CA - Janet Kovacich, 27, Auburn, 8 Sept 1982

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
~snip~

Clyde Blackmon, Kovacich's Sacramento attorney, argued that since Judge Robert McElhany dismissed the charge of kidnapping June 21, his client should be granted bail.

~snip~

Gong said a recent report from the Department of Justice confirms that a partial skull found at Rollins Lake Oct. 22, 1995 is in fact that of Janet Kovacich.

more at link
http://www.auburnjournal.com/articles/2007/07/06/news/top_stories/03kovacich6.txt
 
Thanks J4J & Chico for the updates... Just reading my Auburn Journal and I see that it says the next court date is October 25th - and tentative trial date for early March, 2008. I'm ready!! LOL! :dance:

Also in that article I noticed this!:
A judge granted Paul accused of shooting his wife in the back of the head...

I did not know that - that's a new item!
Justice for Janet!! :)
 
Thanks J4J & Chico for the updates... Just reading my Auburn Journal and I see that it says the next court date is October 25th - and tentative trial date for early March, 2008. I'm ready!! LOL! :dance:

Also in that article I noticed this!:
A judge granted Paul accused of shooting his wife in the back of the head...

I did not know that - that's a new item!
Justice for Janet!! :)


YW! The article also stated that the skull is in fact that of Janet Kovacich. Earlier reports were "most likely" or worded in that manner.
 
I'm highly irritated that the trial won't start for another year just because his attorney's don't have the availability until then.
 
Former Placer County Sgt. Paul R. Kovacich Jr., 58, accused of murdering his wife decades ago, was released on bail Friday night.

Kovacich had been in custody at Placer County Jail on $1.5 million bond following a grand jury indictment alleging he shot his wife in the back of the head in 1982.

Placer County Jail personnel confirmed Kovacich posted the $500,000 bond late Friday to be released from custody, in addition to the $1 million property bond previously posted.

http://www.auburnjournal.com/articles/2007/07/13/news/breaking_news/01kovacich.txt
 
Yes - I didn't realize he got out of jail either until I read my Sunday paper - front page news of course!

Yea - chico - I agree with ya - too long to wait for this trial.... :D
 
With a trial date set seven months out for a former Placer County sheriff's deputy accused of killing his wife decades ago, the prosecution is calling for early testimony from three witnesses.

~snip~

Prosecutor Dan Gong said Monday he has filed three motions for "conditional examination" to be heard at 8:30 a.m. Aug. 10 in Dept. 2 of Placer County Superior Court.

The motions request is to put three witnesses on the stand in order to "preserve their testimony for trial."

The advanced age of the unnamed witnesses is at issue, along with the trial not being heard until March 2008.

http://www.auburnjournal.com/articles/2007/07/17/news/top_stories/04kovacich17.txt

Maybe the parents??
 
and or HER parents...

Thanks for the update, Chico!
 
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, both sets. Well, with three witnesses maybe a set and a half. Sounds like he has adequate backing with properties put up and credit used for his bond.
 
Her parents are deceased, I think.

Thats an interesting motion. I mean, it means having to know now what questions to ask - minimal time to prepare, and then it would give them the possible opportunity to ask more questions later which is more than most people get when they're on trial. It gives the witnesses time to recant testimony too, and both the prosecution and defense more time to prepare for rebutals and such. And I wonder also, with PK out on bail, how would that work? Because a defendant is entitled to hear the witness' testimony right? Wouldn't that just be absolutely uncomfortable for the witness'? Does anyone know anything about "conditional examination?" I'd like more info.
 
I believe I'm going to go to this hearing for testimony - I've put this as a reminder on my calendar - and will probably go and take notes for you all!
 
I think it is just the "motions" being heard on Aug 10, not the testimony. I don't know that for sure, but that's what I'm guessing. I wish the reporters would make this more clear in their writings. They act as if we all understand the legal system perfectly.
 
Although you could still go and take notes because I would guess they'll reveal who the witness' are, and a general idea of how detrimental the testimony is.
 
yes, I have that day marked to take the morning off! I'll take notes - and hopefully, they'll have the witnesses then too! I sent Penne Usher (of the Auburn Journal) an email yesterday asking about this testimony; here's her answer: (her spelling errors, not mine! LOL!)

A conditional examination occurs in a courtroom before a judge with the prosectuion and the defense present. It works the same as if the witness were taking the stand during the trial.
The transcript of that testimony is then read during the trial, with, sometimes, as a member of the defense team legal firm acting as the witness (reading their part).
Dept. 2 is in Historic -
Hope this helps


Okay - off to do a little work before the Spector trial starts this morning!
 
Janet Kay Kovacich
Missing since September 8, 1982 from Auburn, Placer County, California
Classification: Endangered Missing

Vital Statistics
Age at Time of Disappearance: 27 years old
Height and Weight at Time of Disappearance: 5'3"; 130 lbs.
Distinguishing Characteristics: White female. Brown hair; blue eyes.
Marks, Scars: About a week before she disappeared, Janet had cosmetic surgery to remove scars and to have breast implants put in.
DNA: Available

Circumstances of Disappearance

Kovacich was last seen at her home in Auburn, California on September 8, 1982. She is a mother of two and the wife of a Placer County sheriff's sergeant who vanished from her home without a trace.

On the morning of September 8th, the children were sent to their Catholic school. At 8 a.m., Janet Kovacich phoned another private school in Lake of the Pines, north of Auburn, and made an appointment to see officials later that day to discuss transferring the children. She never showed up. Her husband told police he left the home at about 10:30 a.m. following a quarrel that morning with his wife. He said he ran errands and returned home at noon to find his wife missing.

Janet Kovacich's purse was also gone, but none of her credit cards were ever used. Police and other law enforcement agencies searched the canyon and caves around the proposed Auburn Dam site, used dogs to try to pick up a trail and flew helicopters with heat-detecting equipment in an effort to find her.

Police have never ruled out her husband as a suspect. The couple had been having marital problems, and police focused their attention on the sheriff's sergeant, questioning him repeatedly and conducting forensics examinations of his vehicle. He was not arrested.

Janet wanted out of the marriage. There were a lot of arguments between them leading up to the time when she disappeared.

She had already set up where she was going to take the kids. She wanted to go back to college and get a career. The surgery she had a week before she disappeared forced her to rely on others for transportation and would have made it difficult to run away.

Janet's husband has been convicted of murdering her and only her skull has been found. Police are continuing to keep her case open. They are still looking for her body.

Investigators
If you have any information concerning this case, please contact:
Placer County Sheriff's Office 530-889-7800

NCIC Number: M-108801822
Please refer to this number when contacting any agency with information regarding this case.
Source Information:
The Sacramento Bee 3/4/05
The Union 3/3/05
TheKRAChannel 3/2/05
Auburn Journal 3/2/05
The Doe Network: Case File 1640DFCA

LINK:
http://www.doenetwork.org/cases/1640dfca.html
 
janet's parents are both, unfortunately deceased. she has an aunt who lives in-state who's been to some court hearings. she also is survived by a brother who lives out of state.
 
I don't understand why Doe continues to profile Janet's case. She's not missing: she's dead. I mean, I would understand if they only had found her little finger or something, but her SKULL? The woman is not a missing person anymore if her skull is found. If they want to profile people as "missing" when only parts of their bodies are missing, why not profile Adam Walsh as well? They found only his head, never his body, same as Janet.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
1,938
Total visitors
2,029

Forum statistics

Threads
601,613
Messages
18,126,957
Members
231,103
Latest member
maxnum
Back
Top