3-27-2008 Michigan:
Accused killer Alexander Letkemann took and passed a polygraph test the results of which his attorney believes proves he was never in a Canton hardware store two days before the murder of 26-year-old Daniel Sorensen.
Letkemann, 18, of Westland and 17-year-old Jean Pierre Orlewicz of Plymouth Township are accused of luring Sorensen, an acquaintance of theirs from River Rouge, to a Canton Township garage and killing him Nov. 7. Prosecutors say the pair then beheaded Sorensen and burned his body in an attempt to impede identification.
Orlewicz, a Canton High School student, and Letkemann, a former Livonia Churchill student, face an April 7 trial date on charges of first-degree murder, mutilation of a corpse and felony murder. The latter charge, originally dismissed by 35th District Court Judge Michael Gerou at the preliminary hearing, was reinstated by Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Annette Berry, who called it a "matter for the jury to decide."
At their preliminary hearing in 35th District Court in November, Lucy Heenan, the store manager at a Canton ACO Hardware store, identified Letkemann as someone she saw in the aisle containing hatchets and torches.
According to police reports, Heenan told Canton police she "couldn't be 100 percent sure" it was Letkemann she saw in the store, and later admitted she may have recognized him from media accounts of the crime.
At the preliminary exam, Heenan denied making those statements.
In a motion asking Berry to suppress Heenan's testimony, Raymond Cassar, Letkemann's attorney, called Heenan's identification "suspect" and asked Berry to suppress it, based on Heenan's statements and the results of the private polygraph test administered by Leonard West of West Polygraph and Consulting in Farmington.
During that test, West asked Letkemann if he had driven Orlewicz to the ACO and whether he had himself gone into the store. Letkemann, according to Cassar, answered "no" to all questions.
In a letter to Cassar, West wrote, "It is the opinion of this examiner, based upon the examination given, that the subject told the TRUTH to the above relevant questions."
Cassar wouldn't comment on the test because of the gag order continued by Berry on attorneys and law enforcement officials.
However, in his brief to support the motion, Cassar wrote, "Ms. Heenan's identification of (Letkemann) was suspect at best due to the statements she made during her identification."
Prosecutors reportedly declined to administer a polygraph of their own to Letkemann, and Berry denied the motion to suppress Heenan's identification.
While the polygraph does nothing to determine Letkemann's guilt in the murder, it could be used, sources say, to refute premeditation on Letkemann's part. ..more.. by Brad Kadrich, OBSERVER STAFF WRITER
No comments:
Post a Comment