First posted September 4, 2009
At Eric Stukel’s trial in September of 1996, witness-for-the-prosecution Tyler Mahoney testified that his friend Jamie Horacek had urinated in the open window of the passenger’s side of Eric Stukel’s car around 11:35 pm, just as he, Horacek, and a few others were leaving the Stephenson party.1 Stukel claims he left the party around 10:45 pm7 and 11 pm.5
According to Mahoney, he and his friends had parked a few cars away from Stukel’s on the gravel road running north of the Stephenson farmhouse. Stukel had parked his car facing the wrong direction (westerly, in the direction of the ravine) and left the passenger-side window down.1
Evidently, Horacek wasn’t one of Stukel’s biggest fans and saw an opportunity to cause Stukel a bit of grief.
This was why Tyler Mahoney remembered seeing Eric Stukel at a Yankton car wash the next day, Homecoming afternoon, Friday, September 18th, 1992. Mahoney could only assume Eric Stukel was washing his seats and dashboard of Horacek’s urine.1 (Stukel’s presence at the car wash was also validated by Stukel’s own testimony in the courtroom on Oct 3, 1996.)5
Some have argued that perhaps Mahoney and Horacek and their friends had something to do with Tammy’s death, but this makes little sense in light of Stukel’s claims about taking Tammy back to Yankton at about 11 pm.5
Stukel claims he took Tammy home and mentions nothing about urine in his car, even when confronted with this fact a year later.
Though body fluids were detected in the crevices of Stukel’s steering wheel and dashboard and in the seats, Stukel denies any of this ever happening — according to what he told law enforcement, his windows were up and his car was locked.2,3,4
Further, Stukel denies he was at the car wash to clean his car of body fluids or anything else, and says he was only there to get ready for a date he had with Tammy on homecoming night.5
(Interestingly, Stukel would tell a friend a few days after his car was impounded that he wasn’t worried about what law enforcement would find in his car because he “cleaned it out real good.”)1
But back to this practical joke…this peeing through the window.
Urinating in Stukel’s car just doesn’t seem like a story somebody would make up to law enforcement, as it’s a bit embarrassing and, on its face, would seem to have no relevance to Tammy’s death. (Urine type O, secretor was found on the back of Tammy pants.)4
(Experts testified that there was no cross-contamination between the urine on the pants and the urine on the back of Tammy’s underwear — urine on the underwear that matched Stukel’s blood and secretor type.)4
This revelation about someone urinating into Stukel’s opened passenger-side car window seems to be an honest confession about the events of that night, with seemingly no bearing on what might have happened to Tammy to cause her death.
Yet law enforcement must have taken particular interest when Luminal detected body fluids on the seat, dashboard, and steering wheel of Stukel’s car…enough interest to impound Stukel’s car for four years. 6 The prosecution must have taken interest too if they were to put the person who witnessed the urinating on the stand.1
The question remains: how far would a person ride or drive in a car minutes after somebody urinates through its opened passenger window?
WORKS CITED
1. Rothanzl, Lorna. “Friends Testify at Stukel Trial.” Yankton Press and Dakotan. Oct. 2, 1996
2. Rothanzl, Lorna. “Testimony Begins in Stukel Trial.” Yankton Press and Dakotan, Sept. 27, 1996
3. Rothanzl, Lorna. “More Evidence Offered In Stukel Trial.” Yankton Press and Dakotan, Sept. 28, 1996
4. Rothanzl, Lorna. “Experts Testify in Stukel Trial.” Yankton Press and Dakotan, Oct. 1, 1996
5. Rothanzl, Lorna. “Stukel Takes Stand: Prosecution Rests, Stukel Denies Knowledge Of Death.” Yankton Press and Dakotan, Oct. 3, 1996
6. O’Neill, Colleen. ” Haas was in car trunk before ditch.” Yankton Press and Dakotan, Jan. 11, 1993
7. Rothanzl, Lorna. “New Clues Revealed: Sufficient Evidence Binds Stukel Over To District Court.” Yankton Press and Dakotan. Oct. 31, 1995
unbated.com 
Response
[…] On April 13,2021, the FBI held a press conference. Law enforcement still cares about this case7 even though nearly twenty-nine years have passed. Eric Stukel’s exoneration (if he is truly 100% innocent, as his lawyer proclaims) could possibly come through a more thorough examination of the articles of clothing found at the crime scene. Twenty-nine years would be ample time to conduct these tests.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, does this become a distinct possibility? Nobody else has been arrested. 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, where they did.4But 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 linking any other person to Tammy’s body seems to have emerged—no known fingerprints, no known hair fibers, no known fluids—except the urine on Tammy’s pants, which can be explained quite logically by somebody at the Stephenson party urinating into Stukel’s opened car window just after 11:30 pm on homecoming eve (See the post “A Practical Joke Gone Wrong?“) […]