William Beeman- Iowa- Convicted in 1982

(Above photo credit: cbs2iowa.com)

From the Muscatine Journal:



MUSCATINE — After serving 40 years of a life sentence in prison for a 1982 murder conviction, a man has petitioned for a new trial.

According to papers filed Tuesday in Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, attorneys for William Beeman, 62, have requested a new trial, saying Beeman had not gotten a fair trial previously. He is serving life in prison for the 1980 murder of 22-year-old Michiel Winkel, who was found dead April 26, 1980, near the campground just off a walking trail in Wildcat Den State Park. According to Beeman’s attorney, new medical evidence about the state of Winkel’s dead body indicate she could not have died five days earlier on April 21, 1980, as the state alleges. Defense attorneys claim Beeman had broken his foot on April 22, 1980, and April 21 was the only day Beeman could have killed Winkel under the state’s theory.

“Last winter we had been given for the first time after 40 years the Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) file on Mr. Beeman, which provided a lot of previously undisclosed information about the case,” Lindsay Hagy, co-counsel for Beeman, said. “Mr. Beeman has been wrongfully incarcerated for 40 years for the tragic murder of Michiel Winkel in Muscatine.”

Winkel had been kicked in the head and choked before the murderer inflicted a lethal injury by stabbing her 17 times in the chest. The body was unclothed, and the victim had engaged in sexual intercourse sometime shortly before or after her death. Investigators initially focused on several men who were Winkel’s friends or boyfriends but eventually focused on Beeman, who was a disc jockey at a nightclub Winkel frequented.

Hagy commented that during the original trial the state had disclosed one witness who had seen Winkel on April 22, but the file showed there were six other people who had seen her after April 21.

According to Hagy, an attorney for The Exoneration Project, Beeman had applied for representation and at the same time the Project, and the Midwest Innocence Project, was involved in a review of all cases that involved a now-discredited science called microscopic hair analysis. Hagy said hair analysis had been used in the case but not to convict Beeman. The case against Beeman did involve another discredited science called knife swipe comparison.

The Exoneration Project is a Chicago-based project affiliated with the University of Chicago that looks at cases involving hallmarks of wrongful conviction. In this case, the project is partnering with the Iowa Public Defender’s Office.

Hagy said the defense had tried to find the original biological evidence in the trial, including a sexual assault kit. She said last August the state had not been able to show what happened to it. DCI and the Muscatine County Sheriff’s Office said in court filings they had searched and had been unable to find the evidence. Then-Muscatine County Attorney Alan Ostergren had commented in a written reply that law enforcement agencies had only been required to keep DNA evidence since 2005.

Erica Nichols Cook of the Iowa Public Defender’s Office, and director of the wrongful convictions division, said a team of attorneys now was representing Beeman. She said the team had gotten a court order requiring the DCI to turn over Beeman’s report, which she said the DCI did “grudgingly,” and then only part of it. She said it was being litigated when COVID-19 shut down many courthouses. She said the report showed a lot of evidence that had been suppressed by the state.

“You can’t hide evidence about alternate suspects from the defense before trial,” she said. ‘We are asking for a new trial for Mr. Beeman regardless of DNA evidence because the state hid this evidence and didn’t turn it over. We believe he’s innocent.”

The attorneys had argued in June 2019 that Beeman had always maintained his innocence and that a confession had been coerced by investigators. Beeman’s conviction was largely based on a confession that Beeman had signed at the end of a two-day interrogation. The state alleges that Beeman had taken Winkel for a motorcycle ride to Wildcat Den State Park, where he raped and killed her after she rejected his advances.

The defense attorneys say Beeman's claims of innocence are bolstered by a lack of evidence tying him to the scene and testimony that put Beeman elsewhere and Winkel with another man at a hotel spa on April 21. Additionally, a bank receipt found in Winkel's purse was dated April 22 — the day after prosecutors claimed she was killed. Prosecutors didn't give the receipt to the defense before trial, but jurors discovered it when examining Winkel's purse. The judge told jurors to disregard the receipt, calling it hearsay. Prosecutors later argued the receipt was post-dated to reflect an April 21 deposit, but that explanation doesn't add up because the transaction was a withdrawal to pay a debt.

Muscatine County Attorney James Barry said there was no information on the case at this point.

"The only comment that my office can make at this point is that we will consider the motion, along with the other motions filed previously and respond in due course as is either required by law and/or permitted/ordered by the court," he said in a written release. "That said, I respectfully request that you receive this response in the manner in which it is intended and assist the criminal justice system in avoiding unnecessary conjecture and speculation associated with these type filings or premature answers."

muscatinejournal.com/muscatine/news/local/beeman-seeks-new-trial-in-1980-murder-case/article_d4f2c002-cb66-5a28-b408-71b925e721d2.html



Thoughts? Just a technical note that this is apparently an Exoneration Project and not Innocent Project case but I changed the format of this part of the forum to reflect overall controversial or potentially controversial cases anyway. I also think this case became a lot more interesting because a man claims he shared a cell with Beeman and was assaulted by him in 1982, he wants to make sure that Beeman doesn't actually get out: muscatinejournal.com/muscatine/former-muscatine-man-william-beeman-assaulted-me-in-jail/article_fda71d91-7b52-50ce-ba4d-e08d64bcabe0.html

Also I want to clarify that we post these cases to discuss them. I will be more vocal if I truly believe in a defendant's innocence (or guilt in some cases), but in this case I don't necessarily believe in either and thought it would be interesting to discuss. Also I realize someone will claim the inmate coming forward is convenient timing now that Beeman is trying to get out of jail. However, Beeman could have assaulted him but still be innocent when it comes to Michiel Winkel's murder. Usually if you choose to frame or trump up evidence on someone you choose a criminal and not a choir boy (I AM NOT accusing the DA of framing Beeman, but that it is easier for a jury to believe someone who isn't the nicest guy is guilty than a clean cut guy with no record).

So apparently DNA preservation wasn't required until 2005 but other evidence was lost. So I still thought this was an important case to highlight because regardless of Beeman, there may be innocent men sitting in jail because evidence was lost and now there's no way to prove their innocence. Or we can have a scenario where Beeman actually is the killer and becomes free to roam the streets again because the state messed up in losing or suppressing evidence back in 1980.

I will say the cellmate (Steve George) story does not sound made up, although it would be a he said-he said in court. And it apparently was confirmed that they were housed at the same jail.

I also think the time frame is interesting but that just because there are discrepancies doesn't mean Beeman didn't do it.

To be honest I think this is one of the weaker cases for someone's innocence that I/we've posted so far in this section of thr forum, but at the same time I still thought it was important to highlight that states need to do a better job of holding on to evidence even after someone's conviction. No one could have predicted the advances in DNA, but I do wonder how many actually innocent men are in jail because there is lost evidence that would have proved their innocence had that evidence been reexamined.