bakingal, thanks for posting and thank you for your jury service.

I think what happens in a lopsided case like this is: newspaper stories mention a "point" or two offered by the defense and readers give too much weight to those points. This misapplication of significance comes from allowing the hyper-reality of TV and movies to override common sense.

Feel free to comment on the performance of the lead defense attorney in the case -especially his closing argument.

soside4life- apparently you were not in the courtroom because we did get a very detailed lesson on dna from both sides and Jean was not the jury foreman. since you were not in the courtroom please stop trying to judge us based on the info you are getting from the media. The media is not reality, trust me, I lived it. I am not going to go into a long detailed explanation, because I don't feel that we need to explain ourselves. I did not want to get involved this way, but I can't sit here and read posts from people like you anymore without having my say. We did the job that the judge gave us based on the evidence that was presented to us from both sides. We made the only decision possible based on that evidence, period, end of story!
To the rest of you- Thanks for your support!

Simple-minded folk, soside? He was convicted by a jury of his peers. He was having an affair. The "what ifs" are abundant. His ex-wife certainly seemed to think he was guilty. I believe he is guilty. Most do...
.
Gazettefan said it best. It would make more sense that since they knew him, he could easily just walk in... the victims would certainly not see it coming. Most murdered people are killed by people they KNOW!
.
"Planted" evidence? You've GOT to be kidding. You are the one that has seen one too many CSI episodes!

soside: I re-read your previous posts...again. I still don't understand the reason for your concern. You said "Obviously you all have been quick to judge". I don't think it's really up to us to "judge", it was up to the jury to determine guilt, they did it, and based on the little most of know about the case it seems like they did their job admirably.
So what, specifically, is your problem with the verdict? Keep in mind I've already read both of your posts several times, the answer to my question is not there to be found. So if you have a concern about the verdict, please give us a detailed explanation.

LOL! There's no sense in arguing w/ you all. Obviously you all have been quick to judge (especially Koepp) here & some really need to re-read my post. I never said/meant to imply that DNA evidence was easily transmitted, it's a VERY complicated process I know!! OBVIOUSLY, so did our state, because didn't we have to send certain items out to be 're-tested' for some reason, hmmmmmmmmmmm! Planted by then? NOT enough on Koepp's clothing AGAIN despite, hmmmmmmmmmmm??? Time for you ALL to get real, besides re-read. This IS the real world & it happens. 'Good enough' doesn't sit well w/ me though & this case IMO is NOT solved/over w/ yet. To simple-minded folk though to convict on this evidence, I think it really sucks!

Good point, tibetrin, re: the DNA.

And the verdicts were read by a man, the judge, not the jury foreman.

soside,
where did it say she was jury foreperson? I distinctly remember hearing a man's voice as the verdicts were read. Also, planted evidence? How does one plant the skin from another human being, under the fingernails of others?

Remember also soside4life that cases must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond a shadow of doubt."

Because there were no witnesses (other than Koepp), how Koepp did it is open to speculation. The fact that he did it is undeniable given that the victims' blood is on his pants and his DNA was under the victims' fingernails -in addition to a lot of other evidence that points to him.

There's no reason to believe all the victims were together in the trailer when the killing began. Koepp first strangles the mother to a point of unconsciousness (no sounds from a person being strangled) while the kids are in separate rooms. He does the same to the kids then returns to finish off the mother with more strangulation and stabbings. That some of the wounds didn't bleed shows that she was stabbed after she died from strangulation. He put objects next to the kids' legs to see if they moved while he was killing their mother; if there were an accomplice this wouldn't be necessary. This is not a book, TV show, or movie. This is real. Get real.

The jury absolutely made the right decision. No one but Koepp knows how he killed three people himself. Seems to me he would have given up the name(s) of anyone else involved. He probably killed them one at a time. Not hard to do that. DNA evidence doesn't lie. Yes, DNA is easily transferred - who knows who's prints were on the one knife? Maybe she bought the knife at the Goodwill...His DNA was UNDER Danyetta and Nicole's fingernails. His blood was in the shower. Their blood was on his clothes. I don't know how anyone can look at this case and think he's not guilty. JMO

Thanks SuperDave, well said. I've posted on other related stories on the "element of surprise" and was totally disregarded. It's very plausable that they were not all in the same room at the beginning. Kids do usually have homework or they might have been in their rooms listening to music with earbuds and one by one heard some noises. Just a possible scenerio. "We might never know".

soside4life- You do realize you are contradicting yourself, don't you? First you are saying how easy it is for Koepp's DNA to be easily transferred, but, then you are saying that they shouldn't have convicted him because of "mystery man A's" DNA. So, which is it? It is so easily transferred that anyone could drop the necessary DNA? Or, not? And, 2 questions:
=
1. Explain to me, PLEASE, how his DNA could be UNDER the fingernails of the 2 female victims? Did it just "float" there?
=
2. How did their BLOOD get on the clothing that he admitted wearing that night?
=
Also, please remember DNA is a generic term- by DNA are we talking skin flakes, semen, or blood? The jury made the right decision.

soside: The article states "Jurors began going over evidence in detail, she said. They talked about crime scene photos, exhibits and interview transcripts, Koessl said. They discussed how Koepp ran from police and lied to investigators."
They did their job, that's good enough for me. The one juror who was leaning towards not guilty was easily persuaded, why do you think that is?
As to "how" he did it, it doesn't really matter, but the element of surprise would make it very possible to kill a woman and two children.

DNA evidence made it easy to convict James Koepp, as said one juror...SERIOUSLY?! Well, I think then that REALLY sucks! I honestly believe BEFORE a jury can do just that, a basic overview of DNA should be presented re: how it is/or can be transferred (& even planted for that matter) from person to person(s), person(s) to object(s) & even object(s) to person(s), etc. because it's troublesome to think that this man was 'convicted' then, by this jury on DNA evidence. UNKNOWN male DNA was ALSO found on the handle of a knife at the crime scene & two samples of unknown male DNA were found on material used to strangle the mother!! <HELLO!!> It's crazy to think Jean Koessl could have been foreman of that jury, too, w/ her comments like she can’t explain how he did it. “It’s just a lot of speculation,” she said. Didn't think you could 'speculate' & convict. I look forward to the re-trial & to finding out WHO else's DNA was on the other critical pieces of evidence there....

frogger - get real. This isn't a mafia don...

CSI-style crime scene reconstructions are really not the way most crimes are solved. It's simpler things like blood evidence tying someone to the scene that matter in court. It isn't actually necessary to prove the how, only the whether.

This is very brave of this Juror. If this guy gets out you better protect this juror!