"He maintains that the blood evidence was legitimate. His attorney argues in the appeal that the ruling tells investigators they shouldn’t collect evidence in “suspect” circumstances because, years later, they might face criminal charges if the DNA sample they find is not replicated."
REPORTER JOHN FERAK: THE OMAHA WORLD-HERALD;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND: (David) Kofoed's work came into question after his 2006 investigation into the slaying of a rural Cass County couple, Wayne and Sharmon Stock. Detectives zeroed in on the couple's nephew and his cousin, but found no physical evidence tying the two to the killings. They managed to get a confession from the nephew, but he retracted it the next day. A day later, Kofoed said he found a drop of one of the victims' blood in a car linked to the suspects that had already been combed over by another forensic investigator. The suspects were charged with murder and jailed for several months before being released because prosecutors determined the confession was unreliable and didn't fit the facts of the case. A man and woman from Wisconsin eventually pleaded guilty to murdering the couple and are serving life prison terms. The FBI began investigating Kofoed after the slain couple's nephew filed a lawsuit alleging civil rights violations. The agency's findings led authorities to charge Kofoed with evidence tampering in April. During his trial, Kofoed blamed the speck of blood found in the car on accidental contamination. But Cass County District Judge Randall Rehmeier said he didn't buy it, and that the evidence showed Kofoed intentionally planted the blood in the car...Kofoed has not been charged in any other investigation. He remains free on bond, but is due back in court in May for sentencing. He faces up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Kofoed has not responded to a request for comment made to his attorney, Steve Lefler, who said Kofoed may appeal...Before issuing his verdict, Rehmeier said there were similarities between that investigation and one in which a man, Ivan Henk, was convicted of murdering his young son, whose body was never found. In both cases, there were confessions by the suspects and a lack of physical evidence to corroborate them until Kofoed found a speck of blood that had previously been overlooked, the judge said. (Associated Press);
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"LINCOLN — David Kofoed was shocked last March when District Judge Randall Rehmeier pronounced him guilty," the Omaha World-Herald story by reporter John Ferak published on January 23, 2011 under the heading, "Shocked by verdict, pursuing an appeal," begins.
"“I did not see that coming,” Kofoed said. “He just got it wrong in this case,"" the story continues.
"Kofoed remains intent on overturning his felony conviction. His appeal contends the judge shouldn’t have let the prosecutor present evidence alleging that Kofoed engaged in a pattern of forensic misconduct.
Rehmeier said he found “significant similarities” between Kofoed’s work on the Murdock case and on the 2003 murder case of 4-year-old Brendan Gonzalez of Plattsmouth.
Each time, the judge said, Kofoed found blood evidence under unusual circumstances — after his crime lab had collected the victim’s blood and as investigators were trying to corroborate a confession.
Brendan Gonzalez’s father was charged with first-degree murder after Kofoed reported finding a perfect DNA profile of the child in a Bellevue trash bin. That was five months after the boy disappeared.
“If I planted evidence, does that have any effect on the fact that he (Ivan Henk) confessed at least six different times?” Kofoed said. “We didn’t need any blood in the Dumpster to convict. We had tons and tons of stuff.”
He maintains that the blood evidence was legitimate. His attorney argues in the appeal that the ruling tells investigators they shouldn’t collect evidence in “suspect” circumstances because, years later, they might face criminal charges if the DNA sample they find is not replicated."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story can be found at:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20110123/NEWS97/701239869
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be accessed at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith
For a breakdown of some of the cases, issues and controversies this Blog is currently following, please turn to:
http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=120008354894645705&postID=8369513443994476774
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog; hlevy15@gmail.com;
