Sometime during the morning of Friday, March 28, 2014, Brian Kellner, one of the prosecution’s star witnesses in the Tom Monfils 1995 murder case, died from a blood clot, (possibly) induced from treatments he was undergoing for cancer.
I found the following listing in the Green Bay Press-Gazette the next day on Saturday, March 29, 2014. Even though it was a last minute addition to the paper with little time to elaborate on the life of this person, it still saddened me to note the lack of substance it contained, despite Mr. Kellner’s vastly publicized and historically critical role in what continues to be one of the most publicized court cases in all of Wisconsin. I couldn’t help but feel extreme loneliness and isolation for this man.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
Obituary
Kellner, Brian A.
Brian A. Kellner, 57, Denmark, died Friday, March 28, 2014. Funeral arrangements are incomplete and will be announced by Blaney Funeral Home.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
On the exact same day that this announcement appeared, there was a related interview published in the online version of the Green Bay Press-Gazette given by Randy Winkler; the lead detective in the Monfils case. Winkler, who successfully achieved the convictions of six (innocent) men, proceeds to chastise Mr. Kellner by stating rather proudly how he “bluffed” Kellner into giving a (false) statement.
Note: After realizing the implications of his mistake in giving false testimony during the trial concerning an alleged bubbler confrontation (which supposedly took place at the mill the morning of the disappearance of Tom Monfils), Brian Kellner tried in vain to recant his testimony. Up until the day he died, Mr. Kellner stood by that recantation and the reasoning behind its initiation.
On the following day, Sunday, March 30, 2014, an article that disclosed a more in-depth account of Winkler’s interview was also printed in the hard copy version of the paper along with this link to that interview.
To me this begs for a serious discussion about the possible intent to disparage Kellner via the timing of these two articles. Was it coincidental? Indifference on the behalf of Winkler? Not out of the question as far as this advocate is concerned…