9.Hearing on Proposed Kakatsch Testimony

MR. STRANG: I have no documents from the witness. Never have. Um, because she brought the files, I asked her to bring them in, anticipating that maybe the State would want to see them. Um, there's no discovery I have that's to be turned over. She is not an expert witness. She's purely a fact witness.

I understand I -- I asked some questions about her background, but simply by way of establishing who she is and why she has the job of coroner. She was, of course, listed on our witness list, uh, timely filed. Um, and, um, I guess they could have interviewed -- they could have interviewed her, um, as I have.

Um, she will, um, testify, um, to the response that she began, in her capacity as the Manitowoc County Coroner, um, in her efforts, then, to obtain access to human remains, uh, how those were rebuffed by, um -- specifically by Investigator Mark Wiegert, as the person with whom she recalls having contact, um, and then she was later, um, told that, uh, she was not to get involved, um, by the unusual, she will say, intervention of the Manitowoc County Executive and, later, the Corporation Counsel. Uh, and in the end, she was prevented from discharging her statutory duties as coroner.

MR. STRANG: Well, it probably would have been prudent to remove all Manitowoc County officials from the investigation. But we've heard for a month just exactly how that wasn't done with the Manitowoc County Sheriff's Department. And, unlike the Sheriff's Department, neither Ms. Kakatsch, nor the office of coroner, nor anyone in the coroner's office, had any prior involvement in Steven Avery's civil lawsuit. Um, hadn't been deposed, hadn't been interviewed, had no statutory responsibilities for the 1985 crime.

And, um, yet, her office alone, apparently, among Manitowoc County law enforcement offices, uh, was walled off entirely, uh, from performing, uh, legal duties, lawful duties in connection with discovery of human remains.

MR. STRANG: Well, unlike the State, she will testify that she immediately contacted a forensic pathologist with whom she's worked before and immediately contacted a forensic anthropologist with whom she's worked before, and told them, come to the scene. We've got work to do at the scene, uh, there, as part of a death investigation.

But there, again, relevance in how the recovery of bones could have been done so that a more useful assessment of -- of where the body was burned, uh, where remains were found and how they were distributed might have been done had she been allowed to do her job.

MR. STRANG: I think there's also probative value more narrowly in showing this jury that a forensic anthropologist could have been there, could have been at the scene and involved in the recovery, um, had the law enforcement people followed the usual lawful routine of notifying the county coroner upon discovery of suspected human remains. Um, that could have happened here, and the normal steps contemplated by Wisconsin Statutes been taken here.

Um, so I would -- I would tender, uh, that as relevant, uh, as well, uh, Your Honor. Uh, there will be testimony in the defense case about, um, destruction of bodies by thermal injury or cremation, uh, about what could have been learned if this site had been properly preserved and recovered, and this is, uh, foundation in part for that testimony as well.

MR. STRANG: I understand the Court's ruling. I -- I respectfully, uh, suggest that the bias of any witness called by the State is a relevant area of exploration. It's not collateral to the issue and, specifically, this would be -- this witness had telephonic contact, she will say, with Investigator Mark Wiegert, uh, who's been identified as one of the two lead investigators on the case and who testified, um, yesterday.

So -- but -- but, again, I -- I -- I recognize the rulings that the Court has made and the rulings allowed us on the bias of Mr. Lenk and Mr. Colborn, but the bias of any state witness is relevant, particularly somebody who has a role like Mr. Wiegert, uh, did here.

Um, if -- if -- if the Court's ruling is to stand, what I would simply propose to do is to make a verbal, uh, offer of proof. Proffer her testimony. I can do that in three or four or five minutes just by running through my -- the outline for my direct examination.

MR. STRANG: Um, I left off with asking her, essentially, how did she learn that suspected human bones, uh, had been discovered on the Avery property. She said she learned by television.

Uh, she -- I would -- I expect that she would then testify that her response was to talk to one or more of her deputy coroners. That she then called, um, a forensic pathologist named Dr. Doug Kelly, who at that time worked, uh, with -- although she's not sure -- he was actually employed by the Waukesha County Medical Examiner's Office. He's no longer there. I believe he's the Fond du Lac County Medical Examiner today.

Um, she also asked Dr. Kelly to arrange the services of Patrick J. Schoebel, S-c-h-o-e-b-e-l, whom she refers to as P.J., uh, a forensic anthropologist with whom she had worked in the past.

I further expect that she would testify that she then contacted, um, investigators at the scene, um, asked why she had not been called. Um, made arrangements to come to the scene, uh, on the 9th of November. Uh, was put off, um, in two or three telephone conversations with Mr. Wiegert. First told, essentially, that he had to check. Uh, next told that her services weren't needed.

Um, she has notes that document those conversations. And I'm just giving the general gist of them. Uh, she was not, in the end, allowed on the scene. Uh, she did not have a chance to determine the cause or the manner of death. Um, to her knowledge, neither Dr. Doug Kelly nor Patrick J. Schoebel, um, reported to the scene.

She did receive, on the 9th or 10th of November, a phone call from Dan Fischer, who she identifies as the County Executive of Manitowoc County, uh, telling her, in essence, that there was a conflict of interest and she ought not push to be involved.

Uh, she disagreed with that. She would say that it was very unusual for her to get a phone call from the County Executive at all. She later received a phone call from a -- from a Steven Rollins, the Manitowoc County Corporation Counsel. Actually, who I -- I know has written the Court here on this case recently. Uh, he, too, advised that she should not be involved because of a conflict.

She protested that she and her office had nothing to do with the civil lawsuit that Mr. Avery had brought. Had no involvement in it whatsoever, um, but realized that she was meeting firm resistance.

And she, then, contacted the Calumet County, uh, Medical Examiner. I believe he is in Calumet County. A gentleman named -- she would say his name, Mike Klaser. I think that's K-l-a-s-e-r. She contacted him just because somebody had to fulfill the obligations of the coroner. And, as a matter of good faith and doing what she could to discharge her duties, um, she thought the next best thing she could do was to contact the medical examiner in the county that employed the, um, uh, investigator from the Sheriff's Department with whom she was having, uh, contact.

And, finally, she would explain that she had no involvement at anytime with Steven Avery's civil lawsuit. She wasn't deposed. She wasn't interviewed by either side. So nobody had any contact with her at all, um, in relation to the, uh, civil lawsuit against Manitowoc County.

So that's, uh -- that's, in a nutshell, or in -- in skeleton form, the, uh, testimony I expect that she could offer and that I think is relevant for these as I explained it.