It is painful to read the 2015 Forensic Pathology report* about Jeffrey Wogenstahl’s case, as it focuses on the brutal murder of a child, and the disposal of her body. The report, submitted by Carl Schmidt in February 2015, is contained in a motion now before the Ohio Supreme Court. It highlights yet again how Jeff’s prosecutors misinterpreted the evidence from the crime.

The prosecution maintained that Jeff kidnapped Amber Garrett, transported her in his car, murdered her, and left her to die in a wooded area at least four miles inside Indiana. They suggested that Jeff’s car could have been the location of the murder.

Schmidt, however, believes this is extremely unlikely:
“It is practically impossible that the victim was in the car when [her] injuries were sustained… The injuries to the head were caused when the head was supported against a firm surface, such as the ground…  [The victim’s] injuries could not have occurred while [she] was sitting up…”

Schmidt also dismisses the prosecution’s contention that Jeff’s car was used for transporting the body:
“It would be extremely hard to thoroughly clean up [the] blood and fluid, particularly in a small space, such as a car that includes absorbent materials like carpeting.”

And Schmidt is cautious about the prosecutors’ suggestion that the car jack handle from Jeff’s car could have been the blunt instrument used for the crime:
“It is not possible to ascertain what kind of instrument was used to inflict the blunt injuries.”

Schmidt’s report is just one of three professional reports** about Jeff’s case that are included in a motion before the Ohio Supreme Court; all three reports point to serious deficiencies in the investigation of the case. On top of known prosecutor misconduct and the withholding of significant evidence, this is highly disturbing. Jeff deserves a new trial; we hope that 2017 will be the year when this is granted.

We wish Jeff a peaceful holiday season.

*See Volume 2 of Appendix to Appellant Jeffrey Wogenstahl’s Motion to Remand Case to the Trial Court, filed in the Supreme Court of Ohio, October 7, 2016 – Case No. 2016-0423; Pp 116 – 119.

**The other two reports are Gary Rini’s 2015 report on forensics (see more here), / and Dr Harvey Shulman’s 2015 report on eyewitness identification (see more here).