As previously expressed, this blogsite was intended for our family, friends and supporters of Mechele. We stated that no negative posts would be published. I have chosen to make an exception and publish the post from "anonymous." The reason I did this was that after reading it, I don't feel it was a "negative" post, but a concerned person that made some valid points. I would strongly advise anyone that is interested in this case to review the facts of the trial as well as the letter that Kent wrote. I am more than happy to answer questions and have encouraged people to email me personally or ask them on the blogsite. The answers to a lot of questions have been covered in previous blog post or I have been emailed personally to the ones that have sent them directly to me. For the benefit of the above mentioned post, and anyone else that may have raised the same questions, I will try to answer them now.
1.) First of all, the writers of this blogsite will not be the ones trying to convince a jury. This is what the attorneys will do. While I defend my daughter totally, I cannot possibly attempt to convince everyone that raises a question or has a doubt. I truly believe that a person should be convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt." We feel that with this case that there was not enough evidence and that "reasonable doubt" was indeed proven.
2.)According to Alaska law, Kent's letter should never have been admitted into evidence. A previous supreme court ruling stated that the accuser must be able to be questioned, in the case of the deceased being the author this was impossible. But, to answer the question concerning Kent' fear of Mechele or that someone was going to harm him, why didn't he leave? Why did he make two trips to Hope? If you read his letter, he knew his parents would get his insurance money, therefore he knew the beneficiary had been changed. Why did he mail the letter the same day his dad left? Why not just give it to him?
3.) As for the "theories" referring to Kent's letter. This entire case has been a "theory" that there was a conspiracy to murder this poor man. There was never any DNA, nor solid evidence to prove this "theory." Emails were "cherry-picked" that were used to try and prove this "theory." Although insurance was the supposed motive, it was known that the beneficiary had been changed and that Mechele was aware of it. Therefore the only people to benefit from the insurance were Kent's parents. Although it may be hard to believe that "a man who frequents strip clubs and lives with a female stripper is a closet homosexual," stranger things have happened! Kent's sexual preference did not indicate he was a homosexual, but rather that he was bi-sexual. Remember he also lived in a house with a man, his young son and "the stripper."
I hope this clarifies some points that this person raised. I received an email from one of our supporters that did an excellent job of analyzing Kent's letter and if he chooses to do so, would like to invite him to post it on our blog.
Again, my heartfelt thanks to all of you, especially those people who have chosen to get invoved by sending me information and data that will assist us in bringing justice to our family and bringing our Mechele home!