to return to send an e-mail at 4:15 AM that same day. The lack of John's distinctive footprints also preclude him from being at the murder scene at the time Kent was killed. John could not have killed Kent, and nothing about the Hope Note suggests that John and Mechele were ever conspiring to kill him. How could Kent predict his own death if he weren't planning it himself? Are the police looking for the real killer who gave Kent a ride to Hope? Was the prosecutor more interested in convictions than truth? Why did the judge permit the case to be tried this way? What was so criminal about avoiding a confrontation at the airport that Mechele is in prison for the rest of her life and John was murdered in prison?

alaskansheilah said...

Turtlepace makes some very poignant remarks and asks some very interesting questions.

I'm still haunted by Mrs. Leppink's testimony. Kent called her just prior to going to Hope, at Mechele's invocation, then indicated that he 'would probably be killed'.

How his mother implored him not to go, how he kept repeating that he must. WHY? Was someone pointing a gun at him at the time? WHAT JURY wouldn't suspect something amiss there?

At the mere glance of a note, the man suspects foul play, and doesn't call the police or beckon back-up? Was there some other evidence stating that if he didn't go to Hope something bad would happen to Mechele?

Someone call in Sherlock Holmes. There are so many GAPS in this case.

Mechele wasn't even in Alaska at the time. Her wrists are entirely too delicate to handle a .44 calibur with any accuracy. So did Carlin arrive @ his house and hold the gun on Kent,to take him to Hope? Permitting him to call and say goodbye to "Mom"? That doesn't make much sense. Carlin didn't strike me as that dumb or sentimental.

What haunts me the most, is why didn't "Mom" Leppink immediately call the police here in Anchorage from WA? I would have. Given my kid's Lic.plate, and home address & phone # too, plus his destination. Told them the weird conversation I just had w/my boy. Send the police on a welfare check at least. Why not?

I'd have somehow tried to stop him from going to his death over some woman that didn't love him. And you all do know Leppink was found with his insurance policy on his dead carcass right?

Who ever killed Kent Leppink probably shot him while positioned from the car or truck. So no other foot prints would be found. Not even a fancy shot w/a .44. Open the truck door, one foot on the running board other in the truck, arms out over the door jamb and bang bang bang.

Too bad the Carlin case wasn't covered as thoroughly by the press as Mechele's. Poor Mechele was in the paper at least 2 times a week. Do a Mechele Linehan trial google search, should lead you to her case story.

Now that Carlin's dead, at least half of his 1/3 of the puzzle died with him. I ain't goin' for jail house justice. Someone had a motive. Who killed Carlin and why? There are cameras everywhere in prison. They probably know who killed Carlin.

At least it's possible that the real killer of Leppink is in prison right now, may or may not be the actual killer of Carlin. If he is, I hope he's a lifer, but maybe he's not going to be in too long, or why bother killing Carlin.

Turtlepace said...

I've already commented on the judge letting an investigator characterize as guilt his interpretation Mechele's surprise that Kent had changed the beneficiary of the life insurance. I don't doubt that Mechele was surprised by Kent's betrayal, but would the judge allow the description of John's surprise that his son found the Desert Eagle .44 in the hallway closet? That event shows that John's gun was in the hallway closet at the time of Kent's murder. Would the prosecutor object that such a question about John''s reaction would call for a conjecture by John's son? Would the judge agree even though he let the other conjecture stand?

AlaskaFeline said...

I wish you the best of luck with your appeal, Mechele

sandymc said...

Laouida, a petition is a great idea!! Mechele likes it a lot!! You are located pretty close to me..I am just north of Pascagoula. If you don't mind I will call you and get your opinion on the best way to do this!! We are gearing up for Sept. when we hope oral arguments will be heard. I am going back to Olympia in July and will come back with a full blown media and campaign ready to launch!! We are going to expand our websites and may ask for some volunteers for specific things!! Thank you all for the outpouring of love and support!!

sandymc said...

Hi all!! The Discover Channel has contacted us about a new program they have coming out in the fall, "On the Case with Paula Zahn." They indicate that they are focusing on the injustices that are done within the legal system and are interested in doing a show about Mechele's case. We are negotiating with them and would like some of your feedback? You know one aspect of doing these shows (which I hate!) is the fact if it brings one person forward or new evidence that helps free Mechele then it was worth it. What do you think???

sandymc said...

Just got a call from our friends at "Dateline." Mechele's show will be re-aired with updates this friday. Have gotten several emails and calls and wanted everyone to know....

alaskansheilah said...

WTG SandyMc cold cases are hard to crack, but it wouldn't be the first time an investigative reporter....a REAL investigative reporter (not employed by ADN) would turn over more clues than the police even thought to.

Actually, I wonder if they checked out the night life around the Bush Co. Ie: The Flight Deck, The Oasis, Peanut Farm, I know I saw Leppink @ some of those places. Flight Deck and the Oasis had some serious elements at one time. And many today were regulars then too I hear. Anchorage is a small town really. But there are the imports too. I just don't think our cops did a thorough background on Leppink is all. Nah...I'm sure.

BTW, Grace, I don't know if Mechele has a lot of supporters here in Anchorage. But truth is often very unpopular.

Bmialone said...

There is no evidence that Michele was actually "engaged" to three men at once and "juggling" them. Most certainly there is no evidence that the three men did not know about each other and each of their roles in her life.

There is no evidence that Carlin and Leppink did not know about her actual boyfriend. To the contrary, there is evidence that both knew about him and that multiples times he stayed in their home when he visited Michele.

There is nothing unusual about a group home with housemates living much like a family and that is what the evidence shows in their case, nothing more.

It isn't unusual, especially in places like Alaska, for older men to take a lovely young woman alone on her own under their wing and to do so without a sexual relationship or promise of one. Having a bright young woman in a house makes the lives of lonely men in such an isolated backwater a little brighter and homier and that's why they do it. It is nice to have a nice, lovely, warm hearted woman in their home, plain and simple, because then it feels like a home.

Bmialone said...

The accusatory letter Leppink sent to his parents intentionally marks Mechele and Carlin, but not a shred of evidence was presented to support Kent Leppink’s having any reason to believe he was in danger from them. Further, no evidence has been presented showing he gave any indication of fear other than that letter, which he wrote after his father’s visit.

Did he need to fear them because of the insurance money? Mechele tried to cancel the policy, and Carlin already had a lot of money!

Bmialone said...

Evidence points to a young woman moving on with her life, as any young woman finding herself harassed by an emotionally disturbed stalker would do as she tried to extricate herself from such a friendship. It also oddly points to the victim being up to something regarding the insurance policy.

A better supported theory than the prosecution’s is that Kent Leppink was running out of the money he embezzled from his parents' business, and he wanted back in his parents' good-graces so he was desperate to convince his father that he wasn't Gay. Leppink needed money, and he needed a fiance to meet dad but then she was a no-show. Both are plausible motives for attempting to set up Mechele. Anger toward John Carlin for helping Mechele, thus, helping her disgrace him in front of his father, is a reasonable motive for including Carlin. Then either someone who cared about them or some seedy low-life he hired turned things sideways on him.

Bmialone said...

Remember, Kent was a man but Mechele was only a girl. Most youngsters do not even understand life insurance policies. Usually, if a 20-year-old buys life insurance, it is because someone else convinced them it is a good idea.

The insurance agent testified that Mechele tried to cancel the insurance policy. Yet, it wasn't cancelled and Kent Leppink was still concerned with it, changing his beneficiary after his father’s visit, and carrying the signed paper in his pocket the very day he was killed.

A witness claimed that Mechele was upset about Kent insisting she make him her beneficiary. Since few 20-year-olds expect to die any time soon, if Mechele was the manipulator intent on cashing in on his death, why would it matter to her who her beneficiary was? What difference would it make?

No 20-year-old without dependents needs a life insurance policy, and Leppink knew about her real boyfriend; therefore, since Mechele wanted the policy cancelled, why did he keep it? And if Leppink was just a patsy as the prosecution claimed, why did he insist on being her beneficiary even though he'd spent time with her and her real boyfriend so he knew he and Mechele weren't really an engaged couple?

Since John Carlin already had a lot of his own money, Kent was running out of the money he stole, Kent insisted on Mechele making him her benefiicary on the policy, and Kent kept the policy open after Mechele tried to cancel it, wasn’t Kent Leppink the one with a monetary motive and odd behavior?

Most insurance policies do not pay for suicides, but they do pay for murder. If in his disturbed state, fresh from the pain of his father’s visit, Kent Leppink planned his own death, what better way to make things right with mom and dad than to leave them a large sum of money?

These are questions responsible investigators would have examined and a responsible prosecutor would have demanded.

Bmialone said...

Increasingly mentally disturbed, Kent Leppink either desperately wanted the acceptance of his family, or he wanted back in the fold to hit them up for money, or both. He stole from his parents and they banished him; his brother said really bad things about him. Obviously, there was some deep-seated anger between Kent Leppink and his family and it had to go back Before the embezzlement or he would not have been willing to steal from his parents in the first place.

After his death, Mechele told Troopers that Kent Leppink was actually Gay and his relationship with her was really just a cover to protect him. An engagement as a cover when they were really only friends believably explains why her actual boyfriend visited her in their group home and why she openly visited him out-of-state multiple times. Mechele's boyfriend slept with her under the same roof Kent Leppink lived under, while he was home and spending time with them. The prosecution claimed Kent didn't know about her true boyfriend while they claimed also that Leppink actually served them breakfast in bed in his house! (It is stupid of a jury not to notice the contradiction. Carlin was also entirely aware, so the claims of Mechele misleading Carlin are ridiculous too.)

Familial rejection is all too heartbreakingly common for many Gay people. It is entirely possible that Leppink’s father was angry with him for being Gay and it was a long, sad aspect of their screwed up relationship. Years of self-loathing, fear of rejection, secrecy, rejection, love, deep hurt, longing, and mutual anger is a reasonable explanation for why Kent Leppink was such a mess and why he was willing to steal from his parents.

Mechele’s assertion that Leppink was secretly Gay is a reasonable explanation for his rage and embarrassment when his estranged father visited him in Alaska. Kent Leppink had been banished, but then his father, thinking Kent had found success and that he was engaged to a beautiful fiance, came all the way to Alaska to see Kent and to meet the fiance.

Emotionally, Kent Leppink had a lot riding on impressing his father, wanting to convince him that he was both heterosexual and responsible. Mechele being a no-show must have been humiliating because Dad could see that the engagement was a sham--arousing the old suspicions and hurt. His father most likely left Alaska still finding his son disgusting. Kent was still out of the family in shame and about to go broke, both.

Further, Kent Leppink beside himself with humiliation is as logical an explanation for the accusatory revenge letter as any presented by the prosecution.

Still, questions about his motives regarding the insurance policy niggle at me. Maybe Kent Leppink went to Hope to hurt Mechele, for revenge, for the insurance money, or both, but planned to make it look like self-defense, hence the letter to his parents. It is possible a third-party was with him, unaware he was going to be a "witness" or a patsy in the plan somehow, but something went wrong for Leppink. Without their knowledge, was he killed in a panic to protect Mechele or John Carlin? After arriving in Hope, did Leppink do or say something bizarre or upsetting enough to cause the other person to impulsively shoot him and then run in a panic?

The murder scene was one of an amateur, of impulsivity or panic rather than mature premeditation, so who was the third-party and what transpired between that person and Kent Leppink so that the person shot him and ran? The footprints couldn't have been John Carlin's, so whose were they? Someone else involved with this household, or a seedy-someone Kent had hired for something? Was he killed by someone he hired to hurt Mechele but then turned on him over sheer ruthlessness or homophobia? And who else in Alaska did he know and perhaps even do business with that the Troopers never even looked at?

Based upon actual events and relationships, those scenarios are just as plausible and are more logical than the one presented by the prosecution.

Bmialone said...

After helping him with his cover, was it cruel of Mechele to skip the state before Kent Leppink’s father arrived? No, because as all of this was coming to a head, Leppink's behavior toward Mechele had become increasingly disturbing, including following her to California, breaking into her and her boyfriends things, and taking private papers. Even their housemates saw it and were trying to help her avoid him because his behavior was bizarre and unreasonable.

Given that, it is entirely logical that a young woman would take off and try to ditch a friend whose behavior was becoming increasingly bizarre and scary! I wouldn't have been waiting in Alaska for Kent's daddy to arrive so I could continue the sham for Kent’s sake, would you? After realizing we were involved with someone more disturbed than we initially understood, most of us would be looking for a way to extricate ourselves from the entire scenario.

Why did Kent Leppink’s family present themselves as so horribly wronged after they themselves had banished Kent for being so bad? A common reason would be doing everything possible to deny that their child was Gay after Mechele dared to utter the words, because a parent willing to abandon their child for being Gay is a parent the issue matters to more than does their child, let alone a stranger.

Realistically, I do not believe that no one in the family opened and read a letter that said not to open it unless their family member died or was killed! Someone would have let curiosity or worry get the best of them and they would have read that letter. Not having done something to prevent a death is a conceivable explanation for lashing out and looking for someone to blame.

Further, if the insurance company had any reason to suspect suicide, they would not have paid on the million dollar policy. If the family had any reason to believe Kent was mentally ill and a danger to himself and they admitted it, the insurance company would launch their own investigation in order to avoid payment. However, if no one raised that as a possible scenario but instead the criminal justice system pinned it on someone else, the insurance policy must be paid without question.

Was it a coincidence Leppink’s new beneficiaries were his parents, the people with whom he had a longtime painful relationship; from whom he had stolen money; who had, rightfully or wrongfully, rejected him? What better gesture, one last reaching out, either to make peace or as a final “ So there!,” than to leave them a large sum of money?

Both denial and feelings of guilt motivate a lot of people to look for scapegoats after a tragedy. It is human (which is why we need a Careful criminal justice system).

Homophobia is a reasonable explanation for why the Alaskan justice system didn’t even bother to look into Mechele’s claims. Why bother? Of course he wasn’t Gay! It’s a given! We won’t Even go there.

Misogyny is why the same system unquestioningly leapt to the conclusion that of course the Lolita-seductress-vixen is responsible and must pay!

Steve said...

I have never seen a greater miscarriage of justice than to have this completely innocent wife and mother sentenced to 99 years. How can the judge sleep at night knowing he sentenced a truly good person to a life behind bars?

Bmialone said...

Turtlepace's posts reminded me of Mechele's "surprise" when told she was no longer the beneficiary on the insurance policy being used against her in court.

The insurance agent testified that Mechele called to cancel the policy. Mechele thought Kent had done the same. He told her he had, and she called to verify it.

If they both called to cancel, why was the policy still in effect? Apparently Kent lied to Mechele and instead of cancelling he merely changed the beneficiary designation.

Wouldn't her surprise really be at hearing the policy was still in effect at all? Isn't it entirely plausible and reasonable that in her upset and shock at returning to Alaska to be told Kent had been murdered (which we hear in the tape when she bursts into tears at the news), the finer distinction of whether her surprise was from learning she was not the beneficiary or from learning there was still a policy at all wouldn't have seemed important to her? Therefore, not something she would focus on during the interview as she is crying and rattled?

She was only 22 or 23. Kent Leppink had become really creepy and she was trying to distance herself from him. She came home to find he'd been murdered and she is being questioned by law enforcement. Her young brain must have been reeling, and she had no way of knowing the law enforcement officer interviewing her was making a negative judgment about her reaction and what it meant, so when she said she didn't know Kent had changed the beneficiary, why would she make a point of clarifying she was surprised there was one at all? She was just crying and answering his questions.

Wow. The authorities sure did make a lot of assumptions as they mismanaged that investigation like a bunch of ill-trained rubes.

Marylou said...

Bmialone's analysis is excellent and very much so along my thinking of what happened in this case. I only hope and wish her attorneys will read it and get some clean info on certain matters in the mentioned analysis. Now that John Carlin III is dead I hope this poor woman is not also blamed for having him killed within prison! Did Kent Leppink have an autopsy? Is there any further available info regarding his possible gay issue? That can show in an autopsy.

Has Kent Leppink's past been researched, it should be pretty easy to do so, right? Did he ever have girl friends or partners? Where did he study? Was he professional? How was his financial situation? Why did he leave his home state? Check his picture when he was a young guy!! I have the horrible feeling this guy was hiding something pretty nasty from his family.

Justice has not been served, all justice has done is throw mud at this poor young woman and condemn her for having been a stripper!

Alaskansheilah said...

Mechele wouldn't be the first woman who's been wrongfully accused, and spent her entire life with the injustice hanging over her head, strictly because she maintains her innocence in the crime. Who ever said "The Truth Shall Set You Free" never met the American Justice System...

When there are people who have been caught red handed as the executioner of another's murder to be given a mere 10 to 40 yrs. in prison. For a woman who was no where near the scene of the crime who did not physically present or assault the victim of a murder in any way to be sentenced to 99 yrs. is preposterous!

The same people: The State of Alaska will in their courts - INSIST to many a good and well meaning caring spouse or relative of drug addicted impaired/imbalanced or criminally negligent or insane perpetrators: "YOU CANNOT MAKE AN OTHER PERSON DO ANYTHING THEY DON'T WANT TO DO." (I myself was once told this by the District Attorney himself, and will swear to such in anyone's court room.)Yet this is the same thing they've hung Mechele on. Their whole case relies on Mechele having MADE someone kill someone else. It's ridiculous!

Now, if she'd have tossed herself down some stairs, or got herself into a row with the man, and a few days later wielded that Eagle 44 and shot Leppink dead herself personally....most she'd be serving is maybe 10-20 yrs TOPS and perhaps see no jail time if she'd have told the law Leppink raped her a week prior, that she couldn't get over it.

A justice system that rewards lies is no justice system. Thing is...Mechele doesn't think like that.....because she's not a murderer.

Mechele, instead of running from the guy, maybe you should have just shot him! You'd be on with your life by now I'd bet.

Bmialone said...

I, too, think the authorities should learn more about Kent Leppink, including All of his activities and relationships in Alaska in addition to his history before Alaska.

What is public knowledge regarding Kent Leppink, but the authorities have never shown the slightest interest in, is that there was bad blood in the Leppink family. One brother told the press that Kent was a "liar," "thief," and "con," that he and his wife had discussed that they were both glad Kent was gone, and they both figured he was in Alaska pulling cons on someone. By the time Carlin went to trial, he fell silent.

Kent Leppink came to Alaska after embezzling money from his parents' business and they banished him for it. He'd spent most of it and was down to his last few hundred dollars right before fishing season was to start, but according to the Leppinks, he told his family that he was successful in Alaska and engaged to the lovely, much younger, Mechele. So his father came to see him. I do not know whether he discovered Kent was broke, but he did discover the fiancée was a sham because she was a no show, which made Kent Very upset and he ran around frantically looking for her. His father said he then left Alaska.

Right Kent's death, a brother (I can't remember if it is the same one, but for some reason my impression was that it was a different brother) said publicly that he knew they would blame Mechele for Kent's death and that there was some sort of family misdeeds going on, but then he clammed up and that was the end of that.

I've thus far seen or read nothing to indicate anyone, not the authorities nor journalists of Any kind, has made any serious effort to learn more about the Leppinks and what went down between them before Kent came to Alaska and right before his death; not even about the visit his father made up here!

I do not have sympathy for the Leppinks for this reason: They did not have a close, loving relationship with their son. Instead, there was much grief, anger, and tension between them. That doesn't mean they do not have regrets and they are not grieving (I have no idea one way or another), but it does mean that they've chosen to play victimized grieving parents to the hilt, for the press and the justice system, as if they Did have a good relationship with Kent. They show up at every legal proceeding, talk to the press, and make sure the world knows they want Mechele to pay for what she did to their child. They go out of their way to make sure the world believes they lost their darling boy at the hands of an evil woman. (And I do not believe for one minute that no one, especially one of his parents, did not read that "do not open unless I'm dead" letter because that just isn't how people behave in those circumstances.)

For their own reasons, the Leppinks do not acknowledge in any way that their son was a thief and a liar even though they knew it. They do not acknowledge Kent was much older than Mechele. Instead, they intentionally seek attention and play the charade because, again for their own reasons, the tragedy of Kent's death isn't enough. No, they want Mechele destroyed too. They do this at the horrific expense of Mechele, Her very Young child, her husband, her mother, and everyone who loves her.

What kind of people do something like that?