ROCKLAND, Maine — The state’s chief medical examiner testified Thursday that Katrina Windred suffered a broken neck and injuries all over her body.
Dr. Margaret Greenwald testified Thursday on the fourth day of the trial of 37-year-old Arnold Diana of Rockland who is charged with murder in connection with the 47-year-old Windred’s death.
Greenwald performed the autopsy on Windred who police say died Nov. 20, 2010, at the hands of Diana in his apartment at the Thorndike building on Main Street in Rockland.
The medical examiner ruled Windred died due to strangulation. She had a broken bone in her neck and cuts, scrapes and bruises on her head, arm and legs.
During questioning by the prosecution, Greenwald said some of the injuries could be consistent with being dragged on a rug. Under questioning by defense attorney Christopher MacLean, the medical examiner acknowledged that the surface would not necessarily have been a rug.
The medical examiner said the state of the victim’s body was such that she could have died around 5:30 p.m. Saturday, Nov. 20. Police have previously said that is when she died based on a confession from Diana that presiding Justice Jeffrey Hjelm ruled inadmissible in March.
Greenwald acknowledged during cross examination by MacLean on Thursday that death could have occurred later than 5:30 p.m. and could have been the following day.
Windred’s body was found on Nov. 23, 2010, along the side of Thompson Meadow Road in Rockland.
Thursday’s testimony concluded with Maine State Police Sgt. Jeffrey Love, who was a detective with the state police in November 2010. One of his responsibilities was to search for evidence around the Thorndike building.
Love said a purple towel and a brown coat were located under a tree between the rear parking lot and the Rockland Wastewater Treatment Plant. During a hearing held Monday before opening statements, evidence was presented that a purple towel was cut up with strips of it used to tie a quilt around Windred’s body.
Love also testified that he found reddish, brown stains on the seat cover of a pickup truck belonging to Diana’s friend Minniann Wigmore. Similar stains were found on the center console, a book and a piece of paper.
The truck had been parked in the parking lot behind the Thorndike building. Police investigators have testified that Diana acknowledged he went out to the truck at 1 a.m. the night after Windred stopped by his apartment. He initially told them that he went out to the truck to make sure a tarp on the bed of the truck was in place to protect items. In statements ruled inadmissible, however, he had admitted wrapping up her body in a quilt and putting her in the truck and dumping her on a rural road in Rockland.
Love testified Thursday afternoon that he checked the setting of the driver’s side seat to help determine who last used the vehicle. He said the seat was set as far back as it could go.
A clump of hair also was found in the front of the truck.
Love also indicated that the truck tires were covered in mud. Love said the parking lot behind the Thorndike is paved but that the Thompson Meadow Road is a dirt road.
The trial will continue Friday morning in Knox County Superior Court and is expected to last until at least next Wednesday.
Diana and his lawyer must be very unhappy that the BDN has published in every article about the trial the fact that Diana confessed to the murder, but that his confession has been suppressed and ruled inadmisssable by the court.
I’m sure that the judge has instructed the jury not to talk to anyone about the evidence or read any newspaper articles about the case. Still, what are the odds that at least one juror will read this newspaper, perhaps with the online comments, and become aware of Diana’s confession? And if that happens, how could a juror’s opinion of Diana’s guilt or innocence be unaffected?
This confession is not new news. It was published long ago. Jury members do not typically live under rocks — if they did the idea of forensic evidence may overwhelm them, but let’s give them the benefit of a doubt and assume they can look at what is presented in court.
Oh, I assume they look at the evidence presented in court. It’s the other stuff I wonder about, like inadmissable confessions publicized in a newspaper every day during trial. Don’t get me wrong, though, if important and reliable evidence can’t get in through the front door, I’m happy to see it come through the back. Whatever it takes . . .
All I can say is I was engaged to this man for 5 years and he was extremely abusive when he drank….I had to place a protection order on him because he threatened to kill me and our toddler at the time…He NEEDS TO PAY FOR WHAT HE DID….THIS MAN IS A MONSTER AND DESERVES TO ROT IN JAIL