Chapter Ten

[The information contained on this site is not approved or connected to the City of Upper Arlington. Nobody has ever been charged with the murder of Asenath Dukat or the assualt on Canterbury Lane on May 7th, 1980. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.]

Through a partnership with the Upper Arlington Police Department, we have gained insight that will become discoverable upon the release of public records. The case is currently in inactive status. This does not prevent the UAPD from investigating new, actionable information if it is brought to their attention, however they are actively preparing the case files for public release.

Based on our investigation and discussion with the UAPD, suspect1 and suspect2 have enough circumstantial and scientific evidence, as well as a personal connection between them, to warrant a primary focus of the case moving forward.

The key to this case is making connections across the three abductions that occurred on May 7th, June 3rd and September 27th 1980. If you look at the timeline of events and witness statements, the UAPD investigators were often flummoxed by the conflicting descriptions provided by witnesses and the associated timelines as to where and when the suspects were seen. This is likely because the police were initially looking for a single perpetrator of these crimes, not two. 

For example if a witness saw suspect1 at the scene and provided a description, it would conflict with a second witness who saw suspect2. As mentioned in the narrative, both suspect1 and suspect2 had very different height, weight and hairstyles. These witness conflicts could have potentially provided exculpatory evidence for each of the suspects at that time. At the same time, as reported in earlier chapters, it is highly unlikely that these crimes are not connected, namely three girls of similar age, similar attack patterns, time of day and proximity to each other. We also know that both suspect1 and suspect2 were the same age, lived six houses apart and had a personal relationship. 

The key question remains, based on the high likelihood of the connectivity of the three crimes, not were the suspects involved in the three abductions, but were they together for the first two and what role did each of them play (we know that suspect1 was incarcerated during the September 27th attack and suspect2 acted alone).

What we recently learned from the UAPD cannot be denied and is the most critical evidence to date.

The UAPD has conclusive scientific DNA evidence placing suspect1 at the scene of the Asenath Dukat murder, but no physical evidence tying suspect2 to that same scene.  They have refrained from charging a deceased individual for murder. They have chosen not to release that information as they do not believe that is the end of the investigation.

UAPD also have conclusive scientific DNA evidence placing suspect2 to the May 7th Canterbury Lane attack, but no physical evidence to place suspect1 at that same scene. They are unable to charge suspect2 for the May 7th crimes as the statute of limitations has passed for the crimes committed in that event.

For this reason, the UAPD has continued to investigate the case, despite the conclusive evidence tying suspect1 to Asenath Dukat’s murder in order to continue to seek conclusive evidence to allow the prosecution of suspect2 for the murder of Asenath Dukat.

We do know, without a doubt that suspect2 was found guilty to the third abduction of a young girl on September 27th, 1980.

The UAPD has visited suspect2 as recently as Q4 2018 who continues to remain silent, referring the UAPD to his unnamed attorney.    

The Upper Arlington Police Department has faced criticism over the last 39 years for not bringing forward arrests for these crimes, however upon our investigation we’ve discovered they had likely identified the correct, suspected individuals within days (in the case of Suspect1) and weeks (in the case of Suspect2) of the murder and have actively investigated and monitored the suspects every day since. 

* Suspect2 failed a polygraph test about his alibi and whereabouts at the time of the murder.

* The UAPD found footprints at the crime scene that were similar to inked impressions of Suspect2’s shoes.

* A nurse at First Community Village was certain she saw Suspect2 riding a red bike on the village grounds at 4:30 p.m. on the day of the murder. (The associated link states we had “reason to believe” the nurse had identified Suspect2. We can now confirm that identification.)

* The murder of Asenath Dukat was very similar to the May 7, 1980 attack on Canterbury Lane, and DNA evidence has linked Suspect2 to the May 7 attack.

* Suspect2 abducted a girl near the Olentangy Commons apartment complex on September 28, 1980 (associated image from trial for this crime). He spent nearly three years in prison for that crime. The September 28 abduction was very similar to the May 7, 1980 attack on Canterbury Lane. 

     Those similarities include:

1. Both victims were young girls.
2. The May 7 attack happened in Upper Arlington. The September 27 attack happened just outside of Upper Arlington.
3. Both attacks happened in the mid-afternoon – between 3:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m.
4. Both girls were near their homes when the attacks occurred. (Columbus Citizen Journal June 5, 1980; Columbus Dispatch January 16, 1981)
5. On September 27, Suspect2 passed the victim before attacking her. (Columbus Citizen Journal January 14, 1981) On May 7, the assailant passed the victim before attacking her. (Columbus Citizen-Journal June 6, 1980) 
6. On September 27, Suspect2 grabbed the victim from behind. (Columbus Citizen Journal January 14, 1981) On May 7, the attacker grabbed the victim from behind. (UA News May 14, 1980)
7. On May 7, the attacker moved the victim to a forested area. (Columbus Dispatch June 5, 1980) On September 27, Suspect2 dragged the victim “in the direction of a deeply wooded and weeded area where few people traverse.” (Columbus Dispatch June 10, 1981)

As noted above, there were also many similarities between the May 7, 1980 attack on Canterbury Lane and the murder of Asenath Dukat. In less than five months, three very similar crimes happened in close proximity to each other – and Suspect2 was definitely involved in at least two of those crimes.

* Suspect2 was interviewed and given a polygraph exam in regards to the rape and murder of 8 year old Asenath Dukat on 6/6/80 and 6/7/80 respectively. He claimed complete innocence and provided an alibi that stated he wasn't at the scene (although near it). 

* What is the likelihood that a misidentified innocent suspect (who in retrospect uniformly failed the poygraph exam), who had nothing to do with that rare and specific crime, would subsequently commit a very similar, very specific crime roughly two months later? In simpler terms, if you were mistakenly identified as rape and murder suspect against a child with no proclivity to commit this type of crime, would you follow-up that traumatic questioning by going and committing that very same crime that you were recently questioned about? 

* Suspect2 owned a dark red Concord 27” 10-speed bike. The alibi concocted by Suspect2 put him on that bike about a half-mile from the crime scene at the time of the murder. Of course, Suspect2 failed a polygraph regarding the details of his alibi. Assuming he wasn’t being truthful about his whereabouts at the time of the murder, why would Suspect2 concoct an alibi that put him so close to the crime scene, at the time of the murder, on a red bike?

* A subject matching Suspect2’s general description was seen in the area on the day of the murder.

* Suspect2 grew up six houses north of Suspect1 on the same road near Northam Park, and DNA evidence has linked Suspect1 to the murder of Asenath Dukat.

* Just before his June 7, 1980 polygraph exam, Suspect2 admitted he had been to the crime scene before with Suspect1. Why would Suspect2 tell police he had been to the crime scene with somebody who was definitely involved in the murder? If it was purely coincidental, what are the odds that Suspect2 just so happened to name the killer?

* It should be noted that Suspect2 was a suspect in even more crimes in 1980, particularly a series of attacks on the OSU campus.

* Despite substantial circumstantial and physical evidence associating Suspect2 with the crimes on May 7, 1980 and June 3, 1980, Suspect2 refuses to cooperate with the investigation or attempt to clear his name in any fashion other than silence::

•  Unknown date in May 1990: The UAPD attempts to question Suspect2 while he visits with his former fiancée. To avoid questioning, Suspect2 runs out a rear door to a payphone at 9th Avenue and North High Street. Ten minutes later, Suspect2’s mother arrives and picks him up.
• Unknown date in either May or June 1990: The UAPD talks with Suspect2 for approximately 30 minutes at an undetermined location. Suspect2 then calls his mother. She arrives at the location, picks up Suspect2, and advises him not to go anywhere with the police.
• October 11, 2007: The UAPD learns that DNA evidence links Suspect2 to the May 7, 1980 attack on Canterbury Lane.
• November 8, 2018: The UAPD visits Suspect2 at his place of employment. Suspect2 refuses to talk about the Dukat case or the May 7, 1980 attack. Suspect2 advises the UAPD to talk to his attorney.  

One of the most important questions in this case regards the connection between Suspect1 and Suspect2. There seems to be one moment when the investigation brought them together for a fleeting moment, and it’s an interesting interaction.

In the pre-interview before Suspect2’s polygraph exam on June 7, 1980, the polygraph examiner learned that Suspect2 and his friend, Suspect1, used to go to Frankenstein’s Cave to do drugs. (According to the case files, Suspect2 referred to Suspect1 as his “friend.”) Significantly, Frankenstein’s Cave is roughly 50-100 feet from the spot where Asenath Dukat was murdered, and DNA evidence has linked Suspect1 to the crime. 

It is not entirely clear how or why Suspect2 disclosed the information about visiting Frankenstein’s Cave with Suspect1. Did the polygraph examiner specifically ask Suspect2 about this? Or did Suspect2 volunteer this information for whatever reason? One could assume that Suspect2 would have been asked about Suspect1. After all, they were roughly the same age and grew up six houses apart from each other on the same street. However, the timing of the investigation into Suspect1 casts doubt on this assumption. 

Both Suspect1 and Suspect2 attracted police attention during the earliest stages of the investigation, while the UAPD tracked down dozens and dozens of tips and leads. (A June 8, 1980 Columbus Dispatch article states the UAPD had already questioned “50 to 60 suspects.”) A lead detective interviewed Suspect2 at 7:00 p.m. on June 6 and again at 9:15 a.m. the next morning. After the two interviews, Suspect2’s polygraph exam was scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on June 7. Also on June 7, the UAPD started to investigate Suspect1’s whereabouts on the day of the murder. In fact, Suspect2’s polygraph exam happened at roughly the same time as the initial interviews of Suspect1’s friends and acquaintances. Accordingly, at the time of the polygraph exam, the UAPD didn’t even know whether Suspect1 had an alibi or not. As a result, it does not seem likely that Suspect1 was a prime suspect when Suspect2 took his polygraph exam. Furthermore, the detective who initially interviewed Suspect2 on June 6 and 7 did not ask Suspect2 about Suspect1. If the UAPD had considered Suspect1 to be a prime suspect at the time, it seems likely this detective would have asked Suspect2 about Suspect1 on either June 6 or 7. Again, all of this raises the question: How or why did Suspect2 disclose to the polygraph examiner that he had been to Frankenstein’s Cave with Suspect1?

In an interesting development, after taking his polygraph exam, Suspect2 seemed to backtrack on his previous comments. On June 10, 1980, a UAPD detective (the same detective who interviewed Suspect2 on June 6 and 7) asked Suspect2 about his association with Suspect1. This time, Suspect2 said that he was not a very good friend of Suspect1 and that the trip to the river with him was “a couple of years ago.” (Frankenstein’s Cave goes under Route 33 and exits on the other side at the Scioto River.) Pictured below is Suspect2's answer when asked about last seeing Suspect1. 

Suspect2’s June 7, 1980 polygraph examination was an important factor in the early investigation. The UAPD polygraph examiner determined that Suspect2 had been truthful in his answers. Almost 10 years later, however, it was determined that the polygraph examiner had misread the results and that Suspect2 had not been truthful. Because of the misread results, Suspect2 was tentatively cleared and his picture was not shown to key witnesses during the earliest stages of the investigation. For example, numerous witnesses saw a subject (or subjects) with some variation of dark hair, dark pants, and/or a white shirt throughout the area. One of those witnesses was shown photographs of possible suspects on June 13. Then, on June 16, another one of those witnesses was shown photographs of possible suspects. We do not believe a picture of Suspect2 was included among the photographs on either June 13 or June 16. But a picture of Suspect1 was included both times. (In fact, one witness tentatively identified Suspect1. The other witness did not pick out any of the photographs.)

The UAPD began actively investigating Suspect2 after he attacked a 13-year-old girl on September 27, 1980. Because of the misread polygraph results, the UAPD pursued other leads and suspects for nearly four months before focusing on Suspect2. It is impossible to know whether the case would have turned out differently if law enforcement had started investigating Suspect2 immediately after the polygraph exam. However, it is interesting to note that Suspect2 was tentatively cleared just as the UAPD started investigating Suspect1. Suspect2’s polygraph exam was on June 7, and the UAPD first interviewed Suspect1 on June 8. One can only wonder what would have happened if law enforcement had actively investigated both suspects – at the same time – in the immediate few days after the crime.

There are multiple indications that two people could have been involved in the murder of Asenath Dukat. Several witness accounts near the crime scene support this possibility.

On the day of the murder at approximately 3:10 p.m., a witness who lived on Waltham Road saw a man near the corner of Waltham and Hillside. According to her June 14, 1980 interview, this witness could have possibly seen two men, not just one. This witness was hypnotized on June 17. While under hypnosis, the witness apparently identified the photographs of two different men who were similar to the man she saw. 

At the end of the hypnosis notes, it says: 

“Possibility of 2 persons involved" 

"Check out who # 4 on left + # 2 on right is” 

(We have included these hypnosis notes below.)

At approximately 3:30 p.m. on the day of the murder, a woman who lived on Abington Road saw two “juveniles” looking in the grass near the fire hydrant at the corner of Waltham and Route 33.

While out looking for Asenath around 3:50 p.m., two nine-year-old boys who lived on Malvern Road saw two 18-to-20-year-old men by the phone booth at the service station on the corner of Waltham and Route 33. According to one of the nine-year olds, one man had blond hair and the other man had light brown hair. The boys rode their bicycles into First Community Village over the service road off Waltham, rode through the village grounds looking for Asenath, and then returned to Waltham over the service road. As they returned to Waltham, the boys saw the same two men hanging around the entrance to the service station.

With two good suspects and so much circumstantial evidence, why weren't charges filed? After reviewing the police files, we believe there are finally some answers to that question.  

For ease, instead of “Suspect1” and “Suspect2,” this post will use the names used in the Crime Junkie podcast about this case. That episode is dated June 8, 2020. Suspect1 is “Brad.” Suspect2 is “Carl.” 

• Carl’s Polygraph Exam: Carl failed a polygraph exam on June 7, 1980. Unfortunately, however, his polygraph results were misread at the time. As a result, the UAPD thought Carl had passed his polygraph exam, and he was cleared as a suspect just five days into the investigation. The UAPD did not actively start investigating Carl until they learned he had attacked a 13-year-old girl on September 27, 1980 – nearly four months after the murder of Asenath Dukat. Carl was simply not a focus for 113 crucial days during the early part of the investigation. Because of this, key witnesses were not shown Carl’s picture during follow-up interviews in June and July 1980. For example, a nurse was 10-out-of-10 certain she saw Carl riding a red bike in First Community Village at 4:30 p.m. on June 3, 1980. But she came to that realization only after seeing Carl on the news months later, not after being shown his picture by investigators. Things may have been very different if the nurse had identified Carl in June 1980 instead of January 1981. (The nurse was first interviewed by the UAPD on June 6, 1980. During that interview, she described the man on the bike as a white male, tall, thin, dark hair, 18-20 years old. This was essentially a general description of Carl. The nurse was interviewed again on June 29, 1980, and January 23, 1981.)

• Brad’s Alibi: Brad had an alibi for the afternoon of June 3, 1980. An Upper Arlington family said that Brad was at their house that afternoon. Obviously, decades later, DNA evidence has linked Brad to the rape and murder of Asenath Dukat. But DNA evidence was not available in 1980, and Brad’s alibi caused the UAPD to discount Brad as a suspect. In fact, shortly after Brad’s suicide in June 1984, one of the lead investigators told a newspaper reporter that Brad “was never a really good suspect.” After reviewing the police files, it is unclear how to reconcile the alibi with the DNA evidence. Was Brad at the Upper Arlington family’s house on June 3, 1980? It’s certainly possible. That house was just a 10-minute bike ride (and a 5-minute car ride) from the murder scene. Therefore, it is possible that Brad was at the Upper Arlington family’s house either shortly before or after the abduction of Asenath Dukat. (In light of what we know today, this is a definite possibility. At the time, however, the UAPD seemingly discounted this possibility as they theorized (a) that only one perpetrator was involved and (b) that Asenath was murdered two-or-more hours after she was abducted.) Another possibility: Did the Upper Arlington family make a mistake regarding the day Brad was at their house? The Upper Arlington family’s description of Brad’s clothes does not match the description given by multiple witnesses who saw Brad later that afternoon and evening. Brad also never mentioned the Upper Arlington family when he was interviewed by the UAPD on June 8, 1980. The UAPD asked Brad where he was between 3:00 and 5:30 p.m. on the day of the murder, and Brad did not mention being at the Upper Arlington family’s house. Regardless, the alibi hindered any further investigation or potential prosecution of Brad.

• The Timing of the Investigations into Brad and Carl: Brad and Carl grew up on the same     street, six houses apart from each other. They were both 20-years old in June 1980. They definitely knew each other. According to Carl, they had even been to Frankenstein’s Cave together at some point. They had at least one other thing in common. They were both violent criminals who preyed upon young girls. DNA evidence has linked Brad to the rape and murder of Asenath Dukat. Carl spent nearly three years in prison for attacking a 13-year-old girl on September 27, 1980. DNA evidence has also linked Carl to the May 7, 1980 attack on a 9-year-old girl near Canterbury Lane. However, the UAPD did not really investigate Brad and Carl at the same time. Carl was “cleared” on June 7, 1980, after the UAPD mistakenly thought he passed a polygraph exam. The active investigation into Brad essentially started that very same day. As a result, the UAPD no longer considered Carl a suspect just as they started investigating Brad. Similarly, the UAPD had moved on from Brad as a prime suspect when they started investigating Carl in September 1980. By that time, the UAPD had learned about Brad’s alibi the afternoon of the murder. If the UAPD had considered both Brad and Carl suspects at the same time, it seems likely investigators would have made the connection between their two best suspects.

• The timing issues probably impacted the value of the physical evidence to investigators. Instead of looking at the physical evidence in connection with both suspects, the UAPD probably considered the physical evidence in relation to either Carl or Brad as individual suspects. Because of that, at least some of the physical evidence tended to be exculpatory in nature. For example, the FBI determined that footprints found at the crime scene matched Carl’s shoes in all observable characteristics as to design, design size, and general wear patterns. But those footprints did not match Brad’s shoes. That evidence would tend to implicate Carl and eliminate Brad as a suspect. But other physical evidence did just the opposite. On December 5, 1980, Columbus Police investigators determined that a hair found on the body of Asenath Dukat was “similar” to a hair recovered from Brad’s undershorts. Earlier, however, the FBI determined the hair recovered from Asenath Dukat’s body could not have originated from Carl. As a result, in this instance, the evidence would tend to implicate Brad and eliminate Carl as a suspect. If the timing was different, and the UAPD had made the connection between the two suspects, the physical evidence might have been more helpful.

• Carl’s Lineup: On September 30, 1980, Carl was arrested for attacking a 13-year-old girl near the Olentangy Commons apartment complex. That same day, Carl was in a lineup at the Franklin County Jail. The victim of the attack on Canterbury Lane identified Carl during that lineup. Earlier in the investigation, the UAPD had interviewed a woman who lived near the scene of the attack on Canterbury Lane. This woman was a neighbor of the victim, and it was believed the neighbor had seen the attacker on May 7, 1980. As a result, this neighbor was also at the Franklin County Jail for Carl’s lineup. But the neighbor did not pick Carl out of the lineup. Instead, she identified “none” of the men and told police she saw a much shorter man with a different hairstyle. Years later, we have learned that DNA evidence links Carl to the attack on Canterbury Lane. And yet, the neighbor did not identify Carl during the police lineup. From the beginning of the investigation, the UAPD believed the person responsible for the attack on Canterbury Lane was also responsible for the murder of Asenath Dukat. The neighbor’s failure to identify Carl during the police lineup must have made the investigation or any potential prosecution more difficult (for either the May 7, 1980 attack or the Dukat murder). 

• Why didn’t the neighbor identify Carl? Did she simply make a mistake? Or could she have seen somebody else? Because the neighbor described seeing a much shorter man, it’s worth noting that Brad is about six-or-seven inches shorter than Carl. Furthermore, there is circumstantial evidence that links Brad to the May 7, 1980 attack on Canterbury Lane. Before Carl’s police lineup, both the victim of the attack on Canterbury Lane and the friend she was walking home with identified Brad’s picture during a photo lineup. They both said Brad looked the most like the man they had seen shortly before the attack. Additionally, a confidential informant told the UAPD that Brad had become paranoid since about the first week of May 1980. This informant also said that, sometime after the May 7 attack, Brad had suddenly stopped riding his bicycle. Finally, during his only interview with the UAPD, Brad accounted for his time on just one date other than June 3, 1980. Without being asked about specific dates, Brad mentioned that he went to a Frank Zappa concert on May 6, 1980 – the night before the attack on Canterbury Lane. The UAPD simply asked Brad, “Have you ever done any drugs other than grass?” In response, Brad mentioned the May 6, 1980 concert as a specific time when he did not do drugs.

• Asenath's age at the time of her murder on June 3, 1980: 8
• Barrington Road Elementary School enrollment, 1980: ~760
• Time between Asenath's school dismissal and her reported being missing (in minutes): <60^
• Asenath's walking distance from Barrington Road Elementary School to her home (in miles): 0.9
• Distance police believed Asenath was moved from the field where she was sexual assaulted to the culvert where she was murdered (in feet): ~300^
• Distance from the culvert where Asenath's body was found to her home (in yards): <300^
• Number of vehicles, logged by UAPD, that traveled Asenath's route on the day of her murder and after: >350^^
• Number of separate attacks against children believed to be perpetrated by the same unknown-subject-of-investigation: 2^
• Distance UAPD believed the unknown-subject-of-investigation lived in relation to both crime scenes (in miles): <2^^^ 
• Total officers, UAPD, 1980: 46*
• UAPD officers dedicated to case in June, 1980: 12*
• Hours of UAPD overtime in first three weeks: 780****
• Phone call tips within first week: >400*
• People identified for questioning (mostly UA residents) first three months: 265**
• UAPD officers dedicated to the case in September, 1980: 2.5*****
• Independent psychological profiles developed of unknown-subject-of-investigation: 3^^^
• Safety Spots distributed to UA residents after one year: 564
• Reward fund (Child Watch) established and funded by UA residents after one year (in dollars): >8000
• Totals after one year post Asenath's murder: 12,000 UAPD man hours, 4,500 interviews, 1,700 pages of reports, 590 suspects^^
• Publicly named suspects: 2*** 
• UA streets named/listed as residences of both publicly named suspects: 1***
• Charges filed/arrests in the rape and murder of Asenath Dukat: 0

The Long Walk Home Team

References: *Columbus Dispatch, 6/8/80 **Columbus Dispatch, 6/14/80 *** Columbus Dispatch, 6/13/80; 10/1/80 **** Columbus Dispatch, 6/17/80 *****Columbus Dispatch, 9/5/80 ^Columbus Citizen Journal, 6/5/80 ^^ Columbus Citizen Journal, 5/18/81 ^^^ Columbus Dispatch, 6/18/80; Columbus Citizen Journal, 6/19/80; Upper Arlington News 6/25/80