First posted September 15th, 2009
When Tammy’s friends Travis Novak and Marjo Swedeen visited Eric Stukel on Sunday afternoon, Sept. 20th, 1992, still searching for Tammy, they found him in his bedroom playing a song called “Chloe Dancer,” which he described as Tammy’s song. The room was dark and there were candles and incense burning around pictures of Tammy as well as a shot glass filled with an unidentified substance.2 The scene seemed strange, but Swedeen and Novak weren’t likely thinking the worst — that Tammy was dead.
In retrospect though, if Stukel truly believed at that point Tammy had run away in an attempt to get pity — as Stukel would suggest to law enforcement the next day — why would he build a shrine in her honor?2,4
When Novak and Swedeen asked Stukel if he knew Tammy’s whereabouts, Stukel quickly changed the subject to a book he was reading called The Mind’s Eye.1,2
According to Swedeen and Novak, during this visit, Stukel showed no emotion and offered no assistance in searching for Tammy.2
Again, in retrospect, this must have seemed confusing, considering Stukel claimed he loved Tammy so much.
How do we know, though, that Novak and Swedeen were telling the truth about this shrine? How can we trust any of Tammy’s friends or family? Perhaps, Tammy’s friends had it out for Stukel from the beginning.
Tammy’s friends were not the only people to see this shrine. Stukel’s friend, Brian Sedlacek, also noted this shrine when he took the stand in Stukel’s defense. He also said that Stukel was carving notches into his desk for every day that Tammy was missing.2,3
In the end, the defense would use the story of the shrine as a means of demonstrating Stukel’s innocence and love for Tammy, but….
Why would Stukel put notches in his desk for all of the days Tammy was missing? How would he know when to begin carving those notches? Did he start carving those notches into his desk on Thursday night, on Friday, on Saturday…or on Sunday?
According to witness testimony, Stukel had the shrine erected on Sunday, before too many other people were taking Tammy’s disappearance seriously.2
Was it indifference Swedeen and Novak were detecting—or deflection?
All of this behavior just seems far too peculiar to discount.
Swedeen and Novak tried retracing the steps Tammy might have taken from Stukel’s house to her aunt’s, looking for cigarette butts, soda bottles, anything that might have been linked to Tammy’s travels home, giving Stukel’s story about Tammy leaving his parents’ house the benefit of the doubt.
The following day, Stukel would explain to law enforcement that he thought Tammy “could be looking for sympathy or pity to get attention because of her unhappy home life”4 and so ran away, and he also would tell numerous classmates, earlier that day in shop class and at lunch, that for all he knew Tammy was dead in a ditch, repeating the very statement he had made Saturday night to DeeDee Budig and later to Jason Foss.2
So according to Eric Stukel, during the time Tammy is missing:
a.) He believed Tammy had run off to get attention;4
b.) She was dead in a ditch for all he knows;2
c.) He wanted to marry Tammy;2
d.) He doesn’t seem too concerned about her disappearance.2
Defenders of Eric Stukel have said that Stukel has stuck to the same story all these years, so he must be telling the truth. Although this logic is in itself terribly flawed, in the end, none of Stukel’s behavior or statements while Tammy was missing were consistent.
Wouldn’t someone in love enough to build a shrine to Tammy be the first one out looking for her?
Oh, but Stukel was out on Nebraska Highway 121 on Saturday afternoon according to Jason Adamson, a fact that must have slipped Stukel’s mind when he was interviewed by law enforcement agents.
In the end, none of Eric Stukel’s behavior reflects how any innocent person would act under the circumstances of Tammy’s disappearance.
WORKS CITED
1. Eric Stukel failed a polygraph administered by Fred DeVaney on Sept. 25, 1992. When asked if he killed Tammy, Eric answered, “No.” – Deception was detected. Polygraphs are inadmissible in most states because they do not actually detect lies but merely measure biometrics, but this is not a trial. This is just a blog, so I’ll allow it.
2. Rothanzl, Lorna. “Friends Testify at Stukel Trial.” Yankton Press and Dakotan. Oct. 2nd, 1996.
3. Rothenzl, Lorna. “Stukel Jury Recesses Until Today.” Yankton Press and Dakotan. Oct. 5th, 1996.
4. Rothanzl, Lorna. “New Clues Revealed: Sufficient Evidence Binds Stukel Over To District Court”. Yankton Press and Dakotan. Oct. 31, 1995
Unbated Productions 