STORY: "Monfils detective's work questioned," by reporter Paul Srubas published by the Press Gazette on July 23, 3015.
SUB-HEADING: "Defence argues Winkler's murder theory hindered probe of other causes of death."
PHOTO CAPTION: "One of five men still in prison for their involvement in the death of Tom Monfils, Keith Kutska talks from Columbia Correctional Institute in this 2009 interview."
STORY HIGHLIGHTS: "Detective denies bullying witnesses during Monfils investigation; Barber, waitress say key state witness said Winkler bullied him into lying."
GIST: "Retired detective Randy Winkler on Wednesday adamantly denied bullying witnesses into giving false statements concerning Tom Monfils’ 1992 death in the former James River mill. Winkler was the final witness to testify in a three-day hearing, held over the course of two weeks, to determine whether Keith Kutska, who was convicted in 1995 of conspiring to kill Monfils, should get a new trial. Kutska’s lawyer, Steven Kaplan, questioned Winkler about whether he had threatened witnesses with job loss or other hardships if they didn’t tell him what he wanted to know. Specifically, Kaplan asked Winkler whether he ever told key prosecution witness Brian Kellner that Kellner must say what Winkler wanted him to say or risk being declared an unfit parent and lose custody of his children. “I absolutely did not tell him that,” Winkler told retired Reserve Judge James Bayorgeon, who is presiding over the hearing. Winkler said he did tell some witnesses the could face perjury charges if they lied at a John Doe hearing, but he denied forcing anyone to give false statements. Kutska, 64, is serving a life term in Jackson Correctional Institution. He is arguing his conviction was unfair because the theory of Monfils committed suicide wasn’t properly presented at his trial in Brown County Circuit Court. Monfils, 35, was found dead in a pulp vat at the mill with a 50-pound weight tied to his neck.........Kellner, who died a year ago, told several people that Winkler had threatened him with the loss of his children and job. Winkler said Wednesday he didn’t know Kellner had kids or that he was a single parent. Winkler also denied knowing anything about a person who claimed to represent social services coming to take Kellner’s children out of school without explanation one day during the investigation. Kellner provided a sworn statement to police and testified twice at Kutska’s trial that Kutska had Kellner and others perform a kind of re-enactment in an Oconto County tavern of what happened at the mill on the morning of Monfils’ disappearance. Kellner related how Kutska described an altercation between the six defendants and Monfils at a bubbler in the mill, how it escalated in physical violence and left Monfils unconscious on the floor.
Kellner allegedly told several people the re-enactment in the bar never happened and Winkler forced him to make a false statement. Some of those people supported that claim in testimony during this month’s hearing.........Kellner was a regular customer at Thyes’ shop on North Broadway in Green Bay. Thyes said Kellner told him right after signing a police statement about the re-enactment that he went to a lawyer because he had signed a false statement. Thyes said he kicked detectives out of his barbershop because they kept trying to get him to sign statements about comments supposedly made by some of his regular customers who worked at the mill. “They made up stories … they made up what they wanted me to sign,” Thyes said. Under cross examination from District Attorney David Lasee, Thyes acknowldged he didn’t bring the information forward about Kellner claiming to have lied until reading about Kutska’s hearing this month. He also said he was unaware that Kellner had also testified twice, under oath, to the same re-enactment.........Kaplan also wants to introduce arguments showing Winkler had a nervous breakdown and a dispute with the Green Bay Police Department over his employment status shortly after the 1995 trial. Winkler has admitted he had a nervous breakdown, went on leave and returned to duty but ended up accepting a severance agreement. Kaplan hopes to how that episode proves Winkler did a poor job on the Monfils case and that his state of mind caused him to be unscrupulous in his questioning of witnesses in the investigation. Bayorgeon questioned the value of Kaplan’s strategy, saying he’s already heard arguments concerning Winkler’s alleged tactics. “If you’re going to say Mr. Winkler had this problem or difficulty, how is that going to affect this?” Bayorgeon asked. “His termination was two years later. It’s not relevant.” Bayorgeon gave Kaplan and Lasee until Aug. 7 to provide written arguments about the admissibility of documents concerning Winkler’s psychological disability claim and eventual settlement, all of which will be sealed from public view."
The entire story can be found at at:
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/local/2015/07/23/monfils-detectives-work-questioned/30515999/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
