The stripper and the steelworker

Marcy McDannel: After reading the grand jury transcript, I think my first impression was - where's the part that proves his guilt?

There are, of course, at least two sides to every story, but it helps if at least one could be proved, said John Carlin III's defense attorneys Sidney Billingslea and Marcy McDannel.

And the state, they said, for all its story telling, didn't prove a thing.

Any number of men could have killed Kent Leppink, they said. Or even a woman like Mechele Hughes herself.

It's true Mechele had been away in Tahoe, said the defense, but records proved she did fly back to Alaska around the time Kent was murdered. 

Couldn't she have done it?

Marcy McDannel: This is a case that frankly cannot be solved and certainly cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in respect to Mr. Carlin. No way, not even close. You will not get past a "maybe."

For starters, why was Scott Hilke eliminated as a suspect? Wasn't he also named in that letter Kent sent to his parents? The defense questioned the lead investigator from the time of the murder.

Marcy McDannel: You have no indication of where Hilke was May 1 and 2 except for Mr. Hilke's word.

Dehart: I suppose that's accurate.

In fact, investigators asked for copies of Hilke's phone records, credit card records but never received them. And one more thing: Hilke failed a polygraph test. It's not necessarily a sign of guilt, of course, and he was ruled out early as a suspect.

But then there was John Carlin IV, who, remember, testified that he watched his father cleaning a pistol in front of Mechele after the murder.

John Carlin IV: There was a firearm in the sink and the sink was about half full of a clear liquid.

He also said he last saw Kent in the company of his father in their home the night before the murder. Just hours later, Kent was dead.

But could Carlin Sr. have driven Kent to Hope to kill him?

Not a chance, said Carlin IV. Had his father opened the garage door to take out the car. His dog would have let him know.

Sidney Billingslea: What would Roscoe do every time the garage door would go up if you guys were in bed?

John Carlin IV: He would howl.

And Carlin's defense lawyers did not seem too fazed by those e-mails. They said the prosecution's theory that Carlin was so love struck he would kill for Mechele was simply untrue.

In fact, the defense claimed, Carlin knew full well that while he wanted a romance with Mechele, she was taken. Not by Kent, but by the other boyfriend, Scott.

Sidney Billingslea: Next one is one counsel asked you about, it's the Seychelles. At the bottom of that email, "have you given any thought to where you might like to go... Cancun, Cabo..."

Linda Branchflower: Right.

Sure those two were plotting, agreed the defense. But murder?

Nonsense, they were planning a vacation. And the part about the Seychelles? One more random bit of trivia in e-mails full of trivia.  And written not by Carlin, remember, but by Mechele. The prosecution had taken the words out of context.

As for washing that gun? The defense said that wasn't proof Carlin had pulled the trigger. He could have been cleaning up another one of Mechele's messes.

Pat Gullufsen: Do you remember retrieving a note regarding a cabin in Hope?

David Dullis: Yes, sir, I do.

And what of the prosecution's claim of conspiracy?

The "Hope Note" for example, that piece of creative writing the prosecution said Carlin and Mechele used as a lure to get Kent to Hope?

That note, said Carlin's lawyers, was meant only to keep Kent from stalking Mechele as she'd claimed he had done before when she'd traveled with Scott Hilke.

All those bits of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, the emails especially, interpreted a certain way, implied that something pretty bad was afoot. But implication of intent and proof that a crime has been committed are two very different things, of course, and so the question really became this: if you read all the emails and then looked at the Hope note and the letter and considered the movements of the various players involved, did that add up to proof of murder? Or not?

There is a general rule of thumb followed by many defense attorneys: Don't put your client on the stand unless you have to.

In this case, John Carlin III sat through it all, silent.

And by the time they got to closing arguments, Carlin's attorneys felt, if not confident, then something pretty close to that. The state had not put together a solid case against their man. The jury, they felt sure, would agree that someone other than their client could have killed Kent Leppink.

Marcy McDannel: Mechele, the scorpion, is gonna use these guys, any of these guys, for any reason. Because that's her nature. That certainly dictates that we look out beyond this narrow circle in all of these other triangles that were virtually completely ignored by the police.

MORE FROM CRIME STORIES

Crime stories Section Front

Justice halted: The murdered prosecutor Hard lessons: Teacher-student love turns lethal Bullies caught on tape: Aggressors, or victims? Clark Rockefeller: Famous name, infamous life How the phony French 'Rockefeller' conned Americans The crossbow incident Mystery of the missing millionaire The devil's business Deadly intentions Murder on the mind Crime stories Section Front   Add Crime stories headlines to your news reader: