Keith Kutska: Wisconsin: (Tom Monfils case); (Murder or suicide); "Kutska’s lawyer, Steven Kaplan, questioned (retired detective Randy) 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." Press Gazette;

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.

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 found at:

http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith

Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
 
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
 
I look forward to hearing from readers at:

hlevy15@gmail.com.
 
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog

Kelli Jacobsen; Washington State; Retrial; Child abuse pediatrician Kenneth Feldman testifies in Richland nanny trial; keprtv;

"A Seattle pediatrician who specializes in child abuse indicated it's unlikely that the brain trauma to Ryder Morrison happened very long before he wound up in the emergency room. Dr. Kenneth Feldman took the stand for the prosecution Thursday. The defense plans to argue that someone other than nanny Kelli Jacobsen could have been responsible for Ryder's fatal brain injury. But the doctor says Ryder was behaving normally the morning he died, eating and interacting with his mother who then left him with Jacobsen. If the brain injury had happened earlier, Ryder would probably not have been lucid in the morning. ........The doctor also testified that before his death in June of 2011, one-year-old Ryder Morrison suffered multiple fractures that were already healed.  The child also had bruising on his arms, torso and face that were unusual for a child his age."
http://www.keprtv.com/Child-abuse-pediatrician-testifies-in-Richland-nanny-trial-318321961.html

Bulletin: 'Grits for Breakfast' zeroes in on the plethora of reviews being conducted in Texas and at the federal level on microscopic hair analysis - and connects the problems of hair microscopy with other non-scientific comparative forensic disciplines. (A great way to keep up to date. Thanks Grits! HL);

"There's also a good discussion of the limitations of microscopic hair analysis with useful footnotes in this fat but useful reference book, which sits on a shelf above me but is also available online. And the problems with hair microscopy share themes with other non-scientific comparative forensic disciplines critiqued in Chapter 5 of this 2009 National Academies of Science treatise; here's a link directly to the subset of that discussion on hair analysis.
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.ca/2015/07/resources-on-texas-and-federal-hair.html"

Bulletin: Keith Kutska; Wisconsin; (Tom Monfils case); Murder or suicide? Hearing draws to a close. Both sides will now submit written arguments to the judge who will decide if Kutska gets a new trial. That decision is not expected until October at the earliest..."Steve Kaplan argued the death of Monfils was more likely a suicide, and the lead detective was clouded early on by a pathologist concluding the death was homicide. Kaplan is also tried to show the former detective threatened witnesses to get them to lie. Kaplan got the detective to admit that despite his belief Monfils was beaten, police never found a single trace of evidence, like blood, in the mill." Fox 9;

"In April, Fox 9 brought you the story of a woman from Blaine, Minnesota, who turned crusader for six men convicted of murder in Wisconsin. On Wednesday, one of the six was in court for a hearing that will determine whether he gets a new trial.   The crusader, Joan Treppa, was inspired by the book, The Monfils Conspiracy, about a group of men who were convicted of murdering a man at the James River Paper Mill in Green Bay, Wisconsin, in 1992. The book contends six innocent men went to jail for the alleged crime. Treppa knew she wanted to help, but first, she was at a loss of where to start. She didn’t know any of the inmates so she started to write them letters. Additionally, she had no investigative or legal experience, so she found a former investigator to help, and convinced a top Minneapolis attorney to come out of retirement and help with the case. It was that attorney, Steven Kaplan, who faced off against the lead detective in the case on Wednesday in an attempt to get a new trial.........Steve Kaplan argued the death of Monfils was more likely a suicide, and the lead detective was clouded early on by a pathologist concluding the death was homicide. Kaplan is also tried to show the former detective threatened witnesses to get them to lie. Kaplan got the detective to admit that despite his belief Monfils was beaten, police never found a single trace of evidence, like blood, in the mill. The hearings concluded on Wednesday. Both sides will now submit written arguments to the judge who will decide if Kustka gets a new trial. That decision is not expected until October at the earliest."
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/29612139/lawyer-for-convicted-murderer-confronts-lead-detective


Sent from my iPad

Bulletin: On SBS focuses on the Clayton Allison case (Alaska) - and discovers a disturbing video that not only reveals the heartless tactics employed by police in this case but also showcases the extraordinary strength of Clayton’s wife Christiene, who seems to have been the only honest person in the room during her interrogation. SBS publisher Sue Luttner calls the interrogation of Christiene Allison: "Breathtaking strength under heartless interrogation." (Must Read. HL);

"The support group for convicted father Clayton Allison in Alaska has posted a disturbing video that not only reveals the heartless tactics employed by police in this case but also showcases the extraordinary strength of Clayton’s wife Christiene, who seems to have been the only honest person in the room during her interrogation. From the beginning, Christiene Allison says, she believed her husband’s report that he had accidentally left the baby gate open, allowing their 15-month-old daughter Jocelynn to fall down the stairs. Based on medical opinion, Clayton was convicted of second degree murder this past February, and sentenced last week to 30 years in prison. The interrogation was conducted in January of 2009, four months after the incident, when the police called the child’s mother to the station to tell her that the medical examiner had declared Jocelynn’s death a homicide. In the video, two state troopers are trying to convince Christiene, 22 years old at the time, to call her husband immediately, on a secretly taped line, and ask him what really happened that day. “Either you’re on the side of Jocelynn or you’re on the side of Clayton,” one officer explains, insisting that Christiene look at the autopsy photos and mocking her statements that she loves her daughter. Since Jocelynn’s death, her mother has been diagnosed with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. Christiene steadfastly refuses to cooperate with a secret taping. “If I can tell him it’s being taped, I’ll make that call,” she says, but “I will not be deceitful.” “Clayton has been lying to you every day since September,” the interrogator sneers. “The fact that Clayton makes love to you knowing he did this to your daughter, that’s deception,” and she thrusts in Christiene’s face a color glossy from the autopsy that shows the skin of the girl’s face peeled back and bunched up under her chin..........The video is just short of 34 minutes long and well worth watching, available on the Free Clayton Allison web site and on YouTube. What I find chilling is the troopers’ willingness to treat a grieving mother with such callous contempt. Christiene Allison was not home the day of the incident. She was never a suspect. But the police were sure her husband had been lying to her—because that’s what the doctors told them—and because she believed her husband, the troopers were willing to accuse, berate, and taunt her for four hours, while she didn’t change her story by an inch. Do the doctors know how the police conduct these interrogations? Do they care? Of course watching the video reminds me of Scenes of a Crime, the award-winning film that eventually led to the release of Adrian Thomas in New York. The outpouring of support for the Allison family echoes other movements that have been springing up across the country—on behalf of Joshua and Brenda Burns in Michigan, for example, and Cindy Rosewinkel and Melissa Calusinski in Illinois. I’m discouraged because the convictions continue, but I’m encouraged because defense groups continue to seek relief for those in prison—as in the cases of Albert Omenged Debelbot and Ashley Deone Debelbot in Georgia, Leo Ackley in Michigan, Jeffrey Havard in Mississippi, and many others. I hope the families and communities affected by these misguided accusations will keep speaking up, and that they’ll start connecting with others in the same position. I encourage anyone who has personal experience with the misdiagnoses of physical child abuse to look into the Protecting Innocent Families petition at http://tinyurl.com/InnocentFamilyPetition and its companion web site.
http://onsbs.com/2015/07/20/breathtaking-strength-under-heartless-interrogation/

Bulletin: Kelli Jacobsen; Washington State: "Nanny admits to leaving a "mark" on Ryder Morrison, six months before he died."..." The texts reveal a half a dozen times Ryder was injured while in Jacobsen's care by allegedly falling down, falling off toys, even getting an arm stuck in his high chair. In a December 2010 text, Jacobsen tells Ryder's mother that the infant had quote "a bad five minutes" and Jacobsen admitted to leaving a mark on his arm." keprtv.

"Jacobsen is charged with aggravated manslaughter in the death of one year old Ryder Morrison in June of 2011. In day three of her second trial, a Richland Police detective read text messages between Jacobsen and Ryder's mother. These texts were not available for the first trial.  The texts reveal a half a dozen times Ryder was injured while in Jacobsen's care by allegedly falling down, falling off toys, even getting an arm stuck in his high chair. In a December 2010 text, Jacobsen tells Ryder's mother that the infant had quote "a bad five minutes" and Jacobsen admitted to leaving a mark on his arm. "It was just really scary and he was choking, and then I look at his arm and to top it off I left a mark. That's the last thing I need you to see," read Richland Police Detective Robert Benson while on the stand.........The defense plans to make a case that the injuries could have been inflicted by someone other than Jacobsen."

http://www.keprtv.com/Nanny-admits-to-leaving-a-mark-on-Ryder-Morrison-six-months-before-he-died-318178291.html

Bulletin: Radley Balko; (The Watch); A high-ranking Obama official just called for the “eradication” of bite mark evidence; "Suggesting that bite marks [should] still be a seriously used technology is not based on science, on measurement, on something that has standards, but more of a gut-level reaction. Those are the kinds of methods that have to be eradicated from forensic science, and replaced with those that come directly out of science, and have the ability to stand up to the standards of scientific evaluation." (Jo Handelsman, assistant director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy); Washington Post;

"This week, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is sponsoring a conference in Arlington, Va., called the “International Symposium on Forensic Science Error Management – Detection, Measurement and Mitigation.” NIST is the government agency that’s attempting to carve out some standards and best practices for the use of forensics in the courtroom.  In my series on bite mark evidence last February, I pointed out that while the practice of bite mark matching has been roundly criticized by the scientific community for lacking any of the basic principles of the scientific method, some critics of bite mark evidence were concerned that the subcommittees under NIST that were charged with looking into the field had been stacked with bite mark analysts and their allies. But this week, the fate of bite mark evidence took a much different turn. In her speech to open the conference, Jo Handelsman, assistant director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy called for the “eradication” of bite mark evidence. I’ve obtained an audio clip of her speech. Here’s a transcript of the relevant portion: "Two of the elements highly focused on in the report are that we need to have highly consistent data and methods, and we need to have a high degree of certainty in the results that we obtain in forensics science when we’re linking an individual to a crime scene or sample. There are a number of examples where we haven’t lived up to that standard of both certainty and consistency. One of the studies . . . is really quite disturbing. They showed variable conclusions among expert practitioners about whether in the example of bite marks the injury was in fact a bite mark, whether the marks were made by human teeth . . . or by animals, and whether the images of those marks were suitable for analysis. And interestingly, those who had more experience, the more experienced practitioners, showed more variability between the practitioners — they came to less agreement than the less experienced practitioners. So where in many fields we might say, well we just need people who have more experience, more of a feel for the data, in fact it goes the wrong way in forensics. And then they found that many of the practitioners show no consistency. It wasn’t as if some practitioners were consistently conservative and others made less conservative assessments. They were all over the place. Suggesting that bite marks [should] still be a seriously used technology is not based on science, on measurement, on something that has standards, but more of a gut-level reaction. Those are the kinds of methods that have to be eradicated from forensic science, and replaced with those that come directly out of science, and have the ability to stand up to the standards of scientific evaluation.".........Chris Fabricant, a director of strategic litigation for the Innocence Project who specializes in bite mark cases, says it’s difficult to overstate the significance of a senior White House policy adviser on science issues calling for the end of a major field of forensics. “It’s unprecedented,” Fabricant says. “It’s necessary, and she’s completely right. But this has never happened before.”"......... Judges aren’t scientists, and neither are most jurors. Like most of the rest of us, they can be swayed by such non-scientific factors as a witness’s charm, demeanor and tone. Good scientists don’t speak in absolutes, they talk about probabilities. That can make them sound wishy-washy, and thus less convincing, than a charlatan who is willing to make assertions without equivocating. Handelsman’s comments are progress, but they also further expose the core problem with scientific evidence: If not a single court in the country to date has been able to rule against a self-evidently absurd field like bite mark matching, why should we continue to entrust the courts to arbitrate the scientific validity of other evidence?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/07/22/a-high-ranking-obama-official-just-called-for-the-eradication-of-bite-mark-evidence/