GUILTY WI - Barbara Kendhammer, 46, dies in staged accident, Hamilton, 16 Sept 2016 *Appeal denied*

Unpopular opinion here, but I watched most of this trial online and did not think he was guilty. Or, at a minimum, I did not think it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

From my perspective, the gist of the attitude from those who thought him guilty seemed to be "no one's life could be as peaceful and perfect as he described, therefore he must have made it up/be guilty."

Obviously I am in the minority with this opinion and I'm no expert in assessing people so I could well be wrong. Very glad I did not have to be on his jury.

I do know people with lives that appear to have no drama. It's possible. Of course that doesn't make him innocent if he's guilty. But every time I see that he continues to fight the conviction, I wonder all over again whether it's possible an innocent man was convicted.

MOO
 
They may have had an amazing and peaceful life, and he may have been a great husband. It doesn’t change the fact that every piece of physical and circumstantial evidence indicates he murdered her in cold blood.
 
The attorney for the West Salem man convicted of killing his wife wants more time to file an appeal in the case.

Attorney Jerome Buting’s extension request was granted by the Court of Appeals. The appeal decision has been extended to April 15, 2020.

Multiple requests for extensions have been granted.

Kendhammer attorney granted another extension to file appeal

WTH! Why is he being given so many extensions? Either they have reasons to appeal or not, move on.

MOO!
 
I totally agree with you. It is sad that all those people who said they loved Barbara and they didn't stand up for her. No one knows what goes on behind closed doors and it seems like they all turned a blind eye. Todd has all of them convinced he is so perfect. I was glad the judge saw right through all of that.

At the end when Todd was walking out of the court room it seemed like he was all happy about the 30 yr sentence. I couldn't figure that out especially since he thinks he is not guilty.

all jmo imo and moo

I just watched the 48 hours show on this case and frankly I'm not convinced that family loved Barbara. You certainly didn't hear it expressed. The family, especially the daughter, was just nasty. I've seen a lot of these Dateline/48hours etc shows with family members who swear their loved one couldn't have committed the crime. I get that. But I've never seen one so snippy, nasty, and downright obnoxious. If that's the kind of attitude surrounding Barbara it's no wonder she wouldn't confide in anyone that she was being controlled. People in abusive relationships without bruises are often not believed. With this crowd she would likely not only have not been believed, but would have been blamed.
 
Unpopular opinion here, but I watched most of this trial online and did not think he was guilty. Or, at a minimum, I did not think it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

From my perspective, the gist of the attitude from those who thought him guilty seemed to be "no one's life could be as peaceful and perfect as he described, therefore he must have made it up/be guilty."

Obviously I am in the minority with this opinion and I'm no expert in assessing people so I could well be wrong. Very glad I did not have to be on his jury.

I do know people with lives that appear to have no drama. It's possible. Of course that doesn't make him innocent if he's guilty. But every time I see that he continues to fight the conviction, I wonder all over again whether it's possible an innocent man was convicted.

MOO

I think it's important for people to call out the 'norm opinion'. It's easy to get into group think, so thank you.

But here is my analysis about Mr Kendhammer:

Key points in the case where Todd's story doesn't make sense:
The story about going to get a truck to fix the windshield:
- the person (Justin) says he didn't ask him to and didn't expect him to pick up a vehicle
- Todd hadn't spoken to Justin in over a month; the only conversation that had even broached on windshields had been 4 months prior
- Todd didn't know where the vehicle was that he was going to pick up (he was vague about where and changed his story!!)

The timing of the trip to get the truck:
- Todd was going to be too late for work so would have to call in sick
- Barb would be late for work and hadn't called in to say so. She always called in if late.
- the family was heading straight to camping after work and had to get ready. When were they going to replace the windshield? Why was that such an urgent matter on such a busy day?
- Barb called her mother around 7:45am each weekday. She didn't call her the morning of the "accident".

The accident:
- occurred on a flat, straight stretch of road. What would have suddenly have cause something to fly off the back of the truck on an angle that would carry it straight toward the passenger side of the Kendhammer's vehicle?
- no vehicle matching the description was seen on video heading down that road around the time of the accident.
- Todd originally thought it was a bird. How could a long pipe, travelling at an angle, look like a bird?
- Todd said he lunged at the object as it was coming to/through the windshield. It was his left hand that suffered the most damage, but Todd is right handed and his right hand would have been closest and most natural to reach out.
- Todd didn't pull over to the side of the road. Instead he turned up a smaller road and ultimately ended up in a ditch. Why would he turn up that road? (There is very little traffic on that road and they would be much less likely to be noticed. With the car backed into the ditch, Barb's body was blocked from view from the larger road.)
- a car drove along the small road and saw the car in the ditch, but didn't see anyone around the vehicle. (Where were they?) Todd said no vehicles passed by before the EMS arrived.
- A pipe travelling at that speed would "impale" someone or something, or else continue right through the vehicle.
- BK didn't have wounds consistent with a pipe coming through the windshield. She had lacerations on the back of her head that were more serious than injuries on the front of her head.
- Todd had what appeared to be scratch marks on both sides of his neck and on his chest. Todd's DNA was found under Barb's nails.


There are lots more inconsistencies, but it's difficult to imagine that he didn't kill her.
One thing that raised a red flag for me was that he said they were never apart. That they spend all of their time together (other than during work). He said that he would go on an annual deer hunt weekend with relatives, but would drive home each night to eat with Barb before heading back to the camp. No one else went home to their spouses. This just sounds a little over the top controlling or lacking in trust.

I'm sorry that their children have had to go through this.
 
100% agree- and IMHO the kids are being controlled still (giving up their homes to fund his defense and appeals). No mourning for their mother. No memories of their mother. Just vitriol for LE and the DA and anyone who doesn't buy Todd's narrative.
 
Snoopster, So she didn't have any wounds from the pipe? It did not smash into her head or her face? The only thing I see plausible is him saying, he thought it was a bird. People have said that when something hit's the windshield because you are concentrating on driving, not looking to your right, especially if something comes quick. If he did this where did he get the pipe? What kind of pipe? Did he kill her and then drive somewhere to buy the pipe and then go to the road he was found on and smash it through the windshield? Did thy say where the pipe came from?
 
Snoopster, So she didn't have any wounds from the pipe? It did not smash into her head or her face? The only thing I see plausible is him saying, he thought it was a bird. People have said that when something hit's the windshield because you are concentrating on driving, not looking to your right, especially if something comes quick. If he did this where did he get the pipe? What kind of pipe? Did he kill her and then drive somewhere to buy the pipe and then go to the road he was found on and smash it through the windshield? Did thy say where the pipe came from?
BBM: But according to his version- the pipe had to have crossed his field of vision (alleged truck coming from the opposite direction- in other words- to his left) He 'knew' it was a pipe falling off a flat bed truck- so how ......
 
This guy deserves prison just for being stupid. If it was an accident, why did he not ask the cops why does what truck the pipe came off of matter? Were they going to prosecute the truck driver who could say he didn't realize a pipe had accidently fallen off his truck? Todd was a control freak who got upset at Barbara for complaining about him buying a windshield that was taking up room in the garage. He made sure to mention that Barbara was going to hit the flea markets that weekend when they already had several cabinets sitting around that he didn't know what they were going to do with. That pipe was used in old plumbing and Todd had been tearing out old plumbing. They typically have sediment/sand built up in them. As soon as I saw the passenger seat covered with rust colored sand where Barbara would have been sitting I voted him "guilty".
 
Snoopster, So she didn't have any wounds from the pipe? It did not smash into her head or her face? The only thing I see plausible is him saying, he thought it was a bird. People have said that when something hit's the windshield because you are concentrating on driving, not looking to your right, especially if something comes quick. If he did this where did he get the pipe? What kind of pipe? Did he kill her and then drive somewhere to buy the pipe and then go to the road he was found on and smash it through the windshield? Did thy say where the pipe came from?

My understanding was that the pipe did not impale her. However, it had her DNA on it along the length of it. It's pretty clear to me he probably hit her on the back of the head with it, cracking her skull and causing the cuts to the back of her head. I couldn't figure out why there was so much blood on the seatbelt, but I'm assuming it was from the forehead wound. I think she came to when the car stopped and tried to break free, which is where the "flailing" came up. I need to go back and watch that DNA testimony again. Another big tell for me was that there were no skid marks, no indication he hit the breaks when he supposedly saw it coming, he just drove 300 yards down the road, turned right and drove 300 yards more. I don't there there were any tire marks where the car supposedly spun after being put into reverse. You don't slam a car into park any more than you put it into reverse when it's moving forward, and the wheel must have been cut or it would roll back not into the ditch. Bottom line he's a liar and not very good at it.
 

According to online court records, Kendhammer’s lawyer’s motion for post-conviction relief was denied on May 23 by Judge Todd Bjerke in La Crosse County Circuit Court. Evidentiary hearings took place last fall as the defense looked to present new evidence in order to grant Kendhammer a new trial. Kendhammer’s attorney believed he deserved a new trial due to the ineffectiveness of his previous legal representation.
 

According to online court records, Kendhammer’s lawyer’s motion for post-conviction relief was denied on May 23 by Judge Todd Bjerke in La Crosse County Circuit Court. Evidentiary hearings took place last fall as the defense looked to present new evidence in order to grant Kendhammer a new trial. Kendhammer’s attorney believed he deserved a new trial due to the ineffectiveness of his previous legal representation.
Thank @JerseyGirl for keeping up with this case. I am Happy he was denied! I believe the detectives that this was a staged murder.
 
I saw the case again this morning. Once again, with a husband accused of murdering his wife, the children come to the defense of their father-- he didn't do it, blah blah blah. It happens all the time. I understand how difficult it would be for the children to admit one of their parents could have actually murdered the other parent, but this type of defense of the defendant parent, is so common, even when the evidence is clear and convincing.
 
I've
I saw the case again this morning. Once again, with a husband accused of murdering his wife, the children come to the defense of their father-- he didn't do it, blah blah blah. It happens all the time. I understand how difficult it would be for the children to admit one of their parents could have actually murdered the other parent, but this type of defense of the defendant parent, is so common, even when the evidence is clear and convincing.
I have followed cases where the child(ren) spend life insurance proceeds or some other aspect of their inheritance from the murdered parent to pay for the defense of the murderer. There's no getting that back - even if they do eventually 'see the light'. Tragedy multiplied.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
4,087
Total visitors
4,165

Forum statistics

Threads
592,490
Messages
17,969,740
Members
228,789
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top