Un-Blog Aug 25th, 2009

To review:

Tammy was last seen by reliable, multiple witnesses at about
11:15 p.m. on Sept. 17th 1992, at the Stephenson farm in
northwest Nebraska.

At about this time, Tammy was getting ready to go back to
Yankton with Eric Stukel, who claims he took her home.

Nearly a week later, her body would be found within a
ravine 1 1/2 miles by road from this farmhouse.

Over the course of the evening of September 17th, about 80
people were in attendance at this party -- all potential
suspects, all subject to questioning by law enforcement.

Though Stukel claims he took Tammy back to Yankton with
him, which was eight miles away, and also claims he was
with her until as late as 12:30 to 1:00 a.m., forensic evidence
revealed that her time of death was no later than 12:35 a.m. --
and more likely much closer to 11:30 p.m. and midnight. If
Stukel claims he was the only one with Tammy at these times,
then he is the only person with opportunity to commit the
crime of her homicide.

Pathologist who studied the wounds on Tammy's body
determined that she didn't die accidentally, but was
deliberately killed at the hands of another.

Out of all the suspects who could have potentially killed
Tammy, only one would confess to this crime while Tammy
was still missing (courtroom testimony of this confession
will be revealed in later posts) and only one would fail a
polygraph administered by law enforcement (the results of
which will also be later revealed.)

With these facts in hand, law enforcement quickly impounded
Eric Stukel's automobile. There they found physical evidence
indicating that Tammy's body had been placed in Stukel's
trunk.

Here they found body fluids on the steering wheel, dashboard,
and front seat. Two sources of urine would also be found on
Tammy's body, one matching Eric Stukel's blood and secretor
type on the back of her underwear.

In the end, the physical evidence would indicate that Tammy
was assaulted and killed, that she was placed in Eric Stukel
trunk, that she was dragged and dumped into a ravine.

Oddly, a witness came forward with information that a
friend of his had urinated in Stukel's car on the night of
Tammy's murder. Stukel would be seen the next day cleaning
out his vehicle. All his doors would be open, including his
trunk. *

Did this have anything to do with Tammy's death...or is this
all just mere coincidence? Why when asked about all of this
did Stukel keep changing his story?

Though the defense produced witnesses to back up Stukel's
alibis, all of these witnesses claimed to see Tammy after her
time of death.

THE NITTY-GRITTY DETAILS – PART TWO

There was some early speculation by members of law
enforcement that somebody had returned to the ravine
between the interim of the disposal of Tammy’s body and its
discovery to make it look like Tammy was raped and
murdered in some sort of random, serial type of attack.

The problem with this theory lies in the execution of this
secondary post-mortem crime.

If somebody were trying to make it look like Tammy was
raped, why would they leave bodily fluids on her underwear
that could possibly implicate them? Why didn’t they steal
items from her purse? Why didn’t they rip her clothing?
Though she did have assault wounds on her body, none of the
signs of a forcible rape were present, nor were there signs of
a manufactured rape, save perhaps her pants being pulled
down—but that last part most likely has a different
explanation.

In the end, for us to understand this crime, the question must
be answered, who returned to the ravine and why?

One striking piece of evidence might reveal the state of mind
of the person or persons returning to the ravine in the days
following Tammy’s murder.

Tammy was wearing a watch before she died. According to
testimony delivered during Eric Stukel’s preliminary trial by
Det. Ron Hilleges, the strap of that watch had broken and the
pin that held the strap to the watch had disappeared at some
point before her body reached the ravine.

This watch pin never materialized despite an extensive search
of County 121 above the ravine, in the area surrounding the
guardrail, and along the ravine bottom and across the slope
of the ravine.

What was so peculiar about the broken watch was its
placement on the body: though its strap was broken and its
pin was missing, the watch was placed neatly across Tammy’s
wrist.

In other words, somebody would have had to have placed the
watch back on her wrist after her body came to a rest at the
bottom of the ravine.

Would this have been done on the night Tammy died?

Considering the darkness of the ravine floor on that quarter-
moon night, as well as the thickness of foliage on the ravine
floor below, as well as the condition of the purse and shoes,
tossed down from somewhere upon the slope, this is possible,
but not likely.

More likely, somebody returned during daylight hours, on a
later date, when the sense of urgency of getting rid of a body
had passed.

In either case, returning a watch with a broken watch strap
to the victim’s body does not appear to be the act of a
stranger committing forcible rape and homicide.

How did the watch break in the first place? One might
consider the defense wounds on Tammy’s hands and arms as a
reasonable explanation.

In other words, the watch could easily have broken while
Tammy was trying to deflect blows of an attacker.

Now we must return to one of our first questions: why did
Eric Stukel say he took Tammy home to make love to her?

Was he afraid law enforcement would find something to
implicate him to Tammy’s death at the crime scene?

What evidence would be at the crime scene to implicate Eric
Stukel? Possibly his urine on her underwear? Possibly signs
of post-mortem sexual activity?

Though the urine on Tammy’s pants did not match Stukel’s
type, the urine on the back of her underwear did.

Type A Non-secretors make up only a small portion of the
populace. Eric Stukel just happens to fall into this small
portion.

Did Stukel anticipate questions about the condition of the
body when speaking to law enforcement or was he forced to
stick with the story he first concocted when Tammy’s friends
and family started asking him about Tammy’s apparent
disappearance on Saturday, September 19th, 1992?

Did Stukel tell Tammy’s friends and family that she left his
house sometime between 12:30 and 1:00 a.m., without
realizing that his story would easily be invalidated by the
physical evidence?

We know somebody did come back to the ravine, but the
evidence indicates they didn’t bother tampering with her
shoes or purse, which were in a different location than the
body. Whoever did return to the ravine seemed only focused
on the body itself.

But what about those shoes and purse—were they dusted for
prints?

If any prints were recovered from the shoes or purse, law
enforcement and the prosecution didn’t make a case out of
this evidence. Had there been any prints from an unknown
assailant on the purse or shoes—prints not matching Eric
Stukel’s—the defense most definitely would have had their
case of reasonable doubt and the implication of another
suspect to the crime.

Eric Stukel’s fingerprints on Tammy’s purse and shoes
wouldn’t have been so unusual, were he her killer or not, as
Tammy had been with him that night…but somebody else’s
prints found on the shoes, the purse, the watch?

Other prints would have been a boon for the defense.

Because there were no known prints found on these items,
can we assume that somebody wiped the shoes and purse
before tossing them into the ravine? Can we suppose that
somebody had wiped their prints from the watch before
placing it around Tammy’s wrist?

Making suppositions based upon an absence of evidence is
always dangerous, but in this case—knowing the body was
transported and dumped into the ravine, knowing that
Tammy had been murdered, based upon the autopsy evidence—
supposing that fingerprints had been wiped from Tammy’s
belongings becomes a relatively safe bet.

Latent fingerprint technology has advanced in the past decade
or so, as has DNA technology. If these articles belonging to
Tammy have not been compromised over the years, could
there possibly be a chance of finding latent fingerprints or
trace DNA on these key pieces of evidence? What would
happen if forensic analysis of these items revealed DNA
belonging to somebody other then Eric Stukel or Tammy?

Eric Stukel’s exoneration (if he is truly 100% innocent, as his
lawyer continues to proclaim) could possibly come through a
more thorough examination of the articles of clothing found
at the crime scene.

If other fingerprints could be uncovered through latent
fingerprint detection or if trace DNA could be found on her
underwear, her purse, her shoes, that are not Eric Stukel’s,
another suspect could suddenly appear.

What are the chances of finding latent fingerprints on Tammy’
s belongings, not belonging to Eric Stukel? If Eric Stukel had
help covering up Tammy’s murder, then this becomes a
distinct possibility?

What about DNA? Whether he concocted his alibi with
deliberate intent or not, Stukel did cover his bases by saying
he and Tammy did have sex on both Wednesday and Thursday
night. In other words, law enforcement was expecting to find
fluids matching his genetic type through the use of a rape kit,
just as they did.

But consider…if any DNA matching another suspect could be
identified through a reexamination of the rape kit or by
reexamining Tammy’s clothing or belongings, the house of
cards built upon the presumption of Eric Stukel’s guilt
would suddenly crumble.

That said—no other evidence at the crime scene or during the
autopsy link any other person to Tammy’s body—no known
fingerprints, no known hair fibers, no known fluids—except
the urine on Tammy’s pants, which can be explained quite
logically by Horacek urinating through Stukel’s opened car
window just after 11:30 p.m. on homecoming eve.

            m.c. merrill

TOMORROW -- BACK TO THE CAR WASH