Jurors hear two stories of a triple murder
Reader poll
Koepp murder trial
JANESVILLE — The prosecution is going to tell the jury a story.
The defense will tell a story, too.
One story tells how James Koepp brutally murdered three people three years ago in a home just south of Janesville.
The other story says Koepp didn’t do it—somebody else did.
The two sides laid out their stories to a jury at the Rock County Courthouse on Tuesday, three years and 14 days after the bodies were discovered in the mobile home.
The bodies of Danyetta Lentz and her teenage children Nicole and Scott were found inside their home. Photographs and a video shown during the first day of the trial revealed disturbing, gruesome scenes inside the trailer.
District Attorney David O’Leary said he must prove that Koepp killed the Lentzes and that those killings were intentional.
The evidence will show that the victims were strangled and stabbed, so whoever did it intended to kill them, O’Leary told the jury in his opening statement, so “this case boils down to who done it.”
O’Leary noted that the state must prove Koepp did it “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but “your duty is not to search for doubt. It is your duty to search for the truth about what happened that terrible day.”
Assistant Public Defender Walter Isaacson offered a different version. He told of Koepp as a devoted husband who doted on the grandchildren from his wife’s previous marriage.
Koepp strayed, however, and had a brief romantic fling with Danyetta, Isaacson told the jury.
Koepp and Danyetta had one intimate moment in early January 2007 in which Koepp was unable to perform sexually, Isaacson said.
Koepp felt guilty and avoided Danyetta, and then he felt guilty for avoiding her, so he went to the Lentz trailer to tell Danyetta that their relationship had to end, Isaacson said. That was the evening of Jan. 11, 2007.
With the Lentz children around, Koepp never got to talk to Danyetta, and he left, Isaacson said.
Later that night or the early the morning of Jan. 12, someone entered the Lentz trailer and killed the family, Isaacson said.
O’Leary acknowledged that all witnesses to the murders are dead, and he has only indirect evidence that Koepp did it. But that evidence includes:
-- Danyetta’s blood on Koepp’s pants.
-- All three victims’ blood, together with Koepp’s DNA, on a necktie.
-- Koepp’s DNA under the victims’ fingernails.
-- Nicole’s boyfriend, who talked to her that night on the phone, when Nicole told him that “Jim” was in the trailer.
-- Koepp calling acquaintances afterward, telling them details police had not released, how Danyetta fought off an attacker and how all three were strangled and stabbed.
-- Koepp’s actions showed “consciousness of guilt,” including fleeing from police, his initial denial he even knew the Lentzes, and telling his brother he “did something stupid” and “I didn’t mean to hurt anyone.”
Isaacson said that same phone conversation with Koepp’s brother included these words: “I know I’ve done a lot of dumb things, but I want you to know, what they’re accusing me of, I didn’t (expletive) do.”
Isaacson said the murders occurred after 10 p.m., well after Koepp left, and before 3 a.m.
The house was ransacked, suggesting a break-in, Isaacson said. Evidence presented Tuesday showed drawers and a purse or backpack opened and their contents dumped.
Koepp initially lied—saying he didn’t know the Lentzes—because he didn’t want his relationship with Danyetta to come to light, Isaacson said.
Isaacson said evidence will show DNA from an unknown male—not Koepp—on one of the murder weapons.
“A likely reaction you may have at the end of this case will be, like, no way did Jim Koepp commit these crimes,” Isaacson said.
One of the first witnesses was Danyetta’s father, Russell Lucht, who told of climbing into the home through the window and finding his daughter in a hall: “By the expression on her face, I knew there was no life.”
Then he found Nicole in the living room and “Scottie” in the kitchen.
“I knew all of them were gone,” he said.
Prosecutors tried to bring out the human qualities of Danyetta, a 38-year-old day-care teacher, and her children, both students at Parker High School.
The defense tried to do the same for Koepp. An early riser, he made coffee for his wife in the morning and made cookies with the grandkids the day before the bodies were discovered, Isaacson said.
A key point of contention will be what Koepp knew about the murders and how he knew.
Lucht testified that as family gathered at the crime scene, he didn’t tell them about finding Scott in a pool of blood. But he also could not recall neighbors gathering outside the trailer that morning. Koepp is known to have been among those neighbors.
Lucht said he couldn’t recall what he told deputies that morning about blood in the home, but a transcript reminded Lucht that he did describe to authorities the blood coming from Scott’s body.
Lucht said he couldn’t remember all he told police that day. “It’s three years ago, and I have to try and turn around and refresh everything I said,” he said.
Not mentioned in court was a Gazette report from the morning the bodies were discovered, describing “a sobbing man who apparently had seen the home’s interior” who told a reporter outside the trailer that “there’s blood all over the damned place.”
Lucht confirmed that observation in a Gazette interview published the following day.
Another issue is the defense theory of a third party who might have murdered the Lentzes. The defense tried to introduce testimony about a conversation between Nicole and her boyfriend the weekend before the murders, about a man who accompanied Danyetta home late one night, but the prosecution objected that it was hearsay and not relevant.
Judge Alan Bates sustained the objection but left the door open for the defense to try again through another witness.
Testimony is scheduled to resume at 9 a.m. today, with a forensic specialist, Nick Stahlke of the Wisconsin State Crime Laboratory. O’Leary introduced Stahlke as an expert in crime-scene processing and blood-stain analysis.
Isaacson said he did not accept Stahlke as an expert and would deal with that issue in cross-examination.
Koepp sat quietly throughout the day. He seemed to watch a crime-scene video intently, at times clasping his hands in front of him, putting a hand to his mouth and on occasion jotting notes for his lawyers.
Feb 1, 2010 at 9 p.m.
Suggest removal
Do you comment While your drunk read the facts one victims blood was found on Koepps pants, Danyetta's the mother no one else.
Feb 1, 2010 at 9:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
How would it look if he said "NO, I will not hand them over"? Not good. I am sure he figured he can hand them over now or they would get a warrant and he would hand over then! If they "disappeared" then if would look bad too. I assume the guy isn't a scholar to begin with!
Most people wash their clothes if they have been soiled! Okay lets say the blood came from some other day with ALL three of their blood DNA on them- DOUBT it!
Jan 30, 2010 at 4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
No heres the real question those clothes that koepp gave to the police were voluntarily given. If i just killed 3 people in some clothes you think if the police asked me for them i would just give them over.Which shows that that blood must be from another encounter with the lentz.And the blood was a very small amount.
Jan 30, 2010 at 9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
How do you feel about Ted Sullivan's blog wishing him a Happy Birthday? You should read it.
Jan 29, 2010 at 3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
frogger wrote: Just playing back- This would be the case either way if he stayed or not(seems to me). Maybe if he did call (and did do it) he may have looked less guilty than running.
If he is innocent, while I couldn't condone taking off without reporting it, I could see why he'd do that. People do weird stuff when they panic.
frogger wrote: I would be a bad juror. I see enough already to convict.
I think the majority of folks who have posted comments here on the various court cases would make poor jurors.
frogger wrote: What is your opinion how long the jury "will be out" on this one before they decide. 10 minutes or hours? I know we don't have all the stuff here but of what we know so far?
Depends. In your hypothetical, is the jury comprised of people posting comments here? ;)
frogger wrote: I think I have seen this before if they all cannot decide one way 100 %. Doesn't he go free? "hung jury"?
Yes, I believe the verdict has to be unanimous among the jury members.
Jan 29, 2010 at 3:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just playing back- This would be the case either way if he stayed or not(seems to me). Maybe if he did call (and did do it) he may have looked less guilty than running.
Kind of like when he was right there in that photo when they questioned the neighbors.
I would be a bad juror. I see enough already to convict.
What is your opinion how long the jury "will be out" on this one before they decide. 10 minutes or hours? I know we don't have all the stuff here but of what we know so far?
I think I have seen this before if they all cannot decide one way 100 %. Doesn't he go free? "hung jury"?
Jan 29, 2010 at 3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
frogger wrote: Here is a question. If the blood on the pants was theres and HE didn't do anything WHY wouldn't he have called the police when he came across three bloody dead people?
Got scared he'd be arrested for it? Playing devil's advocate - he knew he'd been in the trailer previously, thus leaving traces (fingerprints and such). Plus, he knew he had a motive - fearing his wife would find out about the alleged affair. Having a criminal record like he does, odds are he doesn't exactly trust law enforcement to give him a fair shake. So, he takes off and starts lying about what he knew, where he was, etc. One lie leads to another to another....
Again, I'm NOT defending Koepp here. I'm just tossing out alternatives that should be considered before judging him guilty, since we (the public) don't necessarily have all the facts in the case in front of us.
Jan 29, 2010 at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Here is a question. If the blood on the pants was theres and HE didn't do anything WHY wouldn't he have called the police when he came across three bloody dead people?
okay Private Eye- NEAT!
Jan 29, 2010 at 12:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
frogger wrote: JimPl- didn't he say once he didn't know them well? But you were just there while they ate pizza!? Didn't he also say once that he WASN'T there that night and then changed his story?
I believe you are correct. And, if he changed his story those times, who knows what else he might have said at one point or another. Do you really think the newspaper reporters have seen a detailed transcript of each and every conversation they've had with Koepp?
frogger wrote: I don't think we are getting enough in the paper of what they are talking about in the courtroom. How long are they there per day? We get about 3 facts per day from 4-8(?) hours of trial.
If I'm not mistaken, the trial is publicly accessible. If you want to hear more of the testimony, you're welcome to attend the trial in person. Further, as someone who has been in the courtroom for many trials, I can tell you 8 hours of trial time doesn't always mean 8 hours of actual testimony. There are a number of "housekeeping" issues that take place every day, as well as arguments on and off the record.
frogger wrote: JimPl vs JimPL- that's being a bit picky don't you think? Sorry.
You're not seeing the difference. It is JimPI (with an I like Ice), not a lower case L. I'm a private investigator, thus I use PI as part of my handle here.
Jan 29, 2010 at 10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Later, a detective photographed small cuts on Koepp’s head, hands, wrists and lower legs, Kamholz said. He also had a softball-sized bruise on his left knee"
Cant they tell how old these cuts are? Sounds fresh to me if they took pics of them!
Jan 29, 2010 at 9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
johnhenery- stupid like Koepp. How would you explain dna under ALL THREE of their nails!!??
JimPl- didn't he say once he didn't know them well? But you were just there while they ate pizza!? Didn't he also say once that he WASN'T there that night and then changed his story?
I don't think we are getting enough in the paper of what they are talking about in the courtroom. How long are they there per day? We get about 3 facts per day from 4-8(?) hours of trial.
JimPl vs JimPL- that's being a bit picky don't you think? Sorry.
Jan 28, 2010 at 4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
frogger wrote: jimpl- "So WHY didn't he say this is what happened?"
How do we know he didn't say that at some point?
frogger wrote: "if he was just in there after they were dead how did dna get under the dead peoples nails? This question is for JIMPL."
I have no clue. And really, neither do you. That's my whole point. No one here was there that night. No one here was an eyewitness to what happened. Yes, circumstantial evidence in this case is certainly damning against Koepp, at least at surface level. But, in my opinion, the prosecution is going to have to do a whole lot better than just what has been reported in this newspaper if they hope to convict Koepp on the evidence, rather than just in the court of public opinion.
frogger wrote: "Why don't we know WHO'S dna is also there?"
That's a good question.
frogger wrote: "Maybe you are not guilty(doubt it!) but you need more time due for those girls in Madison. SICKO!"
Maybe so, but in this country, you can't go back and give a guy more time than to which he's already been sentenced. If the Judge in that case dropped the ball, so be it.
Also, frogger, it is JimPI, not JimPL.
Jan 28, 2010 at 1:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just a couple of facts that should be thrown out there: 1. Jim Koepp stands all of about 5'3", maybe 5'5" in cowboy boots. There are people who could have done what he's accused of, alone, but I'm far from convinced he's one of them. 2. This horrible crime happened just after a new sheriff was elected. You think maybe he was under pressure to arrest someone?
3. If memory serves me correctly, the pants were provided to the police, voluntarily, by Mr. Koepp, before he was arrested for the murders. How stupid would you have to be to give them the bloody pants?
Jan 28, 2010 at 1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
jvlmom- You better hope it's never YOUR kids on trial, cuz you're sure not the only one with that attitude
Jan 28, 2010 at 10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
jimpl-"Koepp's DNA was found at the scene. Further, the blood from a victim was found on his pants. One possible scenario is he visited the home again later in the night and found the bodies. As he went through the house, he got blood on his pants and left traces of himself in the home and/or on the murder weapon. He panicked and fled the scene."
So WHY didn't he say this is what happened?
ladulce- EXACTLY- if he was just in there after they were dead how did dna get under the dead peoples nails? This question is for JIMPL.
Why don't we know WHO'S dna is also there?
jvltech- I believe the tie was used to strangle them. Seems premeditated to me. Who wears a tie to murder? Who BRINGS a tie to murder!
okiefed- I agree. I stated this in a different blog. Maybe you are not guilty(doubt it!) but you need more time due for those girls in Madison. SICKO!
Jan 28, 2010 at 1:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
I dont know if it was said or not, but with the struggles that took place and how they stated that there were self-defense wounds on the victims, how is it that koepp was not said to have had wounds/marks on him?? And I agree, how is it that there were no blood trails outside? And why did the grandfather have to gain entry thru a window?? Did koepp lock the door behind him on his way out? I dont get it! I feel horrible for the family!
Jan 27, 2010 at 11:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Granted I'm sure there is more evidence available or known than what shown in this article as previous writers have said. Putting any kind of personal judgement aside and looking strictly at facts of what is presented in court the defense better have some kind of trick up it's sleeve to pull this one off.
Even though people will say being lawyer is an honerable job I believe it to be the most dispicable profession on the face of the earth because they twist and turn words to fit what suits their agenda best. Of course a win for them is a shot of steroids to their ever growing ego. Given this opinion, I would find self representation to be the best defense.
Sure it's a public defender, big whoop. James Koepp is better to defend himself and try to appear as human and humane as possible to the jury. Not matter if he did it or not hiding behind an attorney, having him twist words and evidence, and hoping he pulls a unicorn out of his butt is not justice.
If you're guilty, lawyer or no lawyer the jury will know in this case. If truly not guilty only you can help yourself. Even the best lawyer with a non-guilty client is going to be spreading manure in the courtroom, and in Wisconsin we can smell manure a mile away.
Jan 27, 2010 at 10:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Koepp is the murderer. The defense's job is to put doubt into the mind of at the very least one juror.
The public doesn't have all the details so there's no way we can make a determination of guilt.
I personally feel the prosecution has a strong case based on what little I know. But, without knowing all the details and just what evidence links Koepp to the murder or what evidence the defense has to combat the prosecution's allegation that Koepp is the person who committed this brutal crime.
My question is how did he kill all three? You would think that with the struggle there would have been noise which would alert the others to something..seeing what was happening why didn't they flee the house and call police? Was Danyetta the first victim and the kids were trying to get the murderer off their mother? Did he kill the kids first?
It's just a sad sad story. I feel for the family and friends of Danyetta and the kids. The trial will be an emotionally exhausting ordeal.
Jan 27, 2010 at 7:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm just taking a guess here, but I think the tie was used as a weapon to strangle them. He could have brought it with him or it could have been in the house. Find it hard to believe he was wearing it. Hope justice is brought for this family.
Jan 27, 2010 at 4:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
So they are saying he wore a tie while killing them?
Jan 27, 2010 at 2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
The classic SODDI defense. Some other dude did it.
Jan 27, 2010 at 1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
JimPl you make some great points & ladulce-that's the clencher for me too-if that is accurate and there was his dna under the victim's fingernails I don't see how anyone can argue with that. This is all so sad-I am sorry the father has to relive everything which most of been so traumatic to see.
Jan 27, 2010 at 11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
If Isaacson believes this story he is trying to sell, I see why he is a public defender and not in private practice. This guy would fit right in on the Janesville Village Council.
Jan 27, 2010 at 11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
This is a clencher for me:
- Koepp’s DNA under the victims’ fingernails.
That means MORE than one victim. So, as they are being strangled, they claw at the attacker? That sounds right to me.
Jan 27, 2010 at 11:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
packersfan1, first of all, "not guilty" is a formal plea to a specific charge, which forces a trial in which the state must prove its case. As there has been no verdict, it is not possible yet to say that the state has done so. He "says" he is not guilty; the state "says" that he is. The jury must weigh these two arguments. If you are ever charged with a crime, you would be entitled to the same right of a vigorous defense.
Jan 27, 2010 at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
I'm not privy to all the evidence in the case. Neither is, as far as I know, anyone else here. Pretty much all we know about the case is what we've read in media reports. Thus, I think it is safe to say we can make all the suppositions we want but none of us here KNOWS exactly what happened that horrible night.
I'm not saying he didn't do it. But, I can't say he DID do it either, not knowing all the facts.
For example, I don't think it could really be argued that he was there at some point that night. We have a witness who says he was told Koepp was there while the witness was on the phone with someone in the home. But, obviously the victims were still alive at that point.
Koepp's DNA was found at the scene. Further, the blood from a victim was found on his pants. One possible scenario is he visited the home again later in the night and found the bodies. As he went through the house, he got blood on his pants and left traces of himself in the home and/or on the murder weapon. He panicked and fled the scene.
I'm not saying that's what happened. Just throwing out a what if scenario that could explain some of the circumstantial evidence.
No matter who did it, I hope justice prevails. And that's what we all should be hoping for.
Jan 27, 2010 at 10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
I think the defense is grasping at straws. How can they say he's not guilty when his DNA was found at the crime scene and Danyetta's blood was found on his pants? Also, there's Nicole telling her boyfriend "Jim" was in the trailer the night of the murders. It all points to Koepp.
Jan 27, 2010 at 9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
GUILTY...that is all I have to say! I am sure he had help! I know the saying is "innocent until proven guilty" but I do not believe that in this case!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.