Star witness Loretta Spencer Blatz admits she lied in Waseem Daker case
by Lindsay Field
April 05, 2013 12:18 AM | 10965 views | 9 9 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Loretta Spencer Blatz filed two affidavits, one on March 4 and another on March 27, recanting a majority of what she testified to under oath at two trials. <br>Staff/file
Loretta Spencer Blatz filed two affidavits, one on March 4 and another on March 27, recanting a majority of what she testified to under oath at two trials.
Staff/file
slideshow
The state’s star witness in the Waseem Daker murder trial last year has now filed papers admitting that she made up her entire testimony against Daker. Daker’s court-appointed attorney said Loretta Spencer Blatz’s startling admission could result in a new trial and a reversal of his client’s conviction.

“It takes a whole, whole lot to reverse a murder conviction, but if anything will do it, it’s a primary principal witness saying she lied about pretty much every important part of her testimony,” said Marietta attorney Jason Treadaway.

Spencer Blatz filed two affidavits, one on March 4 and another on March 27, recanting a majority of what she testified to under oath at two trials. The first trial, in 1996, ended in the conviction of Daker for aggravated stalking against Spencer Blatz. The second conviction of Daker came in late 2012 for the Oct. 23, 1995, killing of Spencer Blatz’s then-housemate Karmen Smith.

Daker was sentenced to life in prison plus 47-and-a-half years. He was accused of stabbing Smith twice in the back and then strangling her with a rope.

“Waseem Daker never assaulted me or threatened me with a handgun, nor did he ever put a gun to my head on July 25, 1995, or July 26, 1995, or any other date or occasion,” Spencer Blatz confesses in one of the affidavits.

The piece of her filed affidavit that could result in a new trial for Daker is her admission that a blanket reportedly found in the home with his hair follicle was one that he and Spencer Blatz once snuggled in days before Smith’s death.

“She’s saying that she fabricated evidence and testimony that directly relates to the DNA evidence,” Treadaway said. “That goes to the critical core to the theory of the case by the state.”

DNA evidence on the blanket led to Daker’s arrest in 2009. He is imprisoned in the Jackson State Prison.

“A convicted criminal rarely gets to get a new trial based on a perjured testimony,” Treadaway said. “He has this trump card … it’s quite an ace to have up your sleeve, too.”

Treadaway said Daker is aware of the affidavits and learned about it from Spencer Blatz herself in a letter.

“I don’t think he’s shocked,” he said. “(Daker) knew (her testimony) was a lie when he heard it. He’s the least surprised of anybody. He’s been anticipating this because he always claimed that it was inaccurate.”

Daker has filed a motion for a new trial.

“It’s difficult to say when this could come to fruition,” Treadaway said. “I think it would be wise for him to wait and to see how much more she will say.”

He said he’s not sure why Spencer Blatz has decided now to take back her statements, but he had heard that her conscience may have been bothering her.

“Apparently now it’s just the time to come forward,” he said.

She called Treadaway shortly after the trial questioning her own testimony, Treadaway said.

Spencer Blatz states in the March 4 affidavit that she was also under the influence of “numerous” medications during the incidents involving her from 1996, including painkillers, muscle relaxers, anti-depressants and anti-anxiety pills.

“(These) also adversely affected my perception, judgment and memory,” according to her affidavit.

D.A.’s office responds

Cobb Assistant District Attorney Jesse Evans, who prosecuted the case, said he is disappointed with this turn of events, but he is unaware of any legal reason to believe the conviction of Daker is in jeopardy.

He said Daker is not entitled to a new trial because a witness is recanting statements and that his office stands by Daker’s conviction and the “overwhelming” evidence of guilt.

“This case was not about Ms. Spencer,” Evans said. “She was but the backdrop to explain why the defendant would perpetrate the murder of Karmen Smith and the brutal assault on Nick Smith, persons who would otherwise be strangers to him.”

Nick Smith is Karmen Smith’s son, who was 5 years old at the time and survived 18 stab wounds.

Evans tried to meet with Spencer Blatz to talk about her concerns but has not been successful to date.

“Of note, Ms. Spencer has admitted that she has become unstable since the trial,” Evans said. “We have encouraged her to seek professional psychiatric help and offered to assist her, as we would with any crime victim.”

He said Spencer Blatz also admitted to his office that she has been having suicidal thoughts and that she is not taking medications recommended by her mental-health counselor.

“Perhaps most troubling, we have also learned she has been communicating with the defendant in prison,” Evans said. “This matter is under investigation, but we have talked with the jurors in this case. They have assured us that their verdict was not based solely on the veracity of Ms. Spencer’s testimony.”
Comments
(9)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Guesty
|
March 07, 2014
It couldn't be more obvious that Waseem Daker is a psychopath and it's not unusual for them to try and exert control over others or exact revenge even while behind bars. Shame on Ms. Blatz for communicating with that monster and recanting her testimony. She seems hopelessly naïve and apparently impressionable. If Daker ever gets out because of her assistance, she is kidding herself if she thinks he'll be appreciative. That's not how psychopaths work. Instead it's much more likely that he will exact revenge for the 10 years he served for stalking her, and that's whether or not she lied about it. She should think about her young son, not to mention Nick and the horrible position she's putting them in. What a flake.
Nick K
|
April 07, 2013
The state's case rested on Blatz's testimony, the DNA that Blatz is now calling into question and a few books out of the thousands that the defendant owned (which should never have been admitted as evidence). Oh, and the defendant's incompetence when acting as his own lawyer.

There should be a retrial, and if the state can't come up with anything better than it did the first time around, Waseem Daker should go free. Whether or not he "seems guilty" is irrelevant.
tired of it
|
April 06, 2013
Sounds like this lady is crazy but i still believe the defendant is GUILTY and should stay behind bars.
Anonymous122
|
November 29, 2013
Watching the story on NBC Dateline. That Lottie lady is one hot mess. What a loser!
Curious one
|
April 05, 2013
Who is the judge and what do they have to say about the case?
anonymous in cobb
|
April 05, 2013
It is obvious to anyone who followed this trial that Lottie Blatz is being manipulated by a convicted murderer who CONTINUES to stalk her from inside a prison. The citizens of Cobb County should not be asked to pay for another trial due to the instability of a mentally incompetent witness who stopped taking her meds AFTER the trial. Her testimony only offered an explanation of why Karmen Smith and her innocent son were the victims. The prosecution proved their case that Daker was guilty without Lottie Blatz.
Just Wait
|
April 05, 2013
It appears she either needs to seek treatment for a mental disorder or be prosecuted and jailed for lying.
Dont know
|
April 05, 2013
Don't know if she is, but what if she isn't. Maybe she did it?
anonymous
|
April 05, 2013
At this point, anything could be possible. Did she really lie? Is somebody paying her lots and lots of money to make the most recent statements? Who the heck knows.

We certainly cannot judge from a few news stories, however, and we must have some confidence in those who will have to look again at this matter.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides