THIS BLOG WILL BE ON VACATION UNTIL JANUARY 3, 2011.  HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!

Part 11 - More Police Coverup

       The most crucial piece of evidence used to convict Laurie Bembenek was the off-duty revolver of Milwaukee Detective Elfred O. Schultz, Jr. That statement was made on the record by the trial judge when he sentenced Bembenek to life in prison. Schultz was Bembenek’s husband at the time of the murder and the ex-husband of the victim, Christine Schultz. Investigative Consultant Ira Robins has long claimed the off-duty gun was not the murder weapon and has shown evidence that he is correct in preceding Parts 1 and 7 of this blog. But wait, there’s more.

      In early 1985, after gaining access to most of the police reports, Robins found a reference to a meeting in the Inspector’s Conference Room.  In a report written by Schultz’s partner, Detective Michael Durfee, it became evident that Schultz had met with high level commanders on the morning of the murder and that he had brought his off-duty gun into that meeting. (Exhibit 11-1) Robins felt that information might have been critical if more officers other than Schultz and Durfee had inspected the gun as they claimed.  If that gun had, in fact, been inspected by high-ranking officers, and returned to Schultz as not being fired, Bembenek should have been notified and been able to question those officers at trial. Their testimony would have clearly shown Schultz’s gun had not been fired or recently cleaned and that he had turned in different gun 21 days after the murder.

      In the summer of 1985 Robins submitted an open records request seeking information about the Inspector’s Conference Room Meeting. Exhibit (11-2.)  On September 13, 1985 the Milwaukee Police Department answered his request by stating, “…we have no record of such a meeting as you described as taken place.”

      In late 1990, Robins succeeded in obtaining an investigative article by James Rowan of the Milwaukee Journal Magazine.  At that time, Robins asked Rowan to look into various areas including the mysterious Inspector’s Conference Room Meeting.  On January 13, 1991, Rowan wrote that that meeting did take place and that Schultz’s gun had, in fact, been inspected and returned to him.  (Exhibit 11-4) Apparently, the top level of the Milwaukee Police Department considered their possible embarrassment more important than disclosing the truth to Bembenek and allowed Bembenek to be wrongfully convicted of murder.

Exhibit 11-1

Exhibit 11-2

Exhibit 11-3

Exhibit 11-4

Part 10 - A Complete Lack of Ethics

      On September 26, 2010, Investigative Consultant Ira Robins filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation (Exhibit 10-1) concerning the cover-up of criminal and unethical conduct of the Attorney General and some of his subordinates in Bembenek’s and two other cases. He had hand delivered a letter reporting the criminal and unethical conduct to Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen on August 3, 2008 but absolutely nothing was done to investigate or correct his allegations. On October 19, 2010, Robins filed a 33 page Petition and Complaint in Dane County, Madison, in behalf of a John Doe Judicial Investigation into those same criminal allegations.  By law, Dane County District Attorney Ismael R. Ozanne is presently investigating the allegations but appears to be in an unethical position himself.  How can he investigate the same people that he has a working relationship with?  How can he complain about the same Crime Laboratory that he uses as a credible agency to prosecute criminal defendants or the same Attorney General who may be called upon to defend his own conduct?   The answer is; he can’t.   

      On December 15, 2010, Robins submitted a substantial amount of proof that supports his complaints to both the Mr. Ozanne and the Office of Lawyer Regulation, which included a letter from Attorney Joseph F. Owens. (Exhibit 10-2) That letter spells out the exact conflicts of interest committed by the Attorney General and his subordinates and substantiates Robins’ allegations to the OLR.  The Attorney General’s Office had represented the State in prosecuting Bembenek, while representing the State in defending Bembebek’s civil lawsuit, simultaneously representing the Crime Laboratory for its criminal actions, at the same time representing the judge on Bembenek’s Writ of Supervision.  Since the District Attorney, the Attorney General, and Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Conen are all lawyers it can be safely assumed that at least one, or two, of them know something about ethics.  But a lack of ethics has been the rule not the exception under the recent three Attorney Generals, J.B. Van Hollen, Peg Lautenschlager, and Jim Doyle.  They have been committing the same ethics violations for more than two decades. Now, there is absolutely no doubt that the conflicts of interest and unethical conduct must be stopped. All of them should face disciplinary action. Stay tuned.

Exhibit 10-1
(Click on the images below to enlarge)

 

Exhibit 10-2

Part 9: Is The District Attorney Honest?

      Since late 1984, Private Investigator Ira Robins has worked to defend Laurie Bembenek and to that end has developed so much evidence that everyone who reviews those materials knows that she never received any semblance of a fair trial. But, instead of admitting that an innocent person may have been convicted, the former District Attorney, E. Michael McCann, actively worked to derail any chance she might have had for a fair trial. And now, a representative of the new District Attorney, John Chisholm, has publicly stated the District Attorney’s offices stands by the integrity of their prosecution of Bembenek. That, even after he never responded to Attorney Mary Woehrer’s written request for a meeting to discuss the facts surrounding the wrongful conviction of her client. What’s wrong with that picture?

      Over the years, Robins delivered dozens of sworn affidavits and letters (Exhibit 9-1) to McCann.  Some of those affidavits contained the information proving the prosecutor had used false information and evidence to convict Bembenek.  Affidavits with evidence concerning the nude activities of the police officers, the false reports of Detectives Elfred Schultz and Michael Durfee, how the wig was really placed in the plumbing, the concerns of the Medical Examiner about police interference at the scene and planted evidence, and myriad other facts were created by Robins and many individual witnesses. Robins also created many reports for McCann. But McCann’s only response was that “Robins has no credibility.”

      On one occasion in 1990 McCann told the media that he had never spoken with Robins. When Robins became aware of McCann’s Statement he immediately requested an appointment to speak with him. McCann told Robins “There will be no meeting if you notify the media.” Robins complied with McCann’s warning and did not notify the media. Inside McCann’s office Robins told McCann about each and every piece of evidence and information he had collected. He also provided a list of suspects. Although McCann’s court reporter was present with her stenographic machine he told her to “Just make some notes on a legal pad.” Obviously, McCann did not want a transcript of Robins’ information. After almost 3 hours Robins walked out of McCann’s office and found reporters from all of the radio, television and print media waiting outside. When questioned, Robins honored McCann’s request and stated, “The District Attorney will be reviewing the matter.” and made no other statement.  An hour later McCann told the media “Robins has given me nothing new or of any importance.” If McCann thought for one minute that he had just gotten rid of Robins, boy was he wrong.

Exhibit 9-1
Click on the image to enlarge.

Part 8 - And They Call It A Crime Lab?

       On the morning of the murder, Dr. Elaine A. Samuels, the Associate Medical Examiner of Milwaukee County performed an autopsy on Christine Schultz. As a routine part of that autopsy, Dr. Samuels collected a vaginal washing and vaginal, oral, and anal swabs from the victim. Those items were individually sealed and sent to the Wisconsin Regional Crime Laboratory to be tested to determine if there was any evidence of sexual assault. 

       At the Laboratory, Technician Diane Hansen performed various testing upon the swabs and created an official reported stating, “Examination of the following items did not reveal the presence of seminal material: Item O: vaginal washing; Item P: vaginal swabs; Item Q: vaginal swabs; Item R: oral swabs; Item S: anal swabs.” (Exhibit 8-1)  In essence, she reported there was no indication or evidence of semen on the swabs she had examined.

       Almost a decade after the murder and Laurie Bembenek’s arrest and conviction, Private Investigator Ira Robins obtained the underlying notes written by Technician Hansen and found that she had, in fact, determined that all of those listed washings and swabs contained a weak AP positive. (Exhibit 8-2) AP is the abbreviation for Acid Phosphatase which is a substance produced by a man’s prostate gland. Her notes also clearly show that she had also checked those same swabs: O, P, Q, R, and S, for sperm and wrote, “No sperm identified.” Although her notes clearly show she had found evidence of “seminal material” her official report stated that there was no presence of seminal material. Acid Phosphatase is produced by a male and therefore could not have come from Bembenek.

       Medical experts state that Acid Phosphatase would have disappeared from the body within 12 to 24 hours after sexual intercourse. All of Christine Schultz’s activities up to about an hour prior to her murder have been recorded which leaves just the time period before her death as questionable. But what about her boy friend? Milwaukee Police Officer Stuart Honeck stated to Detectives that he and Christine did have sex, “the last time being approximately 10 days ago.” (Exhibit 8-3) 

       Robins also found an even more shocking fact in Technician Hansen’s underlying notes.  She had been comparing the Christine Schultz murder case (R81-1574) with two other Sexual Assault Homicides.  (Exhibit 8-4) There is absolutely no doubt that Hansen’s official report was false and that there were, in fact, indications of semen found within the deceased. But that information, which could have changed the results of her trial, was never provided to Bembenek, as required by law.

Exhibit 8-1

Exhibit 8-2

 

Exhibit 8-3

 Exhibit 8-4

Part 7 - What About Schultz's On Duty Gun?

       Since Laurie Bembenek’s trial, many questions have been raised about the ballistics evidence.  At trial, the prosecutor claimed that Detective Elfred Schultz’s off- duty gun was the murder weapon and that Laurie was the only person who had access to it at the time of Christine Schultz’s murder.  Two Wisconsin Crime Laboratory ballistics experts had examined both Detective Schultz’s on-duty and off-duty guns and testified that his off duty gun was the murder gun. 

       Recent ballistics tests by both Bembenek’s expert and a different State expert failed to match Schultz’s off duty gun to the bullet that had been removed from Christine Schultz’s body. Years earlier, five forensic experts specifically stated that Shultz’s off duty gun did not match the wound that was made when the murder gun was placed against Christine’s body at the time it was fired.   There are many reasons to question the original Crime Laboratory expert’s opinions that the off-duty gun was the murder weapon.  

       Twenty-one days after the murder Detective Elfred Schultz delivered two guns to other Detectives who turned them both in to the Crime Laboratory.  He claimed that one was his off-duty gun and the other was his on-duty gun.  There is evidence to suggest that he had at least one additional gun that he did not submit for examination.  At the Crime Laboratory those same experts found unexplained blood on the muzzle of his on-duty gun, which was consistent with a gun being placed against a body when fired.  Further tests were conducted and the blood was determined to be type “A” (Exhibit 7-1).  When Christine Schultz’s blood was determined to be type “A” (Exhibit 7-2), Schultz could not give a reason for the blood on his on-duty gun.  Police conducted no further investigation into the matter.

Exhibit 7-1

Exhibit 7-2

Part 6 - On The Trail Of The Motive

      On June 2, 1981, just four days after the Christine Schultz murder, her girlfriend, Dorothy Polka, gave a statement to unknown police officers who had written a report but suspiciously failed to identify themselves on that document. (SEE EXHIBIT 6-1)  The report describes that Christine was …”afraid of her husband, (Milwaukee Detective) Elfred Schultz, due to the fact Elfred Schultz would, at times, display a violent temper.”  Also, “Mrs. Polka personally observed Elfred Schultz slap Christine across the face.”  The report continued, “… that Elfred Schultz was bothering her on occasion, and Christine Schultz told her that she was frightened of her estranged husband, Elfred.” 

      The same police report also states, in part, “photograph which, for some reason or another, Christine Schultz considered risqué, and which the victim refused to show her at that time.”  And that, “…she only mentioned this incident about the photograph due to the fact that if one of those photos was, in some way, embarrassing to Christine, then she felt our Department should be aware of this, in case there might be a connection between the photographs, the photographer, and the death of the victim.”

     Since Christine was afraid of Elfred Schultz, Private Investigator Ira Robins has long believed it only reasonable that Schultz should have been considered a prime suspect in her murder.  The fact that there were nude photographs of him and that it was widely known that there was an internal investigation about his criminal conduct raises the level of suspicion.  Internal Affairs reports, received by Robins, clearly show that Laurie Bembenek had obtained photographs of the nude parties and had initiated the investigation into police misconduct.  Those reports also provide evidence that then District Attorney E. Michael McCann refused to issue any criminal charges requested by Internal Affairs against Schultz.  Instead, he never disclosed that very important defense evidence and assisted Schultz in gaining complete immunity from prosecution.  Schultz then testified, as a credible witness, that Bembenek was the only one with access to his off duty gun.

EXHIBIT 6-1

Part 5- Please Identify The People In These Pictures

        On March 19, 1981, two and a half months before the murder, Detective Lieutenants Robert Zellmer and Edward Bauer interviewed Eddie Birnbaum, the man that had taken pictures of various nude Tracks Tavern parties.  (SEE EXHIBIT 5.1)  Many police and public officials were present at those parties and some police officers, including Detective Elfred Schultz, had removed their clothes and publicly displayed themselves.  The participants of those parties, which were held in public parks, performed various lewd acts and children had been present.  Laurie Bembenek had not been to any of those parties, but when she learned about them she reported the criminal violations to the police.

        Copies of pages 8, 9, and 10 of Zellmer and Bauer’s report provides substantial insight and depth of their investigation, the illegal conduct of Schultz and others, and that Birnbaum believed that Laurie had been the person who had “started all of this.”  It was well known at the time that Bembenek had, in fact, been the “whistleblower.
   
        Although representatives of the Milwaukee Police Department had repeatedly contacted District Attorney E. Michael McCann he refused to prosecute any of the parties involved.  Instead, he deliberately withheld any evidence of police misconduct from everyone, refused to prosecute Schultz or anyone else involved, and used them to investigate and testify against Bembenek.

        A few of the hundreds of “Tracks Party” pictures obtained by Private Investigator Ira Robins are attached. (SEE EXHIBIT 5.2)  Robins requests that anyone with information or knowledge of any of the people in the pictures please e-mail him at irarobins@gmail.com or call him at 414-305-8832.

EXHIBIT 5.1

 

 EXHIBIT 5.2

Part 4 - The Wig

     One major piece of evidence used by the prosecutor, to connect Laurie Bembenek to some hairs allegedly found on Christine Schultz’s body, was a wig.  This wig had allegedly been retrieved from the drain pipe beneath the toilet of the apartment she shared with her husband, Detective Elfred O. Schultz, Jr.  (Part 2 has already described the concerns of Dr. Elaine A Samuels, the Associate Medical Examiner, who performed the autopsy on Christine Schultz and believed that some evidence may have been false)   

     On October 1, 1990, Private Investigator Ira Robins obtained the Sworn Affidavit (SEE EXHIBIT) of Sharon M. Niswonger, who had lived in the apartment adjoining Bembenek’s.  Niswonger’s Affidavit clearly describes the suspicious activities of Judy Zess, a State witness against Bembenek in the jury trial.  Niswonger also stated under oath that she informed the prosecutor but that he never disclosed that information to the jury.  It appears that he never even disclosed that information to Bembenek’s trial attorney.

Exhibit 4.1