A former Republican election official who was fired? from her work shortly after she was arrested for allegedly killing a tenant she rented appeared in court on Wednesday – and prosecutors say they have evidence to refute her apparent self-defense claim .
Ellen Wink61 years old of Norwalk, Conn., charged with fatal shooting Kurt Lametta54 years old on January 20. Like Law & Crime previous reportLametta is said to have suffered four injuries. However, Wink apparently said that she fired five shots from a revolver and that Lametta had “(apparently) driven me crazy.” A witness contacting Wink said he heard what sounded like gunshots or gunshots, a pause and a few more shots – possibly possible evidence against Wink – but later added that Lametta is “a big bully” and Wink is “afraid of him.
A police report obtained by Supporter of Stamford suggest that Wink almost immediately tried to defend himself. According to reports, she told a 911 dispatcher that Lametta “came” to her when she went to his apartment to clean the place.
Prosecutors Michelle Manning in court on Wednesday dismissed any suggestion that the case involved a valid self-defence argument.
“She entered the 16 Nelson Avenue property with a gun, confronted the tenant, in this case, the victim, Mr. Kurt Lametta, and shot him,” Manning said during Wednesday’s hearing. broadcast year. “She left the facility and called 911, and the first thing that came out of that 911 call was the sign she was chasing her.”
Referring to the police report, the prosecutor said Wink “made an allegation that Mr Lametta was spying on her” while she remained at the murder scene and that “she acted Self defence capacity.”
But the investigation continues to go beyond the defendant’s mere assertions at the scene.
“What they found was a cell phone video,” Manning continued. “In that video is a recording of the whole incident. The victim in this case recorded – pressed the record button on her mobile phone – the moment Ms.
Prosecutors accused Wink of “walking out” with the victim’s phone “basically, lying dead”.
According to Manning:
Video fully believes in any self-defense claims. It begins and shows – it shows, very clearly, a conversation between Mr Lametta and Mrs. Wink – which at that time the victim was in no way, shape or form, had no appearance. appearance of the victim after Mrs. Wink. About three minutes into the video, she turns to him, fires a gun, and begins firing. The victim in the video tried to run away from her, and it was clear she ran after her. In the video it is also very clear that she picked up her cell phone and threw it outside.
Prosecutors said the subsequent action appeared to be an attempt to prevent the victim from making a “call for help”.
The prosecutor stated:
From the state’s point of view, this video clearly substantiates every self-defeating claim as well as shows a very clear understanding that the defendant is a highly dangerous danger to the public. And so, the state feels that the million dollar bond is minuscule compared to that. That’s really the easiest way to say it, your honor. She poses such a danger to the community that in this moment, on video, she turns around and kills someone who means nothing to her. At this point, the state is asking for a $5 million bond.
Manning notes that the judge fixed the initial bond amount – Judge John F. Blawie – no video at the time of 1 million dollar deposit. Authorities only notified the State Attorney’s Office of the video after making arrangements. (Referee Gary White is presiding over Wednesday’s hearing.)
Counsel Stephan Seeger of Stamford said the video did not “remove” the defendant’s potential claim of self-defense.
“I certainly don’t watch the video the way the state does,” Wink’s defense attorney said. “There is a feature that the whole incident is recorded. That, I would disagree with. We don’t know what happened before that.”
Judge White cut off defense attorneys to agree that a video never tells the “full story” of an incident. Defendant shook his head in agreement.
“A million dollars is a lot of money,” Seeger continued. He added that “there were five shots,” “it was a homicide,” and was displeased by the state’s assertion that Wink moved the phone to prevent the victim from calling for help.
“The records clearly show that she also called 911,” Seeger added.
The defense added that he was unsure whether state evidence technicians had “cut off” parts of the video to make his client guilty.
Prosecutors sought to catch the defense’s attempt to cast doubt on the video’s quality.
“She made up the story during the 911 call that the victim was chasing her,” Manning counters, saying the video shows Wink “lying” about his self-defence claim:
She points that out not only to the dispatcher but also to the individual who is in her home. You can hear in the 911 call, that he was chasing her. From the state’s perspective, it’s very clear that this is a different perception of what was reflected in the initial paperwork and initial disclosure because of the fact that this video completely negates the fact that there is a claim. defended from the state’s point of view as well as showing that she lied about it relatively quickly as soon as she called 911. She had already prepared the story.
The defense refuted that assertion with the following somewhat heated response:
These facts are completely inconsistent with the story. Mrs. Wink is not running anywhere. She stays where she is. She knew she would be arrested. She doesn’t run. She’s not going anywhere. On this video – I don’t know how you can make a decision. If we’re going to look at the video today, then I’m going to ask it to be unsealed and the court will see it, and I’ll tell you why. Because it’s actually an audio tape, and the video is upside down, and when Mrs. Wink makes a statement about her pursuers, there’s nothing in the video – that proves it’s not true. . You cannot see the victim’s arm. You cannot see what the victim is doing. You can’t see any of his movements. All you can do is listen. So with that in mind, I don’t know how the court can change the playing field here and just assume what the state says is true.
“It doesn’t add anything, judging,” the defense concluded after a few perfunctory remarks.
Judge White said he had “watched the video” and called it “pretty graphic”.
“I’m not saying it’s the be-all and end-all,” continued White, “but I think it certainly strengthens the state’s case and it shows a very violent and brutal encounter between your client and your client. and the alleged victim.”
The judge agreed that the defendant’s bail should be increased to $2.5 million dollars.
Wink closed his eyes, relaxed from his upright position, then looked up at the ceiling when he heard that decision.
Judge White said the bond decision could “be subject to change” as the case unfolds. He added that the defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to defense and jury trial but acknowledges a First Amendment right to know what the court records contain.
Law & Crime did not view the video independently because it was still subject to a recommendation to keep the video private.
Seeker told Marissa Alter of News12 Connecticut that his client could not buy a $2.5 million bond.
[images via the Law&Crime Network]
Is there a trick we should know? firstname.lastname@example.org
https://lawandcrime.com/crime/the-victim-tries-to-run-away-and-she-follows-prosecutors-say-murdered-tenants-final-cell-phone-video-proves-gop-election-official-lied-about-self-defense/ Ellen Wink Lies About Self-Defense in Killing Tenants: The State