close
close
Prosecutors are looking for tests that are expected to destroy evidence in the case of murder

Prosecutors are looking for tests that are expected to destroy evidence in the case of murder

by

play

  • Brian P. McKay is charged with the murder of his alienated wife Monica B. McKay.
  • The public prosecutor has applied for DNA tests to prove that can be consumed.
  • The defense argues that these tests would violate Brian McKay's rights.
  • A judge decides whether to allow the tests.

A judge is considering whether DNA tests that are expected to destroy some evidence collected in the case against Brian McKay, the alienated spouse, who is charged with the murder of the Topeka Hospital Monica McKay.

A prosecutor asked the district judge of Shawnee, Maban Wright, on April 10 for permission to carry out tests, which are expected to consume evidence, including fingernail clipping with blood that was assumed that they contained DNA of at least two people.

A lawyer, the Brian McKay, 54, represented on April 24, Wright asked the request.

Who was Monica McKay?

The 50 -year -old Monica McKay has been a director for clinics for doctor's clinics at the St. Francis Campus of the University of Kansas Health System in Topeka since 2023, where she previously was a director of basic care from 2018 to 2023.

According to July 2009, the McKays were married, according to July 2009, in which Monica McKay had submitted a divorce from Brian McKay last October and remained the case when she died.

According to Shawneee County expert, Brian McKay and Monica McKay were a house with the records of the expert in the 2333 SE Tecumseh Road.

The Shawnee County's sheriff office announced in February that the death of Monica McKay, who was discovered in this house on November 28, was determined when murder murder was determined and that Brian McKay was arrested on February 11th.

Brian McKay stayed in the Shawnee County prison on May 5 for charges of $ 1 million in the amount of $ 1 million, which included the first degree and intentional murder of the first degree.

Court files showed a preliminary hearing to determine whether the probable reason for Brian McKay's attempt on June 23 should take place before the Shawnee district court.

Document said Brian McKay monica McKay monitured with microphones

Monica McKay's body wore several scratches when she was found in a bathtub in her house that was filled with water, said an affidavit in the case published in March.

In this document, Monica McKay's death was identified as drowning, whereby the factors of the strangulation and multiple stump trauma contributed.

Before her death, Monica McKay was monitored by Brian McKay about “hidden cameras, microphones and possibly an Amazon Echo device”, according to the affidavit.

Brian McKay's telephone -GPS data showed him as in his house when Monica McKay died, but the police believe that he was leaving his phone at home and on this day with an electric bike and used by Monica McKay's house.

What evidence could possibly be destroyed by DNA tests?

The deputy district prosecutor of Shawnee County asked Manly on April 10 that Wright would allow further DNA tests of which he said that they would consume the following according to evidence:

  • Fingernail cutouts that were taken from the scene that were smeared with blood with DNA of at least two people, with a Monica McKay being and the identity of the other was unknown.
  • Water from the Monica McKays bathtub that the investigator suspects that the murderer switches on and off the water.
  • Water from the back plate of a doorbell camera that was installed in the house for the protection of Monica McKay. The investigators suspect that the murderer has removed this camera.

The Kansas Bureau of Investigation announced that a partially DNA profile on swabs from the tap handle of the bathtub and the doorbell camera backlop was found.

Wright was asked to approve further tests to determine whether these elements have a further evaluation value.

“The tests will necessarily consume the rehearsals and exclude further tests,” wrote Manly, describing this as “unhappy”.

How did the defense react?

The deputy public defender Thomas W. Bartea, who represented Brian McKay, replied on April 24 that the permission of the consumption tests of the participants would prevent the defense from exercising its right to repetition.

This would also violate McKay's right to proper procedure, since the first test results were relieving, which means that they preferred the defendant, Bartee argued.

He asked whether Wright permitted consumer tests, adequate protective measures are ordered, including the permission of a representative of the defense.

Barteee also asked that a hearing of evidence was planned in this case. No such hearing has yet been planned.

Contact Tim Hrenchir at Thlenchir@gannett.com or 785-213-5934.

Leave a Comment