Yavapai Gaming - Buckys April

Home | Classifieds | Place an Ad | Public Notices | Subscriber Services | 928 Media Lab | Real Estate Search | Galleries | Obits | Courier Cooks | TV Listings | Contact Us
The Prescott Daily Courier | Prescott, Arizona

home : latest news : latest news April 16, 2014


7/25/2013 6:00:00 AM
Jury sees texts between DeMocker and Kennedy
Courier photo
Steven DeMocker listens to proceedings in his retrial that he murdered his ex-wife in 2008.
Courier photo
Steven DeMocker listens to proceedings in his retrial that he murdered his ex-wife in 2008.
Scott Orr
The Daily Courier

PRESCOTT - As the prosecution in the Steven DeMocker murder trial continues to build its case, the jury on Wednesday was shown text messages sent between him and Carol Kennedy.

DeMocker is accused of beating to death Kennedy, his ex-wife, July 2, 2008.

On Wednesday, Roger Hoover of the Arizona DPS Crime Lab said he'd examined six cell phones for text messages that could be related to the case.

Deputy County Attorney Steve Young displayed photos of texts between DeMocker and Kennedy on a projection screen so the jury could read them.

Many of those he showed suggested that DeMocker was in serious financial trouble and couldn't pay Kennedy the court-mandated $6,000 a month in spousal support.

"I'm overwhelmed by the 500,000 of debt I'm left with &THE FACT THAT I DON'T HAVE A JOB THAT PAYS ME enough to live on, let alone pay off the debt," one from November 2007 read.

In March, he sent Kennedy a text that said, "All of my bills are late. My bank account will be overdrawn tonight."

The day of the murder, he texted her about an email concerning a "pile of money" they owed each other.

Defense attorney Greg Parzych said those texts did not show the whole picture. Holding up a thick stack of papers, Parzych asked Hoover, "The ones we saw were just picked from hundreds of texts?"

"Probably," he replied.

Parzych then put others on the screen. They were polite, civil, and did not address finances.

He also pointed out that the phone record showed that when Kennedy's brother, John, called, worried about his sister's welfare, DeMocker hung up and then immediately texted Kennedy: "Your brother just called me worried. (Will) you call us?" - countering prosecution assertions that DeMocker didn't do anything to check on Kennedy.

Also on the stand Wednesday was Jacob Janusek. He was DeMocker's daughter Charlotte's boyfriend in 2008, when they were both 16, and he lived with them at the time. Deputy County Attorney Jeff Paupore led him through a detailed, minute-by-minute explanation of what he did and saw the night of the murder, writing the times on a large sheet of paper.

Janusek told the jury that DeMocker had "pretty big scratches" on his arm and leg on July 2 when he returned home from what he said was an evening bike ride.

Janusek said detectives from the YCSO were harsh with him, "threatening" him if he lied. When the investigators came back to DeMocker's condo the day after the murder with a second search warrant to obtain a golf club head cover and couldn't locate it, he said their questioning was "rude" and "aggressive."

Det. John McDormett "gave (him) a very threatening lecture," said defense attorney Craig Williams.

"Correct," Janusek said.

"You knew they had singled (DeMocker) out (as a suspect), didn't you?" Williams asked.

"Yes," Janusek answered.

Williams asked why he was not living at home at the time. Janusek said he was "more or less" thrown out of his parents' house because he had been using drugs. Williams noted that Janusek had been arrested several times on drug charges, and prosecuted by the Yavapai County Attorney's Office.

Williams asked if he'd been promised anything in return for his testimony, and Janusek said "No."

"You're telling this jury that the fact you've been prosecuted three times by this agency has no effect on your testimony?" Williams asked.

"Yes," Janusek replied.

Testimony continues today.



Follow the reporter on Twitter @AZNewsguy.



Reader Comments

Posted: Wednesday, August 07, 2013
Article comment by: just curious

Why is somebody spinning all this gloom and doom about the insurance? The earlier writer is correct, the victim signed the contract. With that cat outta the bag, the writer goes off topic and attacks other writers. Crazy people on this board.

Posted: Wednesday, August 07, 2013
Article comment by: Defense Spin Alert

Where did I say I have a numbered list? I have the same list of documents that you see when you go on the court website. I counted (which apparently you do not know how to do?).

Boy, you will say anything to detour the life insurance discussion? I think you are scared that readers might read the referenced court documents and discover for themselves what the evidence is! You fear a self-informed reader.


Posted: Tuesday, August 06, 2013
Article comment by: Prosecution blogger hypocrisy revealed as she spins her own circumstantial evidence

She lectures us that we misinterpret the circumstances around her having a numbered list of the case documents like they appear in the OnBase system only available to county workers.

She tries to explain how that circumstantial evidence doesn't mean she has access to OnBase and doesn't work for YCAO.

Funny how she doesn't see the irony of her saying circumstantial evidence can support different conclusions about her numbered document list-- while claiming there is only one possible scenario matching the very poor and contradictory circumstantial evidence in the Democker case.


Posted: Sunday, August 04, 2013
Article comment by: Wrong Again, Genius!

All you have to do is print the court website document listing (like a Table of Contents) which I did before I read anything on it. While reading documents, I made notes on the listing beside documents I thought were significant so I could later find them again if I wanted. It is easy to count items from a printed document, especially if the listing is from a closed case # where nothing is being added.

Here I am trying to give you the source document for my comments and you attack me. Isn't it amazing what defense supporters will try to claim to spin the discussion away from the evidence?


Posted: Sunday, August 04, 2013
Article comment by: Carol knew about the life insurance policies...her signature is on them

There's nothing out of the ordinary about a couple buying life insurance if they both sign the documents.

What's revealing about the last post is the reference to "...go about 103 documents down...". There is no digital counter or numerical listing of the documents on the County Clerk's web site. But the County's OnBase digital document management system used by the YCAO does. That means whoever wrote that last post searched for it first using OnBase....and they are YCAO. It's no longer a mystery who the frequent pro-prosecution blogger works for.


Posted: Thursday, August 01, 2013
Article comment by: Believe It--Life Insurance Reference

It took some time to retrace my steps since I had read many of the original trial documents in 2011. On the court website, under the original case #P1300CR20081339, go about 103 documents down the document listing to "2010-07-08 Miscellaneous --Supplement To.pdf" filed 12/8/11. You can open a document "Supplement To State's Motion To Extend Time for Additional Disclosure Pursuant to Rule 15.6(d)." Look at Exhibit A (lengthy). Some of the information is redacted but you can get a pretty good idea of the original source documents and sequence of events with regard to the life insurance issue.

Posted: Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Article comment by: Don't believe you

Please provide the link to these supposed life insurance documents.

Posted: Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Article comment by: Why Would DeMocker Need Life Insurance on Carol?

Did you know that the original life insurance applications (see copies on the court website) were completed and signed by Steven DeMocker? Did Carol even know about the policies? They appear to be standard term policies so all you have to do to terminate them is not pay the monthly premiums. Second, why did DeMocker need life insurance on Carol? One daughter was already an adult and the 16 year old lived with DeMocker. Why would someone making several hundred thousand plus a year need life insurance on an ex-spouse probably earning less than $50,000 average annually? Could it be because DeMocker was living beyond his means and the life insurance was a potential source of immediate wealth? Why was DeMocker so preoccupied with checking his beneficiary status after his divorce and just before Carol's death? Why did he also review internet articles about policy payments in case of homicide? Mere coincidences? You decide.

Posted: Monday, July 29, 2013
Article comment by: Prosecution's Blogger Misleads About Life Insurance

It's normal to carry life insurance policies on both parents if they both work and there are dependent children to provide for, even if the parents no longer live together. It's also customary to have a higher value policy on whichever parent earns more since the aim is to replace a parent's lost income. The Prosecution Blogger tries to mislead people into believing there was a policy on Carol but not one on Steve. I bet dollars to doughnuts that there was a policy on Steve too, which completely undermines the Prosecution Blogger's misleading claims. Anyone who trusts the incomplete and cherry-picked information that comes from this Prosecution Team would do well to reconsider.


Posted: Monday, July 29, 2013
Article comment by: Give it a rest already!

You falsely presume that - after the divorce agreement was reached - the defendant was at liberty to cancel the victim's life insurance policy, or any other account relating to the victim. You're writing about things of which you know very little. Anybody reading these posts can see you've got a lot of time on your hands and a lot of hate for the defendant. I think the earlier writer nailed it - you're no friend of the vicitm's and you've got some other agenda. I believe you're somehow tied to the YCSO or YCAO.

Posted: Monday, July 29, 2013
Article comment by: Defense Family Spinning

The defense family supporter is trying to spin an issue into something it is not. If you read the court website files relating to the DeMocker divorce there appears to be no disagreement between DeMocker, Carol or the divorce court about who is the breadwinner of the family. In fact, the divorce court judge directed that DeMocker pay Carol $6,000 in monthly alimony for six years in recognition of the couple's income disparity. It would have been normal for life insurance to be carried on DeMocker even after the divorce to ensure these payments. But DeMocker instead chose to continue the monthly payments on policies on Carol for several years past the couple's separation and following the divorce. This is unusual especially since DeMocker was complaining about his monthly financial burden. Hopefully, the prosecution will clarify in the trial whether Carol even knew these policies still existed prior to her death as I find no references to this important fact in any of the divorce information on the court website.

Posted: Sunday, July 28, 2013
Article comment by: The prosecution blogger tries to deflect attention from her insulting post about the victim

I got to know Carol through Prescott College and I know she was proud of the fact that she was able to earn a living and contribute to the financial support of her daughters through her work. I think she would have been very insulted to be told she was not a breadwinner for her family. The ongoing insensitivity of the prosecution blogger further convinces me she is not one of Carol's friends. I'd like to think YCAO and YCSO personnel would not be as emotionally invested in this case as the prosecution blogger seems to be, so I'm starting to think this is someone who has a stake (either personally or someone she knows) in trying to keep attention on Democker rather than others who were actually behind this crime.

Posted: Sunday, July 28, 2013
Article comment by: Definition of from Dictionary

"One whose earnings are the primary source of support for one's dependents." The breadwinner is a key concept in child support and divorce cases. From divorce records, it is pretty clear that Carol was not the breadwinner of the family. Recognizing this fact does not negatively reflect on Carol or the good work she did as a part-time or full-time therapist. QUIT DEFLECTING ATTENTION AWAY FROM DEMOCKER AND HIS INVOLVEMENT IN CAROL'S MURDER THAT YOU CANNOT SEEM TO EXPLAIN.

Posted: Saturday, July 27, 2013
Article comment by: A lesson in the law for

In any criminal matter, the prosecution must prove the defendant is guilty of the charges. The defendant is not required to prove innocence. Ever.

Posted: Saturday, July 27, 2013
Article comment by: The scratches were not what raised the YCSO's suspicions that night

Rather, it was the Jim Knapp, who just happened to show up minutes after the first responders. He told them "it must be DeMocker". In testimony from the first trial, the cops circled DeMocker the moment he stepped out of his car. From that point forward, investigators admitted they never considered anyone else.

Posted: Saturday, July 27, 2013
Article comment by: Prosecution blogger willing to distort evidence and even insult the victim -- is that revealing?

The prosecution blogger's comment on life insurance proves yet again that the prosecution team knows they need to push a constant stream of nonsense and outright falsehoods to try to sell their weak case to the public.

But now they show they're even willing to insult the victim with a false claim that Carol was not a family breadwinner. The truth is that Carol was working successfully as an artist and therapist. How disrespectful of professional artists and therapists everywhere, and Carol in particular, to say they don't count as breadwinners! Another shameful comment that proves the prosecution blogger will go to any length to try to sell their incredibly weak case!

I've wondered whether the relentless prosecution blogger is a friend of Carol's, an employee of YCAO or YCSO, someone tied to suspicious tenant Jim Knapp, or someone who has a personal stake in the crime being pinned on someone else. I think if the blogger is willing to insult Carol, we can probably eliminate option 1, a friend of Carol's who hates Steve.


Posted: Friday, July 26, 2013
Article comment by: Paging Barney Fife

I think one of the daughters got the life insurance money and somehow gave it to DeMocker for the lawyers. You can't be in jail for murder and be the benficiary of her life insurance and collect until the trial is over. I want to see what his financial situation was. If some judge awarded her 6 grand/month for years that 's based on the past 2-3 years tax returns and financial statement. He must have been making some dough to get that sentence.

Posted: Friday, July 26, 2013
Article comment by: Too Much Exaggeration

How did we go from DeMocker wearing shorts to half naked? Or to the murderer wearing a Hazmat suit? It was probably more like jeans, long sleeved shirt, gloves, hat, socks, La Sportivas which matched the description that the female resident on Glenshandra Dr. had gave in a deposition when she saw someone riding his bike down the street prior to the murder. A ski mask or other stuff could have been easily stashed in a bike or backpack. The prosecution's case does make a lot of sense if you look at it from start to finish. Much more sense than any of the nutty stories the defense has used to test the waters (i.e. tenant, drug prescription ring, hitmen, etc.).

Posted: Friday, July 26, 2013
Article comment by: Paging Barney Democker

Was he that stupid? No- THAT ARROGANT!! Stupid is not understanding how to delete the Internet history on a computer. Stupid is showing up in shorts to the murder scene. Stupid is illegally obtaining a 2nd passport. Stupid is convincing your teenage daughter to send a felonious email trying to lay blame on a made-up prescription drug ring. This guy did so many stupid things that the only explanation is he was so arrogant and conceited that he thought he'd get away with it all. He thought because he was soooo smart that he was above suspicion. If he were truly intelligent he would have fled the country when he had the chance. WOW did he do a lot of suspicios stuff for an innocent man. Is anyone else bothered by the family's complete lack of respect for the victim, their mother? That, too, is suspicious!!

Posted: Friday, July 26, 2013
Article comment by: @About Those Scratches I am @ V.C.

Here we go. The prosecution's theory needs to make sense not just in order for them to win but in order for them to carry out their duty to the people. Does it make sense that this cold, calculated, organized, !st degree murderer, wears a HAZMAT suit to commit the murder and shows up at the scene of the murder immediately afterward half naked?

Posted: Friday, July 26, 2013
Article comment by: Not Too Compelling

Janusek and Charlotte had already seen the scratches and were at the crime scene talking to the sheriff officers. If DeMocker had tried to hide the scratches, it might have been more suspicious. DeMocker probably thought he could head inquiries off at the pass by talking about his alleged bike ride on the trails of Granite Mtn.

Posted: Friday, July 26, 2013
Article comment by: @ Very compelling

You are mistaken. Steven DeMocker according to investigators showed up at the scene in a pair of shorts and the scratches on his legs were what aroused their suspicion. This was revealed in the first trial. This makes no sense to me. If Steven DeMocker knew about the murder, planned to get away with the murder, acquired those scratches during the commission or on the way to or from of having committed this calculated 1st degree murder, then why would he show up that very night, at the scene of his crime, in a pair of shorts?

Posted: Friday, July 26, 2013
Article comment by: Hey Barney

So, now your argument is to let DeMocker go because couldn't possibly have been stupid enough to think he could get away with his ex- spouse's murder? Wow, how many spouses or former spouses have been murdered by supposedly smart people? Desperate people do inexplicable things all the time. In the summer 2008, DeMocker was in a financial hole that was about to get a lot deeper. No one knows why DeMocker maintained the life insurance on Carol for years after the couple's separation. It certainly wasn't for the normal reasons of covering the breadwinner because DeMocker was the breadwinner not Carol. Maybe the life insurance had always been DeMocker's ace in the hole if things went terribly wrong financially. If the excuse that DeMocker should have known better is all you have left to believe in his innocence, you need to stop and smell the roses.

Posted: Friday, July 26, 2013
Article comment by: Paging Barney Fife

One of the main reasons I've always though he was innocent was this: he knew full well that he would be the first suspect if she was murdered. And by god he was. They threw him in jail for 5 years with not a shred of conclusive evidence just because he was the ex husband and didn't have a good alibi. He admitted looking up the getaway stuff and even applying for a lost passport (they took his) because he thought they would eventually arrest him. And they did. So to just go over there and kill her was basically guaranteeing yourself that you would be in jail. He's not that stupid.

Posted: Friday, July 26, 2013
Article comment by: T P - HOW DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING?

Investigation screwed up? What are you talking about? Doesn't matter HOW the investigation went, the facts are still a person murdered Carol. Defense to a murder isn't about how the investigation went but why your BOY is innocent. While I'm sure mistakes happened, that does NOT change the guilt or innocence of this defendant. Most murder cases are proven with circumstantial evidence - rarely is there a witness to a horrific crime like this - so courts are used to seeing this type of evidence in a murder case. There is a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence in this case and it ALL POINTS TO ONE PERSON. Or is could have been a conspiracy of the immediate family members but whatever - the guy holding the golf club is the same guy MISSING A GOLF CLUB.


  - Page 1 -  Page 2



Article Comment Submission Form
Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. The email and phone info you provide will not be visible to the public. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comments are limited to 1300 characters or less. In order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit your comment entries to five(5) per day.
Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Required
Last Name:
Required
Telephone:
Required
Email:
Required
Comment:
Required
Passcode:
Required
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.
   


Advanced Search

    Recently Commented     Most Viewed
Kids throwing rocks at cars hit police car, cop says (5 comments)
Editorial: Rancher's stance mocks public rights (95 comments)
Letter: PV is wrong to 'Stand with Israel' (35 comments)
Rock rescue at Watson Lake (3 comments)
Breaking News: Sundogs eliminate Mavs in 2OT, advance to Final Four (2 comments)

HSE - We want to hear from you
HSE - Circulation Costco Memebership offer
Find more about Weather in Prescott, AZ
Click for weather forecast






Quick Links
 •  Submit site feedback or questions

 •  Submit your milestone notice

 •  Submit your letter to the editor

 •  Submit a news tip or story idea

 •  Place a classified ad online now

Find It Features Blogs Milestones Extras Submit Other Publications Links
Classifieds | Subscriber Services | Real Estate Search | Merchants | Galleries | Find Prescott Jobs | e-News | RSS | Site Map | Contact Us
HSE - Smart Shopper

© Copyright 2014 Western News&Info, Inc.® The Daily Courier is the information source for Prescott area communities in Northern Arizona. Original content may not be reprinted or distributed without the written permission of Prescott Newspapers, Inc. Prescott Newspapers Online is a service of Prescott Newspapers Inc. By using the Site, dcourier.com ®, you agree to abide and be bound by the Site's terms of use and Privacy Policy, which prohibit commercial use of any information on the Site. Click here to submit your questions, comments or suggestions. Prescott Newspapers Online is a proud publication of Western News&Info, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.

Software © 1998-2014 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved