State of
Wisconsin v. Peter Kupaza,
Sauk County, Case No. 00-CF-26
The following is a public document
that has been read into evidence in open court before the jury
and members of the press. It is a list of my opinions regarding
the case and the facts upon which they are based.
May 30, 2000
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Brent Turvey, M.S.,
Knowledge Solutions, LLC, Ph. (831) 786-9238
TO: Catherine Ankenbrandt & Rhoda Ricciardi,
Attorneys, State of Wisconsin, State Public Defender, 120 Third
St., Baraboo, WI 53913, Ph. (608) 355-3180
SUBJECT: State of Wisconsin v. Peter Kupaza,
Case No. 00-CF-26
I have reviewed all of
the discovery material provided to my office from April 3, 2000
until this date. The purpose of this memo is to summarize the
issues that I have subsequently formed conclusions about in
regards to this case, and their basis.
It is this examiner's
opinion that the residence of Peter Kupaza, at 1118 Pleasant
View, Apt. 107, Madison, WI, is not the location where this
victim was dismembered. The basis for my opinion on this issue
resides in the consideration of the following items:
- The absence of significant bloodstains
and/ or bloodstain patterns at the residence, which would
be expected with the degree of manual disarticulation and
skin removal evident in this case (i.e. under carpets,
beneath tiles, behind baseboards, etc.). It is important
to note that a single, small bloodstain was found in the
bathroom on the edge of the baseboard only a few inches
from the tile floor. This is highly consistent with
incidental transfer from an accidental cut related to
shaving of the foot/ ankle area, as well as other
incidental injury scenarios.
- The lack of evidence related to human
tissue or body fluids associated with the victim's
disarticulated joints, such as fatty tissue, skin, and
synovial fluids, discovered at the location. Any of these
would be somewhat expected with the nature and degree of
manual disarticulation and skin removal evident in this
case (i.e. under carpets, beneath tiles, behind
baseboards, etc.).
- The lack of evidence such as detailed
in items 1 and 2 associated with Peter Kupaza's vehicle,
a 1997 Silver/ Gray Nissan Altima.
- Fiber evidence associated with a
duffel bag used in the disposal of the victim's body is
excluded as having come from either the residence or
vehicle discussed above. This supports the association of
the victim's nude, deceased body with another location.
It is this examiner's
opinion that this crime contains a number of components that, in
concert, could be used to support the interpretation of a sexual
motivation. It should be noted that by themselves any of these
components would not be as compelling. However, when combined
they suggest the strong possibility of a sexual aspect within
this crime. The basis for my opinion on this issue resides in the
consideration of the following items:
- The victim's body was found nude,
which is not entirely explained by the possibility that
the removal of the victim's clothing may have been part
of a precautionary act.
- The victim's body shows no evidence of
injury caused by premortem violence. Moreover, there is a
significant lack of what is commonly referred to as
"overkill" (i.e. multiple blows to the face,
crush injuries to the skull, multiple stabs, etc.), which
would be suggestive of offender anger and/ or a violent
confrontation.
- The offender(s) spent an inordinate
amount of time with the victim's body in the postmortem
interval. Specifically, there is evidence of careful
attention paid to the skillful separation of the victim's
joints with a sharp instrument, the removal of the skin
covering the victim's head with a sharp instrument and
the removal of the skin on the victim's thighs with a
sharp instrument. It is important to note that the
careful dismemberment of the victim is not entirely
explained by the possibility that it may have been part
of a precautionary act to prevent victim identification.
This is given the increased risk of offender discovery
involved in such a time consuming effort, and the
disinterest in the removal or obliteration of the
victim's hands, fingers and teeth.
- The victim's feet were not found. Feet
are a commonly and readily fetishized body part. The
majority of the victim's dismembered body was located
subsequent to a directed search effort in the same
general area. Given this, in concert with the nature of
the postmortem activity in this case, the victim's feet
are conspicuously absent, in my view.
It is important to note
at this point that despite the typical persistence of sperm and
hair evidence in the vaginal vault and anal cavity subsequent to
sexual activity (including rape), and the death range estimated,
a sexual assault exam was not performed in this case. It is also
important to note that despite the extensive drug toxicology
performed at the time of autopsy, and despite the level of
alcohol in the victim's blood (the victim was not known to drink),
no toxicological screens for poison appear to have been conducted.
This examiner is at a loss as to why neither of these things was
done at the time of autopsy, as they would seem to be important
steps in reconstructing the victim's demise.
It is this examiner's
opinion that this crime evidences an offender(s) with medical
knowledge. The basis for my opinion on this issue resides in the
consideration of the following items:
- This victim was not dismembered with
commonly associated chopping instruments such as a
hatchet, cleaver or machete applied to areas of bone (such
as a butcher might use).
- There is no evidence that a sawing
instrument such as a hacksaw, band saw, skill saw, or
radial saw was used.
- There is evidence that the offender(s)
separated the victim's head, arms, legs, and feet at
their respective joints with the utmost deliberation,
precision and care, using a very sharp cutting instrument
not unlike a scalpel.
Based on these facts, the
time requirement, and the significant emotional requirement
involved, it is further the opinion of this examiner that the
offender(s) responsible for this crime has experience with
performing precisely this kind of disarticulation, most likely
with another human victim.
_________________________
Prepared by
Brent E. Turvey, MS
Knowledge Solutions, LLC