William Kuenzel is facing imminent execution MARCH 19th
ONE KEY QUESTION; WHY DID THE EVIDENCE THAT PROVE M. KUENZEL'S INNOCENCE HAS GONE MISSING?
Under the law, a conviction of felony cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and such corroborative evidence, if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances there of, is not sufficient. Alabama Code § 12-21-222 (emphasis supplied).
“The test ... consists of eliminating the testimony given by the accomplice and examining the remaining evidence to determine if there is sufficient incriminating evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.”
“The test ... consists of eliminating the testimony given by the accomplice and examining the remaining evidence to determine if there is sufficient incriminating evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.”
With thanks to Secrets in Sycalauga - Full video and background information on the case can be seen on William Kuenzel's page here
Revealed: There are two pieces of evidence inexplicably missing from the Talladega County evidence locker:
[Co-defendant] Venn’s bloody pants and the shotgun the State alleges to be the murder weapon.
Revealed: There are two pieces of evidence inexplicably missing from the Talladega County evidence locker:
[Co-defendant] Venn’s bloody pants and the shotgun the State alleges to be the murder weapon.
Timeline
November 11th, search warrant of the police on Venn’s residence. They find Venn 's bllodypants
Venn was not home, but Kuenzel — Venn’s roommate — granted the police permission to search the premises. The police recovered the pants Venn wore Monday evening. They were stained with Ms. Offord’s [victim] blood. 25.
When the police asked Venn about the stains, he first claimed it was “red paint” or “lead” from the textile factory (see, e.g., id.); at trial, Venn changed his story to testify—again falsely—that it was “squirrel blood.” (T.165-66, 542-43.)
It is an undisputed fact of record that the stains on Venn’s pants are Ms. Offord’s blood spatter — Rumsey conceded the point during his summation. (T.673.) Although Venn denied entering the store, there was no blood found anywhere outside the store, except on Venn’s pants. (T.369-75.)
Why was there blood on Venn's bloody span?
. Venn never has been able to explain how or why [victim] Ms. Offord’s blood is present on his clothes.
. B.Venn Changed His Story to Implicate Kuenzel 26.At 2:20 a.m. on Sunday, November 15th,
. After days of being held in state custody, interrogated without counsel, and, upon information and belief, threatened with a capital 10 prosecution, Venn “confessed.” Venn conceded he was at the store during the murder, but now implicated Kuenzel as his companion and the triggerman. (Kochman Aff., Exh. G.) 27.
Plea bargain refused by William Kuenzel
Later that day, the police contacted Kuenzel and asked him to come in for questioning; he appeared voluntarily. The prosecutor presented Kuenzel with a choice: he could enter a guilty plea and testify against Venn in exchange for an eight to ten year sentence, or he could go to trial on capital murder charges, in which case the State would seek the death penalty. Proclaiming his innocence, Kuenzel rejected the plea deal. The prosecution then extended the same deal to Venn, and he accepted—Venn was released from prison in 1997. (Notably, on the eve of trial, the prosecution once again offered Kuenzel this arrangement and, as before, he refused.
Venn was not home, but Kuenzel — Venn’s roommate — granted the police permission to search the premises. The police recovered the pants Venn wore Monday evening. They were stained with Ms. Offord’s [victim] blood. 25.
When the police asked Venn about the stains, he first claimed it was “red paint” or “lead” from the textile factory (see, e.g., id.); at trial, Venn changed his story to testify—again falsely—that it was “squirrel blood.” (T.165-66, 542-43.)
It is an undisputed fact of record that the stains on Venn’s pants are Ms. Offord’s blood spatter — Rumsey conceded the point during his summation. (T.673.) Although Venn denied entering the store, there was no blood found anywhere outside the store, except on Venn’s pants. (T.369-75.)
Why was there blood on Venn's bloody span?
. Venn never has been able to explain how or why [victim] Ms. Offord’s blood is present on his clothes.
. B.Venn Changed His Story to Implicate Kuenzel 26.At 2:20 a.m. on Sunday, November 15th,
. After days of being held in state custody, interrogated without counsel, and, upon information and belief, threatened with a capital 10 prosecution, Venn “confessed.” Venn conceded he was at the store during the murder, but now implicated Kuenzel as his companion and the triggerman. (Kochman Aff., Exh. G.) 27.
Plea bargain refused by William Kuenzel
Later that day, the police contacted Kuenzel and asked him to come in for questioning; he appeared voluntarily. The prosecutor presented Kuenzel with a choice: he could enter a guilty plea and testify against Venn in exchange for an eight to ten year sentence, or he could go to trial on capital murder charges, in which case the State would seek the death penalty. Proclaiming his innocence, Kuenzel rejected the plea deal. The prosecution then extended the same deal to Venn, and he accepted—Venn was released from prison in 1997. (Notably, on the eve of trial, the prosecution once again offered Kuenzel this arrangement and, as before, he refused.
What the prosecutor at trial said to the jury in his summation
And I'll tell you this. If the State of Alabama presented testimony that fit like a glove, then there is something wrong. (...) inconsistencies area a jewel, because if there is not some inconsistencies, there is something wrong.(...). [Harvey Venn] was drunk and he was doped up. But he remembers about that killing when they were riding down that road. (...)
Now, the one thing that we can't answer, according to them (...) and I know it's important because I actually heard somebody in the jury say "Hum'p" a few minutes ago. The blood on the pants. I submit it could be one of twenty people. But like M. Adcock I believe it to be the blood of [victim] Linda Offord. I sure do. But I can't tell you how that blood got on there.
Read more
What former United States Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau, appointed by President John F. Kennedy, says:
During his
35-year tenure as the DA for New York County, he oversaw approximately
3,500,000 criminal prosecutions,including thousands of murder cases, and
has been incredibly successful. He says:
Based on my review of the record in this case, I am convinced to a reasonable degreeof prosecutorial certainty that there is little to no doubt that M. Kuenzel is factually innocent of having any involvement in the murder of Linda Offord(...)
There is no physical evidence linking M. Kuenzel to the crime, and the physical evidence points directly to Venn's involvement. Among other things, the blood of [victim] Ms. Offord was splattered on the pants worn by Venn that night. Venn was clearly worried about the implications of this fact because he denied that the stains were human blood on two occasions, including at trial.(...) The newly discovered physical evidence also reveals that contrary to Venn's testimony at trial, Venn possessed a .16 gauge shotgun on the night of the murder, the same gauge's weapon as was used to commit the murder. I am informed that both the foregoing pieces of evidence have gone missing from the County evidence locker.
Read the 10 pages affidavit from M. Robert Morgenthau giving his reasons.
