GOP election official on trial for murdering tenant texted he was driving her ‘nuts’

‘She presents such a danger to the community that in this moment, on video, she turned and killed an individual who was only nothing to her,’ prosecutor says

Former Republican election official Ellen Wink is on trial for murder (Norwalk Police Department)

A former Connecticut GOP election official on trial for allegedly murdering her tenant allegedly said that he was “driving me nuts”.

Ellen Wink, 61, who was fired after her arrest, appeared in court on Wednesday, with prosecutors saying they have evidence to reject her claim that she was defending herself.

Ms Wink, from Norwalk, has been charged with fatally shooting 54-year-old Kurt Lametta on 20 January. Mr Lametta was supposedly wounded four times, but Ms Wink reportedly said she had discharged her firearm five times and that Mr Lametta was “(expletive) driving me nuts”, Law&Crime reported.

A witness said he heard one gunshot followed by a pause and a number of additional shots, adding that Mr Lametta was “a big bully” and that Ms Wink was “afraid” of the tenant.

According to the Stamford Advocate, a police report said that Ms Wink quickly claimed that she had acted in self-defence. It was reported that he “came” at her when she went to his residence to clean.

“She entered the property of 16 Nelson Avenue with a gun, confronted the tenant, in this case, the victim, Mr Kurt Lametta, and shot him five times,” prosecutor Michelle Manning said during the hearing on Wednesday. “She left the premises and called 911, and the first thing out of her mouth on that 911 call is an indication she came after her.”

Ms Manning said Ms Wink “made this allegation that Mr Lametta was after her” when she was still at the scene of the supposed killing, claiming that “she acted in a self-defence capacity”.

The prosecutor said investigators found cellphone footage showing “the entire incident. The victim, in this case, had recorded — pressed record on his cell phone — the moment Ms Wink entered the premises”.

Ms Manning alleged that Ms Wink “walked out” with Mr Lametta’s phone “as he, essentially, lay dying”.

“The video completely belies any self-defence claim,” Ms Manning said. “It shows, very clearly, a conversation between Mr Lametta and Ms Wink, at which point in no way, shape, or form, does the victim come after Ms Wink. Around three minutes into the video she turns to him, fires a gun, and starts shooting. The victim in the video tries to run away from her, and it’s very clear she follows. It’s also very clear in the video that she picks up the cell phone and threw it outside.”

Prosecutors argued that Ms Wink threw the phone to stop Ms Lametta from calling for help, Law&Crime reported.

“In the state’s view, this video clearly belies any self-defence claims as well as indicates a very clear understanding that the defendant is an extreme danger to the community,” Ms Manning said. “And, as such, the state feels that the million-dollar bond is very small in light of that. That’s really the easiest way to say it, your honour. She presents such a danger to the community that in this moment, on video, she turned and killed an individual who was only nothing to her. The state is asking at this point for a $5m bond.”

The $1m bond was set before the judge had seen the video.

Defence attorney Stephan Seeger pushed back, saying that the video doesn’t “eradicate” Ms Wink’s self-defence claim.

“I certainly don’t view the video the same way as the state does,” he said. “There’s a characterisation that the entire incident is captured. That, I would disagree with. We don’t know what happens before.”

“One million dollars is a lot of money,” Mr Seeger said before rejecting the prosecution’s claim that Ms Wink tried to stop Mr Lametta from calling for aid.

“The record makes clear she also made a 911 call,” he said. The lawyer added that he was unsure if the prosecution had “snipped” parts of the video to make Ms Wink appear guilty.

“She concocted the story right away in her 911 call that the victim came after her,” Ms Manning responded, claiming that the video shows that Ms Wink “lied” about her actions being in self-defence.

“She indicated that not only to the dispatcher but also to the individual who was in her house as well. You can hear that on the 911 call, that he came after her,” Ms Manning said. “It’s very clear in the state’s view that this is a different perception of what was reflected in the initial paperwork and the initial disclosure because of the fact that this video completely negates the fact that there’s a self-defence claim in the state’s view as well as shows she lied about it relatively quickly right after when she called 911. She had already concocted the story.”

“These facts are totally incommensurate with the story,” the defence responded. “Mrs Wink didn’t run anywhere. She stayed where she was. She knew she was going to be arrested. She didn’t run. She didn’t go anywhere. On this video — I don’t know how you can make a decision.”

“If we’re going to be considering the video today, then I would request that it does get unsealed and the court does view it, and I’ll tell you why. Because it’s essentially an audiotape, and the video is upside-down, and when Mrs Wink makes statements about people coming after her, there’s nothing in the video that says — that demonstrates that’s not true,” the defence lawyer said. “You can’t see the victim’s arms. You can’t see what the victim is doing. You can’t see any motions that he makes. All you can do is hear. So, with that in mind, I don’t know how the court can change the playing field here and just assume what the state’s saying is true.”

Judge Gary White noted that he had seen the video, calling it “quite graphic”.

“I’m not saying it’s the be-all and end-all, but I think it certainly strengthens the state’s case, and it indicates a very violent and brutal encounter between your client and the alleged victim,” he added.

The judge said Ms Wink’s bond should be increased to $2.5m. The video hasn’t been made public.