Defense expert criticizes crime scene investigation
JANESVILLE -- An expert in crime scene reconstruction testified Monday that investigators didn't analyze key pieces of evidence in the James Koepp triple homicide case.
Gene Gietzen said he analyzed crime reports and photos from the January 2007 murders of Danyetta Lentz and her teenage children, Nicole and Scott.
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 exactly what happened that night, Gietzen said.
DNA testing also wasn't done on some blood at the scene when it could have helped learn 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.
Under cross-examination, Gietzen said he never looked at evidence or went to the homicide scene. He reviewed photos and reports.
He also said he came to opinions about the case without DNA testing on all blood samples.
The expert criticized investigators in his report for not testing pruning shears for DNA.
The prosecutor pointed out that the shears actually were tested, discrediting the expert's report. The shears had no value as evidence.
Gietzen was one of several witnesses to testify Monday in Rock County Court. The trial took an hour break for lunch and contined at 1:15 p.m.
The judge and attorneys have had several conversations outside the presence of the jury, slowing the trial.
The prosecution has rested its case, and the defense is expected to call witnesses Monday and Tuesday.
Koepp, 51, faces three charges of first-degree intentional homicide in the stabbings and strangulations of the Lentz family.
If convicted, Koepp faces three life sentences.
Feb 2, 2010 at 1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
concrete- If the good people of Janesville could figure out how to sell ignorance, we wouldn't be missing the GM plant
Feb 1, 2010 at 8:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Excuse me; I meant to type "scene".
Feb 1, 2010 at 8:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
It's kind of difficult to examine the crime sceen when it has been destroyed.
Feb 1, 2010 at 8:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Who are you calling Mayberry?? The State Crime Lab processed the scene....Step 1 of the ignorant: Blame the local cops. Step 2 - Dont fact check....
Feb 1, 2010 at 8:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
i agree with the whole mayberry senario. i do believe in justice and rights. the fact of this trial from what i percieved in the gazzette articles is that the 2 females had the defendant DNA under their finger nails. i say there is no explination beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it, so why waste time and money this is a conviction, how ever he might get off on some procedural technicality. yet men who have DNA proving their innocents are released. why waste the time and money. there is his DNA under their nails but you didnt collect the evidence properly so he goes free. again what a joke.
Feb 1, 2010 at 5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Go figure, have a Mayberry police dept. do a job it is totally not qualified to do. Otis the drunk was the one in charge of collecting evidence!
Feb 1, 2010 at 4:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
mespl- okay that makes sence thanks.
Feb 1, 2010 at 3:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
I bet he walks ! every thing is fishy, and in regard to my comment late last week "why did they destroy the trailer? they always can find more evidence if they dig,something is just not right!
Feb 1, 2010 at 2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
frogger: Your statement regarding him not going to the scene makes no sense. Him not going to the scene will actually help the prosecution since he is an expert for the defense. The prosecution being helped makes it easier to put murders behind bars. So the defendant would be less likely to walk. Also his expert report had flaws that the prosecution pointed out, if you read the whole article you would have read that.
Feb 1, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The test could have been used to find items such as bloody footprints on the floor or carpet, he said.
Under cross-examination, Gietzen said he never looked at evidence or went to the homicide scene. He reviewed photos and reports."
That is ridiculous. doesn't he watch Law and Order? Sorry seems like common sence to go TO THE SCENE!?
Seems murderers will walk because it take to much effort to do the job correctly. REAL NICE!
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.