Cellmate testimony center of triple homicide trial

By TED SULLIVAN   Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2010
ADVERTISEMENT
 

— Defense attorneys for James Koepp called their own jailhouse snitch as a witness Monday in attempt to discredit one of Koepp’s cellmates who testified earlier for the prosecution.

Kenneth Erdmann, Koepp’s former cellmate, testified Thursday that Koepp admitted to killing Danyetta Lentz and her teenage children, Nicole and Scott, during private conversations in the Columbia Correctional Institution.

Jose Soto, another inmate, discredited Erdmann’s testimony Monday, saying Erdmann told him Koepp never confessed to the murders, but Erdmann would say anything for a reduced prison sentence.

Defense attorneys called several witnesses in the seventh day of trial in Rock County Court.

Koepp, 51, faces three charges of first-degree intentional homicide in the January 2007 killings.

Koepp told the judge he has decided not to testify in his own defense. Judge Alan Bates discussed Koepp's rights with him, and Koepp confirmed his decision.

Prosecutors claim Koepp killed the Lentzes because he didn’t want his wife to know about his affair with Danyetta and divorce him.

Defense attorneys claim Koepp was in the Lentz home the night of the murders but left before the slayings.

Jailhouse snitch

Erdmann testified Thursday for the prosecution, saying Koepp told him the Lentz family was eating pizza before their deaths.

Erdmann, a Latin King gang member, admitted he tried to get information from Koepp to offer it to the prosecution for a lighter prison sentence.

He also admitted he wanted to get moved into a minimum-security prison with more freedoms.

District Attorney David O’Leary never offered to help Erdmann in exchange for his testimony in Koepp's case, suggesting Erdmann told the truth.

On Monday, Soto, also an inmate at Columbia Correctional Institution, said Erdmann approached him about a plan to falsely testify against Koepp.

Erdmann told Soto he had read some of Koepp’s private case documents, Soto said.

Erdmann also told Soto that Koepp never confessed.

Under cross-examination, Deputy District Attorney Perry Folts asked Soto if he was in a rival gang of Erdmann's, suggesting he had reason to discredit Erdmann's story. He also asked Soto if he didn't like snitches.

Soto said he was in a different gang than Erdmann, although not a rival gang. He also said he didn't have an opinion on snitches.

Criticizing the investigation

Gene Gietzen, an expert in crime scene reconstruction, testified for the defense Monday that investigators didn't analyze key pieces of evidence in the case.

He said he analyzed crime reports and photos from the murders. He said he could not reconstruct what happened in the Lentz home because evidence was altered.

Blood splatter, body positioning and blood patterns indicated evidence was moved, removing the opportunity to know what happened that night, Gietzen said.

For instance, Nicole’s arm was moved after her death, he said. Scott’s body also appeared to be rolled.

DNA testing also wasn't done on some blood at the scene when it could have determined the owner of the blood, he said.

Testing could have helped learn more about the crime, he said.

A test also wasn't done to find blood invisible to the naked eye, Gietzen said.

The test could have been used to find items such as bloody footprints on the floor or carpet, he said.

The victims weren’t under the influence of alcohol or drugs and never tried to escape or help one another, he said. They were awake during their murders because they had defensive wounds.

Under cross-examination, Gietzen said he never looked at evidence or went to the homicide scene.

He also said he came to opinions about the case without DNA testing on all blood samples, much like investigators.

The expert criticized investigators in his report for not testing pruning shears for DNA.

O’Leary pointed out the shears were tested, discrediting the expert's report. The shears, however, had no value as evidence.

Knowledge of crime

Prosecutors claim Koepp knew details about the murder scene only the killer could have known, but the defense called witnesses Monday to dispute that theory.

Christine Schultz, Danyetta’s co-worker at the Community Action Center, testified she and others stood outside the Lentz home after the murders were discovered.

She said people watched law enforcement investigate the scene.

Russell Lucht, Danyetta’s father who discovered the bodies, was upset and crying, Schultz said. Lucht was telling people what he had seen inside the home.

Defense attorneys claim Koepp’s knowledge of the crime scene stem from Lucht’s comments.

Koepp was arrested five days after the murders for leading police on a high-speed chase when he was supposed to be questioned about the homicides.

He is in prison serving a sentence for felony fleeing stemming from the chase.

The prosecution has rested its case, and defense attorneys will have a DNA expert testify today.

The trial is scheduled to continue at 9 a.m. today.

If convicted, Koepp faces three life sentences.

reader COMMENTS
Click here to view reader comments
(10)
justsaying
Feb 3, 2010 at 8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal

If he were innocent, why did he take the police on a high speed chase? hmmmmm sounds a little strange-nothing to hide, why run? Just my opinion but come on, think about it. It really doesn't add up that the bodies were moved, but does it matter? Three innocent people were killed, and the investigation showed that there were defensive wounds as if they did try to fight. How about we just let these victims rest in peace and give some closure to the surviving family and friends?

JimPI
Feb 2, 2010 at 4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal

wave wrote: "The trailer neighbors were Koepp's relatives. Do you really think they were honest about what they "heard" or "didn't hear"?"

So, are you implying you think his relatives knew ahead of time what was going to happen? Or that Koepp not only killed the victims but told these folks he did it? As far as I know, Koepp wasn't a suspect the moment the bodies were discovered, it was only after the fact that the police learned of his possible involvement.

catdog
Feb 2, 2010 at 3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal

You can't believe a word that the other "cellmates" said as all they want is to get out earlier themselves. Prisons are plumb full of snitches and conivers. And any one of them would say anything to help themselves.And if the prosecutors believes ANY of it, well I have some high ground in Florida I would sell them.

wave
Feb 2, 2010 at 2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal

The trailer neighbors were Koepp's relatives. Do you really think they were honest about what they "heard" or "didn't hear"?

johnhenry
Feb 2, 2010 at 2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal

SarahB1- The biggest 2 questions that I have that haven't been addressed are 1. How did one person keep not only the victim he was attacking, but the others as well, quiet enough that no one in an adjacent trailer heard anything? and 2. How did one person prevent the second or third victim from running screaming from the trailer? The trailers are so close together that I'm sure you could hear a neighbor's conversation if you tried.

johnhenry
Feb 2, 2010 at 1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal

beentheredonethat- The prosecution's case is based just as heavily on the testimony of fellow inmates. Again, for those that slept through 10th grade civics class, the defense doesn't have to prove innocence. The prosecution has to prove guilt.

carlitosway
Feb 2, 2010 at 12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal

Sarahb1 I to have the same and more unasked questions? This is very puzzling as to the other DNA and that some very important evidence was not considered important and by destroying the trailer some is lost forever. The doubts are piling up here IMO IMO

BeenThereDoneThat
Feb 2, 2010 at 10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal

It seems that the defense is putting an awful lot of hopes for an acquittal on the basis of the testimony of two other inmates. I have no idea what these other men are incarcerated for, but their present circumstances would make me question their motives and their credibility.

badgerfan
Feb 2, 2010 at 8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal

These are the exact questions I've discussed with co-workers. Interesting that no timeline has been layed out or TOD.

Before you post a comment, consider this:

Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy Agreement
  • Keep it clean. Comments that are obscene, vulgar or sexually oriented will be removed. Creative spelling of such terms or implied use of such language is banned, also.
  • Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
  • Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
  • Harassing comments. If you are the subject of a harassing comment or personal attack by another user, do not respond in-kind.  Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
  • Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
  • Do not libel anyone. Libel is writing something false about someone that damages that person's reputation.
  • Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
  • Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
  • Help us get it right. If you spot a factual error or misspelling, email newsroom@gazettextra.com or call 1-800-362-6712.
  • Remember, this is our site. We set the rules, and we reserve the right to remove any comments that we deem inappropriate.

Post Comment

Commenting requires registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

ADVERTISEMENT