Did Wisconsin prosecutors commit crimes to convict Laurie 'Bambi' Bembenek? - Baltimore Post-ExaminerBaltimore Post-Examiner

Did Wisconsin prosecutors commit crimes to convict Laurie ‘Bambi’ Bembenek?

On May 28th, 1981, Christine J. Schultz, the former wife of Police Detective Elfred O. Schultz, Jr. was murdered in her Milwaukee, Wisconsin home while in the presence of her 11-and 8-year old sons.

On March 9, 1982, Lawrencia (Laurie) Bembenek, the new wife of Detective Schultz, was convicted of that murder and sentenced to a life term in prison.

Both boys had stated that Bembenek did not murder their mother and that the perpetrator was a man.  On December 9, 1992, faced with overwhelming evidence of Bembenek’s innocence, the District Attorney allowed her to plead “No-Contest” to 2nd degree murder and she was immediately released from custody.  Throughout her entire life Bembenek maintained her innocence and that the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s office continued to withhold evidence, falsify facts, and outright lie about her guilt. She died of liver and kidney failure in November 2010.

For more than 30 years, “Archangel” Ira Robins has collected overwhelming evidence that Bembenek was the victim of the unethical and criminal conduct of the police, District Attorney, and Wisconsin Crime Laboratory.  Reviewing all of the evidence and information, “Archangel” Sal Rastrelli concurs that Bembenek was falsely convicted and was another victim of political corruption.

Laurie Bembenek (1982)

Laurie Bembenek (1982)

In 2002, Wisconsin enacted a cutting edge DNA law, which was specifically put in place to assist with criminal prosecutions and to exonerate the innocent. Knowing that false evidence was used to convict Bembenek and that there was evidence of sexual assault by a man, Laurie Bembenek’s attorney immediately petitioned the court for DNA testing.   Bembenek’s experts now determined that unexplained male DNA had been collected from Christine’s body during the autopsy and that the crime lab analyst had falsely reported that there was no indication of semen from the body.  Male DNA confirmed that the victim was probably sexually assaulted by a man in connection with her murder and not by Bembenek.

During the DNA testing procedure it became obvious that the State no longer possessed the test fired bullets that its experts had used to connect the slug removed from the Christine’s body to Detective Schultz’s off-duty gun.  They had claimed it had been used by Bembenek to murder Christine. After delaying that disclosure for almost a year and a half, Assistant Milwaukee County District Attorney, Mark Williams, finally claimed that those test fired bullets were destroyed on September 26, 1986, by a flood that had allegedly occurred at the Regional Crime Laboratory.

In support of this false story of the evidence destruction at the crime lab, Williams presented to the DNA court a crime lab document which stated:

ATTENTION!

THIS FILE HAS BEEN WATER DAMAGED FROM A 

FLOOD IN THE STORAGE AREA SEPT. 28, 1986.

On July 28, 2005, during questioning in a sworn deposition, Michael J. Camp, Supervisor of the Milwaukee Regional Crime Laboratory, admitted that he placed that false document in the crime laboratory file to verify the false statements Williams had told the court.

He also admitted that he and others at the crime laboratory had changed their own protocols to allow their experts to provide the false opinion of “inconclusive” instead of the true opinion of “no match.” A “no match” opinion at the time of the trial would have meant that Laurie Bembenek would not have been convicted.

Three days later they returned their protocol to the original state.  It is the opinion of every legal expert “Archangels” has contacted that this conduct is criminal under Wisconsin law.  “Archangels” has repeatedly requested criminal charges be issued, but no Wisconsin court will take the proper action.

Wisconsin prosecutors continue to use the same crime laboratory to prosecute others but conceal their criminal conduct from defense attorneys.  “Archangels” can prove that the Wisconsin Crime Laboratory has falsified reports, committed perjury, and tampered with evidence in order to assist prosecutors in wrongfully convicting innocent people.

Maybe they should be the ones in prison.





About the author

Ira B Robins and Salvatore E. Rastrelli

Ira B. Robins and Salvatore E. Rastrelli have decades of law enforcement experience, both worked as police officers and private investigators and consultants. Their cases have frequently have been on national television and they continue to work for those who don't have a voice and are often a victim of a system that fails to protect the innocent. Contact the author.
COMMENT POLICY

6 Comments

  1. Tomyvess says:

    Unbelievable how many cases I have read studied and found that the Milwaukee and other Wisconsin Police Departments have botched and in most cases framed innocent individuals while letting criminals run free. When you look deep into the police And investigators in these cases as well as the prosecutors you soon understand why. Most are sexual drug addicted deviants whom themselves should be behind bars. Luckily I live in a State that would never tolerate this kind of behavior in a public servant. Shame in on the State of Wisconsin and a much larger shame on the US Government whom was in the process of investigating misconduct by the Milwaukee Police Department but drop their case as soon as she was convicted, don’t you think they wanted to convict her of a crime to cover up huge issues within the Police Department. Duh!!!! Tired of corruption in this Country.

    Reply
  2. Graham Turner says:

    I believe she was innocent of the crime, the victims children knew too, State was let down by those kids and they weren’t happy to look for anyone else.
    It goes to show that the whole Wisconsin state officials know where to go to get the results they seek. Whether it be a dodgy death certificate, a botched DNA result, and even laboratory sabotage. Maybe they know a coroner who don’t ask questions, a funeral director who opens after hours to help out, and Assistant Attorney General who makes things happen and turns a blind eye.

    Reply
  3. NomDayPlume says:

    I agree that Ms Bembenek was most likely innocent of the murder she was convicted of, not only because all the evidences against her were likely tampered with & any evidences to prove her innocence were withheld or covered up but more importantly because her husband should have been the 1st suspect! Her husband was so much more likely the murderer of his ex-wife because he stood to gain the most by her death! He would get his house back, the one he made a big deal about building; he would be free of the results of a very difficult divorce; he would be free of his heated arguments with her, his violent flareups where he hit, punched her & shoving her; he would be free of what might have considered unequal division of their marital property; he would be free of the expensive alimony & child support payments he had to shell out, along with possible unfair visitations with his boys; AND if he were a prime suspect in any criminal investigation then the public might become knowledgeable about the corruptions & discriminations in his police department which Ms. Bembenek was a prime witness against! I believe she was so blatantly & obviously innocent!

    Reply
  4. J. Lee (shadowgirl) says:

    I say she was not guilty and her husband definitely had a part in this. Rotten setup and police dept. Go figure.

    Reply
    • Roxy says:

      Lucky for Fred Schultz that others in the MPD wanted Laurie shut up and completely destroyed, too. The investigation into those naughty police parties just went away, as did the sexual discrimination lawsuit Laurie brought against the MPD. Fred got his house back, avoided paying any more child support & alimony to his ex, and got sole custody of his sons. How is his guilt & MPD corruption in this case not obvious? Laurie’s life was ruined & Fred ran away to live in Florida. Why has she not been pardoned yet?

      Reply
      • J. Lee (shadowgirl) says:

        Yes this is terrible and she should have been pardoned. You mentioned quite the information which the public rarely knows as in almost all cases Thanks for that information.

        Reply

Leave a Comment

Comment Policy

HOME / ABOUT / CONTACT / JOIN THE TEAM / TERMS OF SERVICE / PRIVACY POLICY / COMMENT POLICY