Night Of Shooting | Crime Scene | Possible Motives | Possible Suspects |Witness Intimidation |Read Messages | Write Message

Show posts between:
From Date:
      To Date:

View Posts In Ascending Order
Previous posts are available here.
Displaying 4221 - 4240 of 5778 posts for this case -- (Page 212 of 289)

Posts per-page: 5 | 10 | 20 | 50 | ALL

The good man
Question: To Lois- you refer in your book to "the good man who is afraid." To your knowledge, has he ever come forward?

Asked on Sunday, January 11, 2009 at 02:00:21 PM
Reply: If so, not to us. If he took his information to APD, it would quickly have been buried, as has the information from other people with knowledge about Kait's case who have offered it to APD and been turned away.

But that doesn't mean it's too late. This Web site, with a link to our personal e-mail, is an easy way for him to reach us.

He may be a member (perhaps now a former member) of APD and has the information about the people orchestrating the investigation of Kait's case that Roch Hart says he can't recall. If so, that would be wonderful. We know that Roch Hart is not the only member of APD who monitors this site. As I have often stated, we guarantee that we will not reveal the identity of anyone who provides information without his/her consent. I offer that promise in Kait's name.

Answered by: Kait's Mom
To Det. Hart
I'm curious: even if your suggestion to have Kait's body reexamined and the possibility that the OMI may have been involved in the coverup is true, what good would it do? If you read Ms. Duncan's book, you would see she clearly documents the Albuquerque PD's flat-out stonewalling on Kait's case. There IS indeed a coverup, and the PD has labled Kait's death "random" despite all facts. You should read the book for yourself; it's well-written and quickly digested.

How could evidence of OMI coverup change anything or help the Arquettes when the Albuquerque PD basically "owns" Kait's case and refuses to take another look at it, period?

Asked on Sunday, January 11, 2009 at 02:26:03 AM
OOPs Mistake
Question: I'm sorry I quoted you as saying I was in Violent Crimes. You did not say that. I did know those members, but can't remember who the LT. Capt, or Dep. Cheif was. Steve I think is working for a local bank doing bad checks or something. You should ask him. I really can't remember. Sorry.

Asked on Saturday, January 10, 2009 at 08:42:38 PM
Question: Been busy and just checked the blog. I was never in Violent Crimes. If you got that impression I am sorry. Not sure where you got that. But after so many years you learn things. I remember Ruth and Steve both very good officers. Was Baca the Chief then? I can't remember for sure but I think it was him. I am surprised you don't know being at the time I thought you would have made an IA complaint or something. I can tell that I am only creating problems and no matter what I say won't help. If you wanted to get past the old stuff, you need new stuff and I gave you an idea. If you don't want to pursue it thats our deal. Take care, I will continue to pray for you and your family. Roch

Asked on Saturday, January 10, 2009 at 08:38:10 PM
Wheres Roch Haart?
Question: Why is Detective Hart no longer posting once you asked him who was in charge of Kait's case?

Asked on Saturday, January 10, 2009 at 03:38:13 PM
Reply: I imagine he is deciding how to respond.

Answered by: Kait's Mom
Monica again here...(pt. 2)
Question: Finally, two more thoughts for you: Previously, students/film schools and other beginning filmmakers have helped to shed light and bring attention and even community pressure to open, cold cases that have eluded justice. One example that comes to mind is Janet Chandlers unsolved 1979 murder was the basis of a student film made. It played a role in bringing her back to the minds of the community and pressured a different agency to investigate and eventually, solve her crime. You have done a great deal of the research and development for such an endeavor—perhaps approaching some schools might yield some interest, especially since Kait was in that age range when she was killed, something that was a compelling factor in the Chandler case. Finally, you’ve probably heard of the Vidocq society, but they are only one of the more known volunteer organizations that are staffed by real professionals who unite for such a cause. I’m not sure whether her case would be attractive to them, but here is their site Again, you’ve probably found this, but just in case… If Kait was here now, she would undoubtedly be incredibly proud of the way you’ve moved forward. I’m sure you know that too, but you are an inspiration to me and many others, undoubtedly. My prayers are with you and your family. -monica

Asked on Saturday, January 10, 2009 at 11:26:42 AM
Reply: These are interesting suggestions, and I will look into them.

The Vidocq Society had our PI as a speaker at one of their luncheon meetings. They were not particularly helpful, and seemed more interested in being entertained than in participating in an investigation. One of their members -- a handwriting analyst -- did determine that the affectionate note Dung told police Kait left for him on the night of her death was not in her handwriting. However, we already knew that. It was obvious to anyone.

Answered by: Kait's Mom
just a thought, speaking from my experience (pt2)
Question: Without knowing what you have already tried locally, I wonder whether you could find an ally to run a series in the paper or on the local news. Your best bet may be the ex-girlfriend/spouse of one of these associates, as often happens. While the details of the crime and victim are essential, what is even more critical is that the thrust of the story is not *help us catch the bastard(s) who did this?- but rather, *i have suffered for 20 years, and not knowing the answers is excruciating and perhaps there is someone courageous enough to come forward, and ease our pain.... I feel strongly that the person most likely to come forward will do so out of guilt. I can cite many cases where this strategy has effectively motivated intimidated witnesses forward, especially as their ties to the party involved have loosened, dissolved or have changed due to some factor. If Kait was killed for the knowledge she had through being in places or observing something, it is unlikely she was alone in this. Others had to have known of this, talked of this, perhaps even discussed with her. Also, it seems as though Susan could be the key to breaking this open. I have found that one RIGHT person can get a witness to talk when others couldn't when everything is just right, especially timing/circumstances. Do you have someone who can try this again with her? I find it hard to believe she is not hiding something significant. My prayers are with you. I hope that something here helps to trigger a thought or help in some small way. You have done so much that I find it hard to believe that you have not considered any or all of what I just wrote. -Monica

Asked on Friday, January 09, 2009 at 05:08:27 PM
Reply: Thank you for your excellent post(s). Kait's case received a great deal of media coverage during the first few years after the shooting. But after so many years filled with so many additional horrendous cases, there's no hope of the Albuquerque Journal doing a "series" on one particular cold case.

The best we can hope for, and what we've been doing and will continue to do, is take advantage of every opportunity that arises to refer to Kait's case in interviews about other events. For instance, HOTEL FOR DOGS, a movie based upon one of my youth novels, has been filmed by Dreamworks and will be released to theaters on January 16. I recently was contacted by a reporter from the Albq. Journal, who is going to do an article about how a "former Albuquerque resident" authored a book that will be a major motion picture. As part of that interview, the reporter asked me, "All these years later, how have you managed to go on since Kaitlyn's death?" I told her, "One day at a time. Even after all these years, I still wake in the night, sweating and shaking, with the sound of gun shots ringing in my ears. It's impossible to heal emotionally when there's been no closure. It's like having an open wound that can never scab over." Hopefully she will use that quote and will mention this Web site.

Answered by: Kait's Mom
just a thought, speaking from my experience...
Question: First, my heart goes out to your family as you deal with this ongoing tragedy without any benefit of the psuedo-closure that comes with some measure of the justice you have worked so hard to achieve.

I commend you on the thorough job of making your daughters crime and the details of the investigation available to keep her case alive. I wonder how helpful the local area media has been in keeping her story alive and well? What I am struck by is that almost all of your theories of suspects/motives require a number of parties (at least more than one) involved to keep their silence and it is even more likely that more than one is aware of details of the crime just through association. In my experience, cold cases are broken most often through new technology available to evaluate existing evidence and associates of individuals either responsible for the crime or play a role in the cover up, for which media coverage can be very helpful in coaxing someone out of their intimidation or (former) loyalties. Time is definitely on your side in this scenario. (continued, next message)

Asked on Friday, January 09, 2009 at 04:41:08 PM
Bullet Frags
Question: I believe, if there is a cover up, it will center around the evidence. In a criminal investigation, even a sloppy one, the fragments are analyzed to at least try and determine a caliber of gun. Even small fragments I believe would hold enough of the fingerprint of the gun as each gun is unique. In your report from APD, which I hope you got the whole report, what does it list about the fragments. Also, I think it totally reasonable to contact old case and ask if they still have that in evidence.

On another note. The fact that a large piece was not found. That would mean evidence was either lost, stolen, or not found.

Hard Question here, so forgive me. Have you considered having your daughter's body re-examined and look for that fragment? This I believe is your key to getting to some answers. If the fragment is there, you now have something to re-examine and check with firearms or other cases already in the system. Or, if you find that it was intentionally left you can suspect the OMI covering up as well. Seems as if you are half way there considering his testimony. Also keep in mind. Chain of evidence should be documented on who the OMI gave those fragments to. And what they person did with them.

I don't know all the answers and think that you have probably cried yourself to sleep looking for answers, maybe even thought about this idea, or went down this road already. But from what I have read, I believe this to be key to opening the next door.

Asked on Thursday, January 08, 2009 at 10:22:38 AM
Reply: There's already plenty of evidence that there was a cover-up. Our question for you, as a former detective, familiar with the members of Violent Crimes at the time of Kait's murder and aware of the in-house dynamics: Who, in 1989, was in a position to direct and control the investigation of Kait's case, and, therefore, orchestrate a cover-up?

It was not Detective Steve Gallegos. It was not his Sgt. Ruth Lowe. They obeyed their superiors and did whatever they were told.

Who WAS their superior? Who controlled THEM?

Answered by: Kait's Mom
Larger Fragment
Question: Were they able to tell the caliber of the rounds from fragments, or if they were from the same gun?

From the fragments they should have been able to tell what kind of round it was. Like a hollow point, jacketed, anything like that? Are the fragments still available or photographed?

Also can they tell you how the larger fragment was not found? Seems strange they can find fragments but not the larger fragments. Also, what about the round that hit the car. Is that car still available. I am working on a theory. But I am sure you have gone through soo many theorys and ways to solve and I don't want to waste your time until I know some of these questions. All you need is one person to crack and the rest will fall like dominos.

This is Roch. And I am not afraid of any pressure from anyone if I can help. I know this will take time to establish trust, but I am truely interested. I have cut all ties with APD except a few friends who I know are righteous. Therefore not afraid. I have had more death threats on my then most. They don't scare me.

Asked on Tuesday, January 06, 2009 at 08:19:41 PM
Reply: I don't know the answers to those questions. In his Grand Jury testimony, the forensic pathologist said he'd submitted the bullet fragments to the crime lab and they had examined them but he had not seen a copy of the report.

Answered by: Kait's Mom
Question: Can you tell where Sharon was living, I mean her address? Somebody wrote a while back about "her part of town" and referred to something that was near her house. Was it in Old Town? It would be interesting to find out what was near her house. I hope you don't mind me asking it but I have been thinking about that.

Asked on Tuesday, January 06, 2009 at 04:38:48 PM
Reply: At the time of the shooting, Sharon lived at 407 19th Street NW. But she moved immediately after the murder.

Answered by: Kait's Mom
Conspiracy Theory cont..
Question: 1. she was set up beforehand, they got Griff down there since he was the only one to have any "nerve" to kill... or 2. everybody's partying with
blow, which by the way makes people very edgy, something gets said and the next thing you know , Griff has just killed a woman, a powerful attorney is there, who CANNOT be seen there, especially since he just got Griff out, ... then all the people scatter: he goes home, he goes that way, he tries to clean up the scene, people high, people drunk, bad investigation,beer cans in the street, people telling different stories, people making phone calls to CA. etc.. etc.. It just seems, the more I look at this case the more it looks like a party that got out of hand. In my experiences at parties this case is EXACTLY how things happen in reality... Just my 6 cents.

Asked on Tuesday, January 06, 2009 at 11:16:20 AM
Reply: I appreciate your suggestions, but I doubt very much that this was the situation.

Answered by: Kait's Mom
Conspiracy Theory
Question: I know that it has been stated and confirmed that Griffin was in jail that night, having been accused of the Ninja robberies. Although, after taking a look at the post from Mr. Hart, I have a gut feeling it was him. I don\'t think it would be too far out of the realm to think that: he got arrested, one of his buddies sneaks him out of jail (or gets him released by a POWERFUL attorney in the ALBQ area, one who has not been mentioned here , and has been Mr. Invisible...) and heads to the shop to have a little \"party\". Sharon says \" hey there is a little party going on since Griff is out , lets go check it out?\" ... I KNOW how MANY times I lied to my parents about going to a party! (its actually one of the more common lies that kids tell and gives Kait a reason give a different destination to you when she left after dinner?? and also explains why Sharon was a \"NEW\" friend, all my new friends were kids I\'ve went to or met at a party???) .... They go down to the party, and either of 2 things happen :

Asked on Tuesday, January 06, 2009 at 11:13:30 AM
Reply: Matt Griffin definitely was incarcerated at the time Kait was shot. No one could have sneaked him out of jail to go to a party.

Answered by: Kait's Mom
what if?
Question: what happened if your daughter never went to her friends house and went somewhere else. Maybe her friend was behind it to. what if she never broke up with her boyfriend and instead was out to go see him. maybe he got the wrong idea and thought she actually broke up with him and the he shot her. you should always expect the unexpected.

Asked on Monday, January 05, 2009 at 02:49:21 PM
Reply: Sharon's next door neighbor has confirmed that Kait was at Sharon's house. He was out in his yard, and Sharon introduced them as Kait left. Also the directions to Sharon's house were found in Kait's car. She definitely was at Sharon's for part of that evening. The question is, when did she get there, and where did she go during the three hours from the time she left our house, at about 6:15 and the time Sharon told police she arrived at Sharon's house?

Answered by: Kait's Mom
Question: I am a friend of Donnie's and my daugther is one of your biggest fans. I'm not sure if you ever found out who the vip Kait saw that night but wondered if it could of possibly been Manny Aragon. I lived one street over from him and played with his kids as a child. As I recall Manny was a real force to be reckoned with (to put it nicely). Also I heard his daughter was envolved in some illegal activities. I read your book and I've been deeply touched, I pray for closure for you and your family. B

Asked on Monday, January 05, 2009 at 12:40:10 PM
Reply: Thank you for your prayers. We don't know the identity of the VIP, or even for certain that he existed. The description of him came from psychics. The fact that four well known psychics in different areas of the country all mentioned the VIP and gave identical descriptions of him is fascinating, but nothing about this can be proven.

Answered by: Kait's Mom
Peace Roch Hart
Question: OK, I am fine now. Sorry. Maybe ego gets in the way as I know I did my best, and a lot of good in ABQ. I believe you miss understood my comment about Griffen. I was referring to the "other" murder, not Klunk. He shot that guy twice in the chest and one in the head. And to answer that other person about reading your book, perhaps I should. But one question has haunted me. Did you say no exit wounds, and yet no rounds were recovered? I guess in theory maybe one in a million might hit the skull spin around and exit out the same entrance wound, but not two!

Asked on Monday, January 05, 2009 at 06:59:55 AM
Reply: 02/27/90 Grand Jury Testimony

Testimony of Gary E. Dale OMI - Forensic Pathologist.

Autopsy done on 07/18/89 - but he first saw Kait when he was called to the hospital to examine her prior to organ donation.

She sustained two gunshot wounds of the head. One entered the left temple in this area here (pointing) which passed into the left side of her head and into her skull and penetrated the brain. I recovered a larger and smaller fragment of the bullet from the right side of the brain. Another gunshot wound above the left cheek below the temple which passed through the back of the mouth and nasal ____and through the hard palate. I recovered five very small bullet fragments along the wound tract and the larger part of the fragment. THE LARGER PORTION OF THE BULLET WAS NOT RECOVERED. IT WASN'T PRESENT IN THE BODY.

Around both entrances were a lot of satellite impacts. This bullet had passed through a side window of a car door. And when a bullet passes through and it's at close target like that it will start to break up.

Answered by: Kait's Mom
Roch Hart
Question: Question: I just reviewed all the postings by Roch Hart (formerly Detective Hart) and the answers by Kait’s Mom and want to make some observations and pose additional questions. Mr. Hart states: “Also, if she was shot at very close range there would have been powder burns or powder residue. Was there any?” Kait’s Mom replys: “Since the shots were fired through the glass of the driver's side window, there was no powder residue and it was impossible to determine how close the shooter was.” I suspect that she was referring to the autopsy report (no power burns) and not to tests on window glass. Actually, a substantial portion of the driver-side window remained intact and could (should) have been examined for gunpowder residue. Absence of residue would have supported the “drive by” theory while presence would have required a different theory. Was this incompetent investigation or was it deliberate omission? Also, I find it very interesting that “Detective” Hart immediately concludes that such a tight bullet-hole pattern would be very unlikely if the situation involved two moving vehicles while APD officially clings to that scenario without any documented evidence to support it.

Asked on Sunday, January 04, 2009 at 12:42:30 PM
Reply: Thank you for that clarification. You’re correct, I was referring to the autopsy report and the testimony of the forensic pathologist at the grand jury hearing. He said there would have been no powder residue on Kait’s face, no matter how close the shooter was, because it would have been blocked by the window glass. There is no information in Kait’s case file to indicate that any tests were done on the glass that remained in the window.

Our P.I. later met with Dr. McFeeley, Office of Medical Investigator, UNM School of Medicine, with questions regarding the autopsy. For instance, would Kait have been in a condition to turn off the ignition? (No, she would have lost consciousness immediately.) Was it possible she could have fallen forward and pressed on the accelerator, causing the car to travel over 700 feet? (No, it appeared that she'd fallen immediately sideways.) If she was shot while sitting behind the steering wheel, why was there no blood spatter on the dash board, steering wheel or window glass? (Since OMI was not called to the scene, Dr. McFeeley hadn't realized there wasn't any blood spatter.) Since she was shot on the left side of the head, why was all the blood on the right side of her clothing? (Since OMI did not see Kait's clothing, Dr. McFeeley hadn't been aware of the blood pattern.) Dr. McFeeley found our investigator’s questions valid and said OMI would be willing to conduct a reinvestigation of Kait's death, assisted by scene photos, scene reports and other physical evidence to which OMI had not previously been given access. She said OMI would work with our family and/or the U.S. Attorney's Office, with the assistance/approval of APD. APD would not give their assistance/approvel.

Answered by: Kait's Mom
Roch Hart
Question: If you really believe Kait Arquette's murder case was only mishandled by APD and that Lois is making the assumption that cops were either directly involved or corrupt in their investigation may I suggest you try to prove yourself right and help the Arquettes and their PI with their investigation.

Also, most of the more detailed questions and comments posted here come from people who have read "Who Killed My Daughter" and combed through this site and these commments quite thoroughly. I realize this is a judgmental request, but could you finish doing that before you contribute further? It's not that I don't want you to post. To the contrary, your posts are interesting, but it was obvious you didn't finish researching the family's side of the story before you started picking it apart - probably because you felt you'd been maligned.

Asked on Sunday, January 04, 2009 at 11:39:01 AM
Question: Ms. Arquette you stated,
\\\"Since you’ mentioned your personal involvement in the investigation of the shooting of Peter Klunck by APD officer Matt Griffin, I’ll use that case as an example.\\\" I never stated that. Not sure where you got that. I was only directly involved in the case with Lehocky and Patterson.
As a journalist you should know that public record is commonly used by journalist. In fact public record is \\\"often\\\" the first source and then they go to a spokes person. In this case, nothing was withheld from the public. It should still be there for you to set the record straight. If not, you have my testimony right here. But since you can\\\'t prove my testimony from a blog I challenge you to check it out. Or even call Patterson\\\'s attorney Sam Bregman and ask him. If because of attorney privileges they might not be able to assist you, they might give you the case number to ease your \\\"investigation\\\".

I have to admit that as reported by you, this case was deeply mishandled. I also admit that the bullets were way to close for a drive by and do appear to be execution style. I have not looked at the report myself and therefore am going only on what you have conveyed.

Asked on Sunday, January 04, 2009 at 07:12:09 AM
Reply: I took your statement, "Griffen did just that when he killed that guy. In fact I remember stating to other officers that the placements of the rounds were just like we trained," to mean that you were involved in the investigation of the Klunck case and viewed the entry wounds.

Answered by: Kait's Mom
Mr. Hart
Question: I only recently decided to communicate only recently since my name mentioned by Ms. Arquette in this blog. She stated I started a policy for enticing \\\"snitches\\\" from the Alibi. A policy is debated, it was only a one time idea, and information from the street is very valuable. I thought, why not. She conveyed that I was forced to leave the department for this \\\"policy\\\" which is a lie. She stated the sources for me leaving including a person from APD. This information she decided to broadcast on this blog is a lie. I retired. That is why I came forward. I do not like my name being dragged through the mud.
Concerning corruptions. I do believe there are corrupt officers through out APD, Bernalillo, and the State Police. As long as humans are in control of government, there will be corruption. They obviously kept their distance from me as I hate this and would have turned them in a heart beat.

Asked on Sunday, January 04, 2009 at 07:11:27 AM
Reply: Once again, you're misquoting me. I did NOT imply that you were forced to leave the department for instigating the advertising for snitch policy, for which you were congratulated by your superior, Capt. Ruben Davalos, who, (if you accept the quote from the Albq. Journal as valid) considered it "an innovative idea." I didn't dredge your name out of nowhere nor did I raise the subject of snitch acquistions on my own. I responded to a question that somebody posted on this message board. I found your name in a long article about your activities in the Albuquerque Journal.

Please reread my original post: "We've been told he LATER got in trouble and was forced to leave the department, but don't know that for certain." As I already said, that information came from two sources, one of those a member of APD who provided more details than you would want posted here. It's certainly possible that both sources were lying. If so, I apologize for your embarrassment and suggest that you start looking at your former collegues with a question in your mind about why one of them would wish to slander you.

Answered by: Kait's Mom

back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 next