Originally posted September 6, 2009
According to the defense timeline, Tammy would make two appearances, one not long after leaving Eric Stukel’s house, the other the next day, at the homecoming parade.
According to defense witness Jennifer Jones, Tammy would arrive at the Pump N Stuff gas station on 2nd and Walnut between 12:30 and 1:00 a.m. on her way from Eric Stukel’s to her aunt’s home. As quoted from the Press and Dakotan:
“According to Jones, Tammy arrived at the Pump N Stuff ‘between 12:30-1 am ‘She got a soda and walked around to where the pies were and asked if we had any chocolate pies. I said no and she grumbled a little bit. We had a cigarette together at the door and talked about my younger brother. She had seen him at the Lazy D at a Labor Day event.’
“According to Jones, Haas was dressed in a blue denim shirt, white shirt, khaki pants and penny loafers. She was carrying a black purse and her hair was down.This closely matches the clothing Tammy was wearing when her body was found.
“‘We conversed about five minutes,’ Jones said. ‘She left the store and I watched her walk out past the gas pumps. I never saw her again.'”1
On the surface, this would seem compelling evidence, if you ignore the claim Sarah Stukel makes about seeing Tammy in the hallway of her parent’s home at around 1:00 am.1
In other words, could Tammy be in two places over a mile a part at once…
…after she was likely already dead?
There are other explanations for this testimony, however, that do not break the space-time continuum.
Timelines get muddy.
Witnesses might recollect events but have dates and times wrong.
Witness testimony is often inaccurate. For example, Tammy’s hair was in a ponytail when her body was found. Her hair was not down.
Ms. Jones could have been mistaken in her testimony, recalling events from the previous night. Eric Stukel had said that Thursday night was a repeat of Wednesday night.3
I believe part of his coping mechanism has been to recreate that reality, blocking out the true events of that homecoming eve, replacing them with a repeat of the previous night. Instead of driving toward the ravine, he imagines himself turning his vehicle around and driving home.
For her part, Ms. Jones could easily have confused one night with the other as well.
Tammy did walk home from Stukel’s house the night previous. She woke alive the next day and went to the homecoming eve events and to the party at the Stephenson farm.
Without video surveillance tapes or an accurate receipt to verify purchases, one person’s eyewitness testimony becomes difficult to corroborate. Six parties were occuring on the route south that Tammy would have taken to her aunt’s house and/or to the Pump N Stuff. She was not a wallflower. Law enforcement canvassed the route Tammy would have taken across town to arrive at the Pump N Stuff convenience store.2 Nobody saw her.
On the other hand, Ms. Jones could have been given information about what Tammy was wearing on Thursday night by Eric Stukel or one of his friends.
There were questionable familial associations there.
Also, Tammy and Eric Stukel did buy alcohol from the Pump N Stuff earlier that night.
Considering that the Pump N Stuff could have been held partially liable for Tammy’s death since they were making illegal sales of alcohol to minors at that party—could it be proven that Tammy died because of illegal activities at said party—there would be motivation to see Tammy walk off into the night, alert and sober, only to vanish.
Can I prove criminal conspiracy here?
Nope.
What struck me as odd during Jones’ testimony was the specificity with which Jones described Tammy’s dress, even though some of her details were innacurate.
There are those who have photographic recall of such things, but Tammy wasn’t wearing anything out of the ordinary that night. Tammy wore the jeans and jean jacket combo often. She always wore loafers. (And though it was quite a ways out of the way between Stukel’s and her aunt’s) there was really nothing out of the ordinary about Tammy stopping into a gas station for a late-night treat.
Could somebody else have told Jones what Tammy was wearing that night? Tammy was missing for five days. Tammy was reported missing days before her body was found.
We must be very careful of making erroneous connections here. There was motivation to see Tammy walk off into the night from the Pump N Stuff.
There was a connection between Jones and some of those accused of covering up Tammy’s murder, but this does not prove wrongdoing. In fact, alone it proves nothing. I will leave the social-medial trail involving these connections to others to investigate.
Typically, food digests in the stomach within two to six hours of a meal.4 This is why the hospital asks you not to eat after midnight before morning surgeries. They want your stomach empty, so you do not expurgate into your breathing tube.
The contents of Tammy’s stomach were recognizable when she was found.4
Based upon this and the time of her last known meal and witnesses who were at the party a mile and a half from that ravine, I believe Tammy died around midnight.
There is no indication that Tammy had spaghetti later that night, and if she lived until Friday and by chance had another meal of spaghetti, where did she get that meal and how did she go about completely unseen by friends and family?
I do not believe Tammy ever returned to Yankton the night she died.
Based upon all the evidence available, based upon cash register receipts, based upon Stukel’s own testimony, by 6:35 pm Tammy had eaten her last meal and had left Pizza Hut.3 That meal was still in her stomach when she died.4
If Eric Stukel says Tammy left his house after 12:30 am or later, he has to be either mistaken or lying.
If Sarah Stukel says she saw Tammy coming out of the bathroom sometime around 1:00 am, she has to be either mistaken or lying.
If Jones said she saw Tammy between 12:30 and 1:00 am, she, too, is either mistaken or lying.
Jones was the most compelling witness the defense produced.
Were I to get up on the stand and give the same testimony Jones gave, I might have been just as nervous, but I doubt I would have been trembling so violently. I do understand stage fright.
But did the jury believe her?
What might have thrown the jury off was the official time of death as reported on the autopsy. When the autopsies were performed early in the investigation, neither the
medical examiner in South Dakota, nor the medical examiner in Iowa knew when Tammy ate her last meal.4
The time of death on the autopsy was 2:00 am on Friday, Sept. 18th, 1992. Dr. Bennett narrowed that window down to 12:30 a.m. in his testimony.4
In light of the physical evidence and the testimony linked to it, I can place little weight on Tammy returning to Yankton on the night she died.
One other eyewitness would be used in Eric Stukel’s defense. This illustrates how eye-witness testimony does not make the best evidence.
Val Hoepner, a photographer for the Yankton Press and Dakotan, believed she saw Tammy during the homecoming day parade the day after the Stephenson party.1
She said Tammy was across the street from her on the parade route, standing in profile.1
She called out to Tammy, according to her testimony, but Tammy did not hear her call, turned, and moved off into the crowd.1
Two years earlier, Tammy had been a member of the homecoming royalty. She was popular and very hard to miss.
On the surface, this testimony seems to indicate that Tammy might have made it through the night, perhaps had eaten another meal of spaghetti, and then died some other time over the course of the weekend.
The problem with this sighting was that no other person at the parade ever reported seeing Tammy — not one — just like nobody saw Tammy walking through Yankton from the Stukel residence to the Pump N Stuff after midnight on the night she died.
Further, Hoepner got Tammy’s hair color wrong. Tammy had recently darkened her hair a few shades browner than normal. Hoepner reported her hair as light brown.1
If this person Hoepner saw was Tammy, she would have had to have gone all Friday without anybody else seeing her. She would have had to been standing in the crowd at a homecoming days parade with only one person taking notice of her.
Then she would have had to have been abducted and killed (without anybody else seeing her anywhere, without a single trace of evidence implicating any other suspect.)
If there was evidence linking anybody else to the crime, if DNA technology has advanced since 1992, why no arrests after all the years?
After the homecoming parade, Tammy would have had to have been transported and dumped into the ravine on County 121, within spitting distance of the Stephenson farmhouse (which seems like an incredible coincidence considering her last sighting by multiple witnesses had been homecoming eve at the Stephenson farm with Eric Stukel.)
And she would have had to have eaten more spaghetti…
Again, Hoepner called out to this person she thought was Tammy by name, but this person never responded.
Most likely this was a simple case of mistaken identity.
But it does not take much to create doubt in the minds of a jury.
WORKS CITED
1. Rothanzl, Lorna. “Stukel’s Sister Back Up Alibi At Trial: Prosecutor Questions Testimony Of Sister, Clerk.” Yankton Press and Dakotan, Oct. 4, 1996
2. Anderson, Dan. “Clues sought in Tammy Haas’ death.” Yankton Press and Dakotan. Sept. 24, 1992
3. Rothanzl, Lorna. “Stukel Takes Stand: Prosecution Rests, Stukel Denies Knowledge Of Death”. Yankton Press and Dakotan, Oct. 3, 1996
4. Rothanzl, Lorna. “Experts Testify in Stukel Trial”. Yankton Press and Dakotan, Oct. 1, 1996
Unbated Productions 