Judge permits evidence of an alternate suspect

A key piece of evidence in defense of Steve Pankey, who is facing kidnapping and murder charges for the killing of 12-year-old Jonelle Matthews in 1984, will be permitted at trial after a final motions hearing in the case.

Weld District Judge Timothy Kerns on Tuesday made rulings in the final motions before the pretrial readiness conference Sept. 22, including allowing evidence defense attorney Anthony Viorst described as the “heart” of his defense of Pankey.

Viorst will offer an alternate suspect in the kidnapping and murder of Jonelle, a man named Norris Drake. Viorst said Drake commented on how Jonelle had “matured” and was said by another to have had an “unusual interest” in young girls. He also had a criminal record of stealing personal property from his roommate, suggesting Drake could have broken into the Matthews’ home with motives of sexual assault or theft, Viorst said.

Drake in an interview mentioned knowledge of a rake used to clear footprints, which Viorst said was information supposedly only known to law enforcement and Pankey himself — Pankey’s allegedly privileged knowledge of the raking being a specific matter of concern listed in his indictment.

Weld County District Attorney Michael Rourke took issue with some of Viorst’s presentation of Drake’s statements, pointing out there were two statements pulled from a two-and-a-half-hour interview. He said Drake learned of the raking through his mother and that Drake incorrectly believed the rake was used to hide sets of footprints of juveniles.

There was one set of footprints found, according to Rourke, with a shoe size of 9-11.

Rourke also noted Drake’s statements didn’t indicate he understood the gravity of knowing about the raking, as Drake went on in the interview to describe several other things not related to the case.

Rourke said that the statement about Jonelle maturing was not made by Drake himself. Kerns ultimately ruled only what Drake himself said could be used as evidence. This included his knowledge of the raking of footprints.

“No one wants to do this twice,” Kerns said as he explained the different rules of the court he had to weigh when admitting or denying the evidence.