The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project
"Ian" and "Nate": Lost in the Shuffle?
Blog Post One
Two men were questioned multiple times in the early part of the investigation. It’s not entirely clear whether the UAPD viewed these men as witnesses or suspects, but they were both near the crime scene around the time Asenath Dukat was abducted. We have debated how to introduce these two men into the discussion about the Dukat case. To be clear, we are not suggesting or implying there is any connection between these two men and the crimes committed against Asenath Dukat. But what these men saw – or didn’t see – is an important part of the investigation. We will use pseudonyms for these two men.
Ian lived on Malvern Road, very close to First Community Village. He was in the Upper Arlington High School Class of 1978. Ian’s friend, Nate, was also in the UAHS Class of 1978. Nate lived near Northam Park. Both Ian and Nate attended Jones Junior High School before attending UAHS. Robert 'Chris' Winchester was also in the UAHS Class of 1978.
On June 3, 1980, Ian and Nate spent the morning and part of the afternoon together. They ended up at Arlington Nautilus in the mid-afternoon. Arlington Nautilus was a fitness center located at the corner of Fishinger Road and Riverside Drive. Nate said he left Arlington Nautilus around 3:45 p.m. He then drove his motorcycle south on Riverside, turned left on Waltham Road, and claims to have been on Waltham at approximately 3:50 p.m.
It’s not entirely clear when Ian left Arlington Nautilus, but there is reason to believe he left a little after 4:00 p.m. and arrived home around 4:20 p.m. When Ian got home, he took his German Shepherd into the field at First Community Village. This field was, of course, the crime scene. Asenath’s items were found underneath some trees and bushes in the field, and her body was found in a culvert adjacent to the field. Multiple witnesses saw Ian in the field that afternoon. We will elaborate on Ian’s time in the field in a later post, but for now, it appears as though Ian and his dog were in the field from approximately 4:25 p.m. until as late as 5:15 p.m. Various witnesses saw Ian in the field at approximately 4:30-4:35 p.m., then around 4:45 p.m., and again at 5:10 p.m. Ian himself said he might have been in the field as late as 5:15 p.m. After leaving the field, Ian walked north on Malvern Road. He then talked to a woman who lived in a house almost directly across from the Dukat residence. This woman had been mowing her lawn, and she confirmed talking to Ian for at least thirty minutes that day. After the talk was over, Ian said that he returned to his house. But a man leaving the service station across from First Community Village claimed he saw Ian in the field at approximately 5:45 p.m.
In future updates, we will discuss Ian and Nate in greater detail.
The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project
The Field
Blog Post Two
In our first post we discussed Ian and Nate for the first time. We wrote that Ian had been in the field at First Community Village from approximately 4:25 p.m. until as late as 5:15 p.m. (and maybe even later than that) on June 3, 1980. In this post, we will focus on Ian’s time in the field and how his story evolved during the investigation.
Asenath Dukat was last seen near the corner of Waltham Road and Arlington Avenue at approximately 3:20 p.m. on June 3. A few minutes before 7:30 p.m. that night, her body was found in a culvert adjacent to the field at First Community Village. (A witness confirmed that Asenath’s body was not in the culvert at approximately 4:00 p.m. that afternoon.) Asenath’s belongings were found the next morning under some trees and bushes in that same field.
Ian lived on Malvern Road, very close to First Community Village. He had been with Nate at Arlington Nautilus the afternoon of June 3.
Nate said he left Arlington Nautilus at around 3:45 p.m., and Ian said he left around 4:15 p.m. (The manager of Arlington Nautilus remembered that Nate left before Ian that day. The manager also believed that Ian left “a little after” 4:00 p.m.)
At an unknown time on June 6, 1980, Ian told a UAPD officer that he (Ian) had been walking his dog through the field at 5:00 p.m. on June 3 and had seen nothing except for an older man leaving First Community Village.
Also on June 6, the mother of a Jones Junior High School student told the UAPD that her daughter had seen a man playing ball with his dog in the field “about [the] time of [the] assault.”
At 5:40 p.m. on June 6, a UAPD officer interviewed the Jones Junior High School student. The student was walking west on Waltham on June 3, and the officer’s report states: “Around 4:28 pm she would have passed her brother around Hillside (on Waltham) as he was headed to the IGA. As soon as she arrived home she would have got on her bicycle (4:35 pm) and rode east on Waltham also en route to the IGA store. Either on her first trip home or en route to the IGA store she observed a male playing with his German Shepherd in the area (grassy) just south of Waltham at Malvern. She stated he was throwing a ball for the dog to fetch. She believes the subject lives [where Ian lived at the time].”
After talking to the Jones student, the UAPD officer visited Ian’s house later that evening. The officer interviewed Ian’s dad, and the officer’s report states: “His son [Ian], 20, likely would have been with his dog around that time frame but [Ian] was not home [now] and is to return my call.”
On June 7, 1980, Ian returned to Arlington Nautilus and asked the manager of Arlington Nautilus what hours he (Ian) had been working out on June 3. The manager said he could not recall specifically. When asked about this several days later, Ian stated: “he was trying to pin down the exact times he would have been there if it could help remember anything else.”
We will continue our discussion of Ian’s time in the field in our next post.
The image at right shows where the Jones student saw Ian around 4:30-4:35. It's marked with a "3".
To be continued.
The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project
The Ticket
Blog Post Three
In our July 6 post, we discussed Ian and Nate for the first time. Most recently, we started our discussion about Ian’s time in the field at First Community Village. Today, we will focus on Nate’s whereabouts the afternoon of June 3, 1980.
On June 11, 1980, Officer Franklin interviewed Ian at his home on Malvern Road. For an unknown reason, Nate was also at Ian’s house during this interview. It is unclear whether (1) Nate was asked to be there or (2) he happened to be at Ian’s house coincidentally. Regardless, from the way the report was written, it appears as though Ian was the focus of this particular interview. During the interview, Ian and Nate told Officer Franklin about their activities on June 3, 1980. Ian and Nate were both at Arlington Nautilus that afternoon. Ian said he got home “no earlier than 4:25PM at which time he took his dog out to play in the field. He said he played in the field about 20 minutes….” (Of course, this is different from what Ian had previously told the UAPD. Ian had originally said he walked his dog through the field at 5:00 p.m. Ian’s story would continue to evolve over the next several weeks.) Nate also explained where he was the afternoon of June 3.
Nate said he left Arlington Nautilus at 3:45 p.m., drove his motorcycle south on Route 33, and then turned left on Waltham Road. According to the timeline prepared by the UAPD, Nate was on Waltham Road at approximately 3:50 p.m. Nate said he rode east on Waltham towards Miller Park, where he hoped to see an Upper Arlington city employee. Apparently, the employee wasn’t there because Nate claimed he got a traffic ticket in Grandview at 4:00 p.m.
The UAPD checked with Grandview police about Nate’s traffic ticket. Initially, there was no record of Nate having received a traffic ticket on June 3. In a June 12, 1980 report, Officer Long wrote, “checked and found ‘no record’ with Grandview…ticket was issued on 6-5-80.” This discrepancy created suspicion for the UAPD. In an undated report documenting 19 bullet points about Ian and Nate, an officer wrote: “H Longs (sic) report shows [Nate] received ticket in Grandview on 6/5/80 by Sgt. Bandy. [Ian and Nate] were together during this interview. Could they have the dates mixed up accidently or on purpose?” (We will share the UAPD’s 19 bullet points in a later post.)
Later, the UAPD learned that Nate did indeed receive a traffic ticket on June 3, 1980. On July 15, 1980, Officer Franklin wrote: “Drove to Grandview Police and spoke with John Alcorn who was able to verify through radio log sheets that [Nate] did receive a traffic citation on June 3, 1980, at 4:45 p.m. The date of June 5 was erroneously written at the top of the ticket and now has been changed.”
Although there is a small discrepancy within the case files regarding the time Nate received the traffic ticket on June 3, the evidence suggests he received the ticket at 4:45 p.m. Assuming that is the case, there is almost an hour in the area of Waltham Road, Miller Park, and Ian’s house that is unaccounted for.
To be Continued.
The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project
The Changes
Blog Post Four
On June 11, 1980, the UAPD interviewed Ian and Nate at Ian’s house on the south end of Malvern Road. As we previously noted, it is unclear why Nate was at this interview, but he participated in the questioning along with Ian. In part, Officer Franklin summarized Ian’s interview as follows: “[Ian] stated that his girlfriend [REDACTED] called him at [Arlington] Nautilus at 4PM. He left Nautilus around 4:15PM arriving home no earlier than 4:25PM at which time he took his dog out to play in the field. He said he played in the field about 20 minutes and at one point was 20-25 yards from the pipe (where body was found), and does recall for unknown reasons that he saw something blue out to the right side of his vision near the end of the pipe. He showed me where this blue would have been and this was the exact location of the body when discovered. He did state that as this was out of the corner of his eye and so much junk floats down the creek that this did not arouse enough curiosity for him to look directly at the color and he did not. He did state that the dog went down in the creek (water flowing) approximately 20 yards east of where the body was found, and he was very close to the dog. After leaving the field he walked north on Malvern and stopped to talk with Mrs. [Cagney, not her real name], 1981 Malvern, who was cutting her lawn. He stated he spoke with her about an hour before arriving home around 5:30PM (?). He also related that they both commented about seeing A1 police cruiser driving in the area. He was home then until around 6PM when he believes he went out.”
The question mark after “5:30PM” was inserted by Officer Franklin, not us. Presumably, Officer Franklin had questions about the times in Ian’s story. They don’t add up. If Ian (a) got home at 4:25, (b) was in the field for about 20 minutes, (c) walked north to Mrs. Cagney’s house, (d) talked to Mrs. Cagney for about an hour, and then (e) walked south back to his own house, Ian would have arrived home around 5:50 or 5:55 p.m., not 5:30 p.m.
The following day, June 12, Detective Hammond talked to Ian about being in the field on June 3. Ian’s story was somewhat different during this interview. Detective Hammond summarized the conversation as follows: “[Ian] states that on date in question he was working his dog in area of homicide approx 25-35 yards away from culvert where body was found, between 4:20 - 4:30 pm + dog did not key on body or scene. Was playing ball with dog.”
In just seven days, Ian told three different stories about his time in the field. On June 6, Ian said he walked his dog through the field at 5:00 p.m. On June 11, Ian said he arrived home “no earlier than 4:25PM at which time he took his dog out to play in the field” for about 20 minutes. Then, on June 12, Ian said he was “working his dog” or “playing ball with dog” in the field between 4:20 - 4:30 p.m. Ian’s story would continue to change as witnesses emerged.
Finally, in response to Ian’s statement about his German Shepherd’s behavior, Detective Hammond talked to [REDACTED] at National K-9 Training. This individual advised “that if dog is trained for personal protection that dog would not key on blood or person in area if not trained in that area. Also if not on his property + playing would not be as sharp + since master would not permit him to run + say ‘no’ on his attempt to wander would not key on movement.”
To be Continued.
The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project
The Inconsistencies
Blog Post Five
This is the fifth chapter in a continuing series about Ian and Nate (not their real names). In the summer of 1980, Ian and Nate were two 20-year-old men who had been in the UAHS Class of 1978 – the same class as Robert 'Chris' Winchester. In this post, we continue our discussion of Ian’s time in the field (the crime scene) at First Community Village. Please read our previous four chapters if you have not already done so.
In the days after Ian’s initial interviews, the UAPD talked to multiple witnesses who gave information about Ian’s whereabouts on June 3. Some of these interviews appear to have been follow-ups to verify Ian’s story. But investigators also appear to have learned information from the routine canvassing of people who lived on Malvern Road.
On June 12, Officer Franklin talked to the manager of Arlington Nautilus. The manager said he was at work all day on June 3. The manager also stated: “He did recall seeing both [Ian] and [Nate] but can only place their times in the late afternoon 4:00 - 4:30 - 5:30 (very unsure). He did recall [Nate] leaving prior to [Ian] but does not recall if [Ian’s] girlfriend had called (he said she has called in the past). He did state that both individuals were there from 1-2 hours.” This is the same interview in which the manager mentioned “that Ian had been in Saturday (?) and asked what hours he [Ian] had been working out June 3rd.” The manager told Ian “he couldn’t recall specifically.” (The question mark after Saturday appears in Officer Franklin’s report.)
Detective Hammond also talked to the Arlington Nautilus manager on June 12. The manager told a slightly different story during this interview. Initially, the manager said that Ian and Nate were at Arlington Nautilus almost every day, including June 3. But in this interview, the manager said, that on June 3, “[Nate] left first + [Ian] stayed until a little after 4:00 PM” (For what it’s worth, it appears the UAPD never interviewed Ian’s girlfriend to verify that she called him at Arlington Nautilus on June 3.)
On June 13, the UAPD interviewed Mrs. Cagney (not her real name), who stated: “She started mowing her lawn approx. 4:30 p.m. + finished approx. 7:00 p.m. At approx. 5:00 p.m. [Ian] walked up Malvern with his dog. They talked for approx. 30 minutes and he left.” Some notes about the interaction between Ian and Mrs. Cagney. First, Mrs. Cagney was born in 1932, so she was either 47 or 48 at the time. Ian was 20. Second, Mrs. Cagney lived almost directly across from the Dukat residence – about 750 feet away from Ian’s house. (Additionally, Ian said he talked with Mrs. Cagney for “about an hour” on June 3, not approximately 30 minutes.)
On June 12 and 13, two different UAPD officers interviewed a couple who lived on Malvern Road. The husband said he arrived home sometime after 5:00 p.m., “immediately” went to vote at First Community Village, and then cut across the creek near the Pioneer Room. The husband “[d]idn’t see anything” when he first went into the village except for a UAPD cruiser driving slowly. Subsequently, however, the husband “did see [Ian] playing with dog as he returned from voting in grassy area at 1st Community.” The husband said he saw Ian in the field at approximately 5:15 p.m. In Ian’s prior two statements to the police, he said he was in the field from either (a) approximately 4:25 - 4:45 p.m. or (b) approximately 4:20 - 4:30 p.m. Ian also said he talked to Mrs. Cagney for “about an hour before arriving home around 5:30PM.” But here, a witness claimed he saw Ian in the field at 5:15 p.m. that day. Once again, the times in Ian’s various stories do not add up. (Eventually, Ian would concede to being in the field as late as 5:10 or 5:15 p.m.)
In the early days of the investigation, numerous UAPD officers investigated dozens, if not hundreds, of leads. From June 6 through June 18, at least *eight* different officers interviewed Ian, Nate, or the various witnesses who had seen Ian on June 3. It is likely that no single investigator was able to recognize the inconsistencies in Ian’s stories for quite some time. But on July 4, 1980, a witness came forward who would sharpen the UAPD’s focus on Ian.
To be continued.
The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project
"Nate"
Blog Post Seven
The following account of Nate’s activities and criminal history was pieced together from various public records and newspapers across the country. In addition to these sources, we have heard many anecdotal stories about Nate’s propensity for violence.
This is the seventh post in a continuing series about Ian and Nate (not their real names). Please read our previous six posts if you have not already done so. We are about halfway through this series. Thus far, we have covered events that took place in June and July 1980. This series, however, will cover events as late as 2011. Before we return to 1980, this seemed like an appropriate time to share more information about Nate.
While in Upper Arlington, Nate lived near the northeast side of Northam Park. He went to Jones Junior High School and UAHS, where he was in the Class of 1978. Robert 'Chris' Winchester lived near the southeast side of Northam Park. Like Nate, Winchester was in the Class of 1978 and went to both Jones and UAHS. Although we don’t know the extent of their relationship, there is no question Nate and 'Chris' Winchester. knew each other.
The UAPD was familiar with Nate outside of the Dukat investigation. Over the next decade, multiple police departments would become familiar with Nate. From 1981-1989, he was indicted for at least nine different felonies.
In April 1981, Nate was indicted for a second-degree felony in Franklin County, Ohio. Eventually, Nate pled guilty to a lesser charge of criminal damaging and was placed on probation.
In May 1982, Nate was arrested and later indicted for felonious assault. In 1983, the indictment was dismissed when the prosecution did not bring the case to trial soon enough.
In 1985, Nate was indicted in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, for three different felonies: aggravated burglary, felonious assault, and kidnapping. Subsequently, in 1986, Nate pled guilty to the charge of felonious assault. As a result, the other two charges were dismissed, and Nate was placed on probation for two years after his prison sentence of three-to-fifteen years was suspended.
In March 1988, Nate was indicted in Franklin County, Ohio, for multiple felonies, including possession of criminal tools, having a weapon while under a disability, and a felony (or felonies) related to dangerous drugs. Obviously, these crimes would have violated Nate’s probation in the Cuyahoga County case. Nate, however, did not stick around Ohio to learn his fate. Instead, Nate had moved to Texas by the spring or summer of 1988.
Nate was in violation of his probation and facing multiple felony charges in Ohio. But Nate did not “hide out” while he was in Texas. On the contrary, in July 1988, Nate was featured prominently in an edition of the Longview News Journal. He was interviewed for a story in the paper, and two pictures of Nate accompanied the story. The story did not mention Nate’s criminal history, but the police in Gregg County, Texas, already knew about Nate – and they would soon learn more.
The following charges were filed in Gregg County, Texas, in 1988 and 1989:
In July 1988, Nate was charged with misdemeanor assault. (The result of this charge is unknown.)
In December 1988, Nate was charged with terroristic threat. (The result of this charge is unknown.)
In December 1988, Nate was charged with criminal mischief. (Nate pled guilty to this charge.)
In January 1989, Nate was charged with failure to identify. (Nate pled guilty to this charge.)
These four charges were all misdemeanors. But in June 1989, Nate was indicted for kidnapping, a felony, in Gregg County, Texas.
Shortly after the kidnapping indictment in Texas, Nate was back in court in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. In June 1989, the judge revoked Nate’s probation and ordered him to serve the original prison sentence of three-to-fifteen years in the 1985/86 Cuyahoga County case.
While serving time in Prison, Nate pled guilty to at least one count of selling dangerous drugs in the 1988 Franklin County case. Other charges in that case were dismissed.
Inexplicably, in August 1990, Nate was released from prison and put on probation for two years. It is hard to discern why Nate was released early when he (1) had a pending kidnapping indictment in Texas, (2) pled guilty to a felony (or felonies) earlier that year, (3) left the State of Ohio while on probation and facing multiple felony charges, and (4) had multiple criminal convictions while he was in Texas. Regardless, Nate served just 14 months in prison on his three-to-fifteen-year sentence.
Shortly after Nate was released from prison, the court in Gregg County, Texas, issued multiple subpoenas in Nate’s 1989 kidnapping case. But Nate would never face that indictment. He died in 1994, and the kidnapping case was eventually dismissed in 2013. (It is unclear how or why Nate avoided the kidnapping indictment while he was in prison or on probation in Ohio.)
We don’t know the circumstances behind most of these criminal charges, but obviously, many of these charges were violent in nature. Of course, Nate’s criminal history does not mean he knew more about the Dukat case than he revealed to police. Nevertheless, it is hard to ignore Nate’s criminality while looking at the various questions surrounding Nate, Ian, and the Dukat investigation.
To be continued.
The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project
"Nate" and the UAPD
Blog Post Eight
In this post, we will share how Nate inserted himself into the Dukat investigation. Some elements of this post may seem sensational or lurid. That is not why we are sharing this information. In fact, we have omitted some of the more sensational details. We are sharing this information because Nate’s “tips” are an important part of this story.
This is the eighth post in a continuing series about Ian and Nate (not their real names). In the summer of 1980, Ian and Nate were two 20-year-old men who had been in the UAHS Class of 1978 – the same class as Robert 'Chris' Winchester. Please read our previous seven posts if you have not already done so.
On July 10, 1980, Nate was at UAPD headquarters to see Detective Rothwell. It is unclear whether Nate was there because of the Dukat case, or if he was there for some other reason. While waiting at the police desk, Nate asked, “Has anyone checked out the guy who practices ‘Black Magic’ down on Waltham Rd?” This started a three-way conversation between Nate, Detective Lindsay, and Officer Fadley. From this conversation, the UAPD learned about the goings-on at a house near the corner of Waltham and Hillside Drive. This house was occupied by Tiffany (not her real name), but other people lived there, too. Nate claimed he and a friend had recently been to this house and saw some curious things. For example, the police were told a “guy lives in the basement m/w 20’s long (shoulder length) black hair who practices ‘Black Magic’. Walls supposedly are painted black and guy stays in basement until dark.”
Also on July 10, Nate met with Detective Rothwell and told another story about the house near Waltham and Hillside. Nate “indicated that after the homicide, a couple of days, he observed a dark truck drive up Waltham Road without lights on.” According to Nate, a man “got out of truck and went near ground where body was found and started to pat the ground. He then went back in the truck and was laughing. He left and pulled into the drive of [the house near Waltham and Hillside,] and subject went into residence. [Nate] does not know name of subject but knows he practices witchcraft with [Tiffany].” (This supposedly happened “a couple of days” after the murder. However, the UAPD interviewed Nate about the Dukat case on both June 11 and June 12 – more than a week after the murder. Nate did not mention this incident during his previous two interviews.)
On July 11, at 11:30 a.m., Detective Hammond visited the house near Waltham and Hillside. Tiffany was not home at the time, but another resident was. After talking to this woman, Detective Hammond went to look for the man who supposedly practiced “black magic.” While in the basement, Detective Hammond found “a room with walls painted black,” an altar, books on witchcraft, and various spices.
At 3:30 p.m. that same day, Detective Hammond returned to the house and questioned Tiffany. During this interview, Tiffany claimed the room in the basement was hers. She also claimed she practiced witchcraft, but the man identified by Nate did not. Tiffany said witchcraft is an “act performed alone” and “no other people participate.” When asked about her whereabouts on June 3, 1980, Tiffany called her business partner who said both Tiffany and the man identified by Nate had been in Pittsburgh that day. Tiffany’s business partner agreed to provide documentation to verify their alibis.
The corner of Waltham and Hillside is adjacent to First Community Village. Accordingly, both Tiffany’s house and Ian’s house were in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene. As far as we can tell, there was no further investigation into the residents of Tiffany’s house after July 11, 1980. Apparently, their alibis checked out, and no evidence linked any of them to the Dukat case. The UAPD did, however, continue to investigate Ian and Nate. To be clear, we are not sharing this post to talk about witchcraft or the room in Tiffany’s basement. Instead, we are sharing this post because Nate was providing tips to the UAPD just as the UAPD had a renewed interest in Ian and Nate.
On July 4, Martin told police he saw a man carrying a child into Ian’s yard the afternoon of the murder. On July 6, the UAPD once again interviewed Ian’s mom. Then, on July 10, Nate told the UAPD about the goings-on at Tiffany’s house. Nate’s story was vivid enough that the UAPD began investigating the residents of Tiffany’s house the very next day. Nate’s tip about “the guy who practices ‘black magic’” raises some interesting questions.
Meanwhile, the police had more questions for Ian….
To be continued.
The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project
Ian and the UAPD
Blog Post 9
On July 17, 1980, Ian appeared to stop cooperating with police. Before that happened, the UAPD continued to investigate Ian – both before and after Martin told police he saw a man carrying a limp girl into Ian’s yard on the day of the murder. As we have previously documented, Ian was in the field at First Community Village (the crime scene) that same afternoon.
This is the ninth post in a continuing series about Ian and Nate (not their real names). In the summer of 1980, Ian and Nate were two 20-year-old men who had been in the UAHS Class of 1978 – the same class as Robert 'Chris' Winchester. Please read our previous eight posts if you have not already done so.
Before Martin came forward as a witness, the UAPD interviewed several children on Malvern Road about a variety of topics. During that interview, the children were specifically asked about Ian. The police report states: “When I asked them if they knew [Ian], the [children] recognized the name but didn’t know where he lived. When I mentioned that he was the young man with the German Shepard they all knew who he was + where he lived…. The [children] stated they remember seeing [Ian] and his dog out in his yard or in the 1st Community park area many times upon returning home from school. [One of the children] remembers she and Asenath crossing Malvern Rd once to pet the dog who was being worked in his yard by [Ian]. [That child] stated that [Ian] was nice to them and answered some questions that they had about the Shepard.
Whenever they saw [Ian] in the park he was always almost directly across from his residence. None of the [children] ever remember seeing [Ian] in the extreme east end of the park. All of the [children] state that it is conceivable that Asenath would go and pet [Ian’s] dog any time she saw it. They have seen her pet several dogs and cats anytime she passed them on Malvern Rd.”
The investigation of Ian picked up after (i) Martin came forward as a witness and (ii) Nate provided his tip about the man who supposedly practiced “black magic.” On July 15, 1980, Officer Franklin did the following:
At 12:45 p.m., he drove to the Grandview Police and learned that Nate received the traffic ticket in Grandview at 4:45 p.m. on June 3, 1980. (More about Nate’s ticket here in Blog Post Three.
At 1:20 p.m., Officer Franklin called a witness who had seen Ian in the field on June 3, but the witness was not home.
At 2:15 p.m., the above-mentioned witness returned Officer Franklin’s call. This witness said “that it probably was around 4:45pm that she had seen” Ian in the field. (Other witnesses also saw Ian in the field at approximately 4:30-4:35 p.m., 5:15 p.m., and 5:45 p.m.)
According to the police report, Officer Franklin also made phone calls at 10:45 a.m., 1:34 p.m., 3:29 p.m., and 4:55 p.m. However, because of redactions in the report, we cannot say for certain who was called at those times.
Also on July 15, Detective Tyne spoke with Ian directly. Early in the investigation, multiple witnesses said they saw a white van in the vicinity of the crime scene on June 3, 1980. Ian suggested to Detective Tyne “that the white van [the UAPD was] looking for may be a QUBE TV truck as many of these are not marked.” Ian also stated he “now feels that he was in the field at 5:15 when [the man who lived on Malvern Road] saw him there” because Ian remembered seeing the man himself. This was the fourth story Ian told the UAPD about his time in the field.
On July 16, 1980, Officer Franklin called Mrs. Cagney (not her real name). She was the Malvern Road resident who lived almost directly across from the Dukats. Ian walked up Malvern Road to speak with Mrs. Cagney the afternoon of the murder. Officer Franklin “inquired as to the specific times that [Mrs. Cagney] saw [Ian] on June 3rd. She stated that it could not have been prior to 5PM and that they talked for at least 30 minutes. She felt he would have had to leave her residence between 5:30-6PM.”
Previously, Ian told the police he went home after talking with Mrs. Cagney. But a witness saw Ian in the field at approximately 5:45 p.m. the afternoon of the murder. This witness was at the service station at the corner of Waltham and Route 33. On June 14, 1980, this witness gave the following account: “[The witness] left [the service station] at 5:40 to 5:45 PM. He pulled onto Waltham then made immediate left going north on Malvern. As he was east on Waltham he saw a M/W playing with a dog. He started to brake rapidly because he thought the ‘young man’ was going to throw a frisbee or something for the door.” (The images accompanying this post are from the time log compiled by the UAPD. The number 2 represents where the witness saw Ian in the field at approximately 5:45 p.m.)
Because of Ian’s changing stories and the various witness accounts, it is hard to pinpoint Ian’s exact time in the field that day. Based on what we know, it appears Ian entered the field around 4:25-4:30 p.m. (at the latest) and then stayed in the field for at least 45-50 minutes. Then, he apparently left the field and walked 10 houses up the block to Mrs. Cagney’s house. After talking to Mrs. Cagney, did Ian return to the field? Or was Ian in the field all the way up until 5:45 p.m. – and *then* Ian walked to Mrs. Cagney’s house? Was Mrs. Cagney confused about the time she talked to Ian? Was the witness who claimed to see Ian in the field at 5:45 p.m. confused about the time? It is hard to know for certain. Nevertheless, four witnesses saw Ian in the field that day. and Ian claimed to have been in the field as early as 4:25 p.m. and as late as 5:15 p.m.
And what about Nate? He spent that morning and afternoon with Ian and placed himself on Waltham Road, near the crime scene, at 3:50 p.m. If Nate didn’t get the traffic ticket until 4:45 p.m. (instead of 4:00 or 4:05 p.m. like he told the police), where was Nate from 3:50 p.m. until 4:45 p.m.?
On July 16, 1980, Officer Franklin asked Ian to come to UAPD headquarters for what turned out to be Ian’s final interview about the Dukat case.
To Be Continued...
The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project
Ian and the UAPD Part 2
Blog Post 10
On July 16, 1980, Ian went to UAPD headquarters for what seems to be his final interview with police about the Dukat case. After that interview, Ian apparently “lawyered up” and refused to cooperate with the investigation.
This is the tenth post in a continuing series about Ian and Nate (not their real names). In the summer of 1980, Ian and Nate were two 20-year-old men who had been in the UAHS Class of 1978 – the same class as Robert 'Chris' Winchester. Please read our previous nine posts if you have not already done so.
Officer Franklin interviewed Ian for what appears to be the last time on July 16, 1980. In this post, we will largely quote from Officer Franklin’s report documenting that interview. Ian “indicated that he grew up in Upper Arlington and attended Barrington, Jones, and Upper Arlington High School…. [Ian] doubted that Asenath could have ever petted his dog as he is very apprehensive about people approaching the dog, and doubted that he would have ever talked with her although he did state he knows the [neighbor] children. I asked if [Ian] knew of other individuals that hang around in the area and aside from the [neighbor] children and their young playmates he said that there are often people cutting through the field going to First Community Village and if he did see someone that they wouldn’t stick out in his mind. When asked about the type and color of ball that he throws for his dog he answered an orange hard rubber ball but did state that he has thrown yellow tennis balls and it would be conceivable for him to have thrown a green tennis ball at some time and left it. I asked about the length of time that he played ball with his dog (June 3rd) and he said he might have been playing as late at (sic) 5:10PM (started around 4:25PM) and often plays this long or longer with the dog.”
A few notes about this portion of Ian’s interview. First, Ian’s statement contradicted the witness who said she was with Asenath when Asenath had petted Ian’s German Shepherd and talked to Ian about the dog. Ian’s statement also contradicts what he initially told the UAPD about not seeing anybody that would “stick out in his mind.” On June 6, 1980, Ian said he saw an “old man” leaving First Community Village the afternoon of the murder. Finally, the police were interested in the type of ball Ian was throwing to his dog the day of the murder. That interest could be the result of the following language in bullet point 13: “Ptm. Corrigan + I remember seeing at different times a reddish/pinkish colored rubber ball hidden in the weeds on the north side of culvert about 30 yards or so east of where body was found. When we went to look for it on June 4th, it was gone.”
(You can find the 19 bullet points about Ian and Nate here: https://www.facebook.com/TheLongWalkHomeUA/posts/1271853983245314)
The report documenting Ian’s July 16, 1980 interview continues: “My final question was in reference to his willingness of taking a polygraph exam. I said this would be primarily to confirm his accuracy and spoke to him for quite some time dispelling his apparent fear of the exam. He voiced a concern about 1) what would happen if the operator said he was lying 2) could someone be in the room with him 3) what kind of questions would be asked and if they would pertain to specific times and 4) repeatedly mentioned was ‘what if one question indicated a lie’. He stated to me that he was ‘petrified’ of the exam and although he wanted to take it he questioned it’s (sic) accuracy as if maybe his nervousness would affect the results. He felt that he should talk with his attorney prior to taking an exam. Detective Hyatt then arrived and we both spoke at some length to [Ian] answering the same questions and explaining the procedure used for testing to calm [Ian’s] apprehensiveness. After some discussion [Ian] decided to leave and contact his attorney. He advised he will get back with us hopefully tomorrow and advise us on his willingness to take said exam.”
At 10:10 a.m. on July 17, 1980, Officer Franklin spoke with Ian’s attorney. The report states: “Spoke with [Ian’s attorney] by telephone who advised that [Ian] is a client of his and he did advise [Ian] not to take the polygraph exam. Upon some discussion concerning our willingness to explain the exam and questions, and to alleviate much unnecessary investigation of [Ian’s] friends, [Ian’s attorney] did agree to speak with Detective Hyatt and indicated a possibility of negotiating [Ian’s] taking of an exam.”
At 5:07 p.m. on July 17, Officer Franklin received a phone call from Ian. The report states Ian “advised that he had talked with his attorney ([Ian’s attorney]) and was advised not to take the polygraph exam and not to talk with us further. He said it was his ([Ian’s]) feeling to take the exam and he wanted to cooperate, but felt he should follow his attorney’s advise (sic) and will.”
On July 25, 1980, Detective Worley apparently talked to Ian’s girlfriend/fiancé. The report states: “Talked with [REDACTED] ref. arranging time for interview. She asked if any of the [REDACTED] were going to be about her fiancé, [Ian]. I told her there may be a couple of questions about [Ian]. She stated [Ian’s] attorney advised her not to answer any questions about him [Ian].
“I advised her there were questions that would have to be answered and if neither she nor [Ian] would answer them we would have to get the answers elsewhere.”
And yet, it appears the UAPD didn’t get the answers elsewhere. As far as we can tell, the investigation into Ian and Nate essentially ended. We’re not sure why, but there are some possible reasons. Officer Franklin apparently left the UAPD shortly after Ian’s final interview. The UAPD also pared down the team investigating the Dukat case. Finally, Suspect1 became a prime focus of the investigation in June and July 1980. Did these developments cause the investigation into Ian and Nate to slip through the cracks? We don’t know. But we do know the UAPD received several tips about Ian and Nate over the years, including a startling tip about Nate that was given to the police in 2009. We will discuss these tips in a future post.
The image accompanying this post appears to be Officer Franklin’s preparation for, and notes from, Ian’s July 16, 1980 interview.
To Be Continued.
The Long Walk Home; The Asenath Dukat Project
Timeline & Connections
Blog Post 11
In 1990, the UAPD reached out to the television show Unsolved Mysteries. The department hoped Unsolved Mysteries would run a segment on the Asenath Dukat case. Police Chief Thomas J. Kulp wrote a letter to the show’s “New Story Department.” The letter asks for the program’s assistance, summarizes the Dukat case, and concludes: “At this point we strongly feel that someone witnessed a significant event or possibly has knowledge of who is involved and thus far has been reluctant to come forward.”
This is the eleventh post in a continuing series about Ian and Nate (not their real names). In the summer of 1980, Ian and Nate were two 20-year-old men who had been in the UAHS Class of 1978 – the same class as Robert 'Chris' Winchester. Please read our previous ten posts if you have not already done so.
In 2009, the UAPD received the following tip from one of Nate’s former classmates. (We will call this former classmate “Glenn,” not his real name.) Glenn and Nate had “struck up” a sort of friendship in the early 1980’s. And during one of their conversations, Nate had “strongly alluded” to being at the scene of – and a witness to – the murder of Asenath Dukat.
Glenn first gave this information to the UAPD in 2009, and the UAPD conducted a follow-up interview with Glenn in 2011. We will discuss Glenn’s tip in detail in a future post. But for now, we have reason to believe Glenn is a credible witness who truthfully reported what Nate had said. (That does not necessarily mean, however, that what Nate told Glenn is true.)
Before discussing Glenn’s tip in detail, this seems like an appropriate time to recap events and discuss the connections between Ian, Nate, Brent Strutner and Robert 'Chris' Winchester. We have also included some additional information that could be relevant.
*DNA evidence has linked Brent Strutner to the murder of Asenath Dukat.
*DNA evidence has linked Robert 'Chris' Winchester. to the May 7, 1980 attack on a nine-year-old girl at Canterbury Lane.
*Ian, Nate, and Robert 'Chris' Winchester. were all in the Class of 1978 at Upper Arlington High School. All three of them went to Jones and UAHS. All three of them rode motorcycles.
*Brent Strutner was in the Class of 1979. Although he was a year behind the other three men, Strutner was also 20 years old at the time of the murder. In fact, Strutner was slightly older than Ian and a few months older than Winchester.
*Nate lived across Northam Park from Robert 'Chris' Winchester. It appears Nate had lived in his house since 1960. Winchester had lived in his house since 1970 or 1971.
*Robert 'Chris' Winchester. lived six houses away from Brent Strutner’s childhood home. Strutner had lived in his house since 1965. (At the time of the murder, Strutner had an apartment near the corner of Northwest and North Star.)
*Robert 'Chris' Winchester had admittedly used drugs – including an admission he had once done drugs with Brent Strutner at Frankenstein’s Cave. Witnesses have suggested Ian and Nate were also into drugs. As we have documented, Strutner was heavily into drugs and likely a drug dealer.
*Ian lived less than 200 feet from the scene of the murder and approximately 250 feet from Frankenstein’s Cave.
*Ian and Nate spent the morning and part of the afternoon together on the day of the murder. They ended up at Arlington Nautilus that afternoon.
*At about 3:20 p.m., Martin saw a male subject carrying a limp girl into Ian’s yard.
*At about 3:25 p.m., a witness saw a man in his twenties run from Malvern Road towards First Community Village while carrying what appeared to be a child.
*Nate placed himself on Waltham Road, near the crime scene, at approximately 3:50 p.m.
*Nate apparently received a traffic ticket in Grandview at 4:45 p.m. the day of the murder. That would leave almost an hour of time unaccounted for. (Nate told police he got the ticket at 4:00 p.m.)
*Two boys searching for Asenath saw two 18-20-year-old men standing at the telephone on the north side of the service station around 3:50-4:00 p.m.
*Ian claimed that, while he was at Arlington Nautilus, he received a phone call from his girlfriend at 4:00 p.m.
*Ian’s house was adjacent to the service station at the corner of Waltham and Riverside.
*Two boys searching for Asenath saw two 18-20-year-old men standing at the telephone on the north side of the service station around 3:50-4:00 p.m.
*After riding through First Community Village, the two boys saw the same two 18-20-year-old men hanging around the Waltham entrance to the service station – this was a few dozen feet from Ian’s driveway.
*A resident who lived in First Community Village said she walked near the culvert, looked into the stream, and saw nothing at approximately 4:00 p.m.”
*Ian claims he got home around 4:20 p.m.
*Ian claims he entered the field around 4:20-4:25 p.m.
*Robert 'Chris' Winchester was seen riding his bicycle in First Community Village, in a direction away from the crime scene, at 4:30 p.m.
*Robert 'Chris' Winchester was then seen riding his bicycle by the Riverpark Apartments around 5:00 p.m.
*Brent Strutner arrived at his friend’s house on Ardleigh Road in Upper Arlington sometime between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. The friend said Suspect1 rode his bike to her house that day. Ardleigh Road is approximately a 15-minute bike ride from the crime scene.
*Four different witnesses saw Ian in the field that afternoon at approximately the following times: 4:30-4:35 p.m., 4:45 p.m., 5:10-5:15 p.m., and 5:45 p.m. (Ian’s story about his time in the field changed multiple times.)
*At some time that afternoon, Ian left the field and walked approximately 750-800 feet north on Malvern Road to talk to Mrs. Cagney, who was mowing her lawn. Mrs. Cagney lived almost directly across from the Dukats.
*Robert 'Chris' Winchester spent almost three years in prison for attacking a girl at the Olentangy Commons apartment complex on September 27, 1980.
*Brent Strutner committed suicide by jumping out of the downtown Columbus YMCA on June 8, 1984.
*Nate had a long criminal record, including multiple crimes of violence, before his death in 1994.
*Ian lawyered up and refused to take a polygraph exam or cooperate any further with the police.
Of course, none of this means Ian or Nate had any additional knowledge about the Dukat case. These could be nothing more than coincidences. But considering what Nate told Glenn, these connections and events are hard to ignore.
To Be Continued.
The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project
"Nate" & "Glenn"
Blog Post 13
On November 16, 2009, a UA resident we will call "Glenn" first told the UAPD what Nate had said about the murder of Asenath Dukat.
This is the 13th post in a continuing series about Ian and Nate (not their real names). In the summer of 1980, Ian and Nate were two 20-year-old men who had been in the UAHS Class of 1978 – the same class as Robert 'Chris' Winchester. Please read our previous twelve posts if you have not already done so.
In 2009, the UAPD was apparently investigating a case for Glenn’s family. During that investigation, Glenn approached the UAPD with a tip about the Asenath Dukat case. Apparently, many years before, Nate had told Glenn that he (Nate) knew who killed Asenath Dukat. Nate had also “strongly alluded” that he (Nate) had witnessed the murder. We cannot say if what Nate told Glenn is true. However, we believe Glenn’s report of what Nate said is credible. The UAPD questioned and investigated Nate in connection with the Dukat case. This information was never made public. Without additional information that would become available much later, Glenn could not have known (i) that Nate was ever connected to the Dukat investigation or (ii) Nate’s whereabouts the day of the murder. What we have learned in our investigation of this case tends to corroborate Glenn’s story about Nate. There would be several remarkable coincidences if Glenn had fabricated his story to the UAPD. (Again, this does not mean Nate was telling Glenn the truth. But if Glenn had fabricated the story about Nate, there would seemingly be evidence to refute Glenn’s story.)
Glenn first told the UAPD about Nate in 2009, more than 15 years after Nate died. Then, on March 3, 2011, the UAPD reinterviewed Glenn after the UAPD received the email from Conrad. The email from Conrad documented Conrad’s suspicions about Ian and Nate. (You can read Conrad’s email here in Blog Post 12.)
BLOG POST 14
In this post and the following post, we will quote from the police report of Glenn’s March 3, 2011 interview and then add our commentary on what was reported.
From the police report: Glenn stated that “in the summer of 1979 or 1980, he was working on building the playground at St. Agatha parish. He had occasion to become reacquainted with [Nate,] who’d been a classmate growing up. [Nate] said that he had been turned away by one of the priests at St. Agatha’s for counseling, and they [Glenn and Nate] struck up a friendship/counseling relationship. [Glenn] had by this point determined to go into pastoral ministry and was interested in helping [Nate]. [Glenn] characterized him as a guy who was generally quite meek around him, but he knew that he could be violent when high. During the initial days of being reacquainted[, Nate] confided in [Glenn] that the priest had refused to counsel with him and had said that he was going to hell for things he’d done. [Nate] said that he’d broken all 10 of the Commandments, to include murder.”
Notes from the Long Walk Home: Nate and Glenn were both in the UAHS Class of 1978. St. Agatha is adjacent to Northam Park. Nate lived directly across from Northam Park and roughly 1,000 feet from St. Agatha. Accordingly, it seems logical that Nate and Glenn would become reacquainted while Glenn was working on the St. Agatha playground.
From the police report: “Their relationship continued, and sometime after the summer of 1980, [Glenn] was living on campus at Norwich & High (this was either his junior or senior year at OSU). [Glenn] clearly remembered that [Nate] told him in confidence that he’d participated in some very bad deeds in his past, including raping a girl at a Billiards Hall. [Glenn] said that the confessions got to a point that [Glenn] didn’t want to know any more about [Nate’s] past.”
Notes from the Long Walk Home: In post seven of this series, we documented what we know about Nate’s criminal history, including at least nine felony indictments between 1981-1989. Two of those indictments were for kidnapping. Beyond that, we have heard many anecdotal accounts regarding Nate’s propensity for violence. This includes accounts from one of the UAPD’s lead investigators on the Dukat case. Nate was clearly a dangerous, violent person.
As before, we will quote from the police report of Glenn’s March 3, 2011 interview. The police report documents what Glenn told the UAPD about Nate. Then, we will add our commentary on what was reported.
From the police report: “[Nate] did also say that he knew that [REDACTED] had murdered Asenath Dukat, and [Nate] ‘strongly alluded’ to the fact that he was present. [Glenn] was unable to quote [Nate] exactly, but said he had mental images that were based upon the conversation. He recalled that the murder took place somewhere near the Scioto River. He said that [Nate] described a ‘gruesome’ act that involved Dukat being cornered and unable to get away. He envisioned the men as being very aggressive toward her, [REDACTED] hitting her with a rock, and presumably raping her. These statements were based on the mental imagery he had, and were not attributable to [Nate] specifically.”
Notes from the Long Walk Home: Although the name in the police report has been redacted, we have it on good authority that Nate named Suspect2 as the killer.
The murder took place near the corner of Waltham Road and Route 33, which is less than 500 feet from the Scioto River. During the attack, Asenath suffered numerous injuries, including multiple bruises, abrasions, and a lacerated liver. Ultimately, however, she died after being hit in the head with a 20-pound rock.
Nate spent most of the morning and afternoon of June 3, 1980, with his friend Ian. Ian lived about 200 feet from the scene of the murder. At approximately 3:20 p.m., a witness saw a man carrying a limp girl into Ian’s yard. Then, at 3:25 p.m., a different witness saw a man running from Malvern Road, towards the field at First Community Village, while carrying what appeared to be a child. Multiple witnesses saw Ian in this field the afternoon of the murder. These witnesses saw Ian in the field at approximately 4:30-4:35 p.m., 4:45 p.m., 5:10-5:15 p.m., and 5:45 p.m. According to these witnesses, Ian was in the immediate vicinity of where Asenath Dukat’s body was found. (Ian was apparently at Arlington Nautilus until shortly after 4:00 p.m. on June 3, 1980.)
On June 11, 1980, Nate was present for the UAPD’s initial questioning of Ian. Nate was there even though he was not under suspicion at the time. During the UAPD’s initial interview with Ian, Nate told the UAPD about his whereabouts on June 3, 1980. (Nate had been with Ian at Arlington Nautilus that afternoon. However, Nate left Arlington Nautilus before Ian did. Nate said he left around 3:45 p.m.) Nate placed himself on Waltham Road, near the crime scene, at approximately 3:50 p.m. Nate also told the UAPD he got a traffic ticket in Grandview at 4:00 or 4:05 p.m. However, Nate most likely received the ticket at 4:45 p.m. This would leave almost an hour of Nate’s time unaccounted for.
Because of DNA evidence, we know Brent Strutner participated in the murder of Asenath Dukat. As a result, we know Brent Strutner was at First Community Village sometime between 3:20 p.m. (when Asenath was last seen) and 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. (when he arrived at his friend’s house near Kingsdale). A witness also believed he saw Brent Strutner on the service road at First Community Village at 2:10 p.m. the day of the murder. A different witness saw Suspect2 riding a red bike in First Community Village at 4:30 p.m. that same day. We know that Nate, Ian, and Suspect2 all knew each other. We also know that Nate and Suspect2 knew Brent Strutner. It is likely Ian knew Brent Strutner, too. All these people who knew (or likely knew) each other were seen or placed themselves near the crime scene shortly after Asenath Dukat was abducted.
When considering these times, it is important to note the homicide took place in the culvert adjacent to the field at First Community Village. But Asenath’s body was not in the culvert as of 4:00 p.m. on June 3, 1980. The UAPD’s time chart for 4:00 p.m. states a resident of First Community Village “walked in culvert area + looked east - saw nothing.” Next to this entry, an officer wrote “Body not in Culvert 4:00 PM” in red ink.
Glenn could have known some details about the Dukat case from news reports. However, without additional information, Glenn could not have known (i) that Nate was questioned about the Dukat case, (ii) that Nate spent the morning and early afternoon of June 3, 1980, with somebody who lived in such close proximity to the murder scene, (iii) that Nate told the UAPD he was near the crime scene shortly after Asenath was abducted, (iv) that a witness saw Suspect2 in First Community Village, or (v) that four suspects who knew (or likely knew) each other were reportedly near the crime scene shortly after the abduction. None of these details were made public until we published this information.
Again, none of this proves what Nate told Glenn is true. According to one of the lead investigators on the Dukat case, Nate had a habit for stretching the truth. This could have been one of those instances. Based on Nate’s knowledge of the Dukat investigation, he could have told Glenn a story that “stretched the truth.” Nevertheless, with so much information seemingly corroborating Glenn’s account, what Glenn told the UAPD about Nate’s story appears to be credible.
BLOG POST 15
In this post, we will continue discussing what Nate told Glenn about the murder of Asenath Dukat. Apparently, many years before, Nate had told Glenn that he (Nate) knew who killed Asenath. Nate had also “strongly alluded” that he (Nate) had witnessed the murder.
This is the latest post in a continuing series about Ian and Nate (not their real names). In the summer of 1980, Ian and Nate were two 20-year-old men who had been in the UAHS Class of 1978 – the same class as Robert Chris Winchester. Please read our previous posts if you have not already done so. (You can find those posts here: https://longwalkhomeua.com/inside-tlwh.)
As before, we will quote from the police report of Glenn’s March 3, 2011 interview. The police report documents what Glenn told the UAPD about Nate. Then, we will add our commentary on what was reported.
From the police report:
From the police report: “[Glenn] described [Nate’s] demeanor as either a Little Child or as a Monster, depending on whether he was sober or on drugs or alcohol. When [Nate] came to him and told him about selling steroids[, Nate] was well known as a [MULTIPLE WORDS REDACTED]. [Glenn] encouraged him to turn himself in. When [Nate] went to prison, [Glenn] took comfort in hoping that [Nate’s] guilty knowledge of the Dukat Homicide had been made known to investigators.”
Notes from the Long Walk Home: In 1988, Nate was indicted for multiple felonies in Franklin County, Ohio. The indictment charged Nate with one-or-more felonies for selling, delivering, distributing, and possessing dangerous drugs (not illegal “street” drugs). Nate went to prison the following year.
We don’t know what the redaction is in Nate “was well known as a [MULTIPLE WORDS REDACTED].” But we do know that Nate was (and still is) very well known in a specific field.
From the police report: “While in prison, [Nate] was counseled or took Bible Studies from a man named [REDACTED] who ministered to inmates and communicated with [Glenn] about their mutual relationship with [Nate]. When [Nate] got out, Winkel ‘passed off’ [Nate] back to [Glenn]. The relationship did not regain its former strength, though, and [Nate] didn’t continue to study the Bible or counsel with [Glenn]. [Glenn] didn’t know whether [REDACTED] might have had conversations with [REDACTED] on the matter.”
Notes from the Long Walk Home: In the last sentence, we assume that Nate and “Winkel” are the redacted names, but we don’t know this for certain. As a result, we kept the redactions in the sentence.
According to the police report, Glenn then talked about Nate’s various friends and acquaintances. Because of the redactions in the police report, we cannot determine who all these friends and acquaintances were. Glenn described one individual as a “hanger on” and a “small guy” who hung out with Nate to appear tough. Glenn said they acted like “thugs.” Glenn didn’t know the relationship between Nate and Robert Chris Winchester. But Glenn said he knew they were all in the UAHS Class of 1978. Glenn was asked about Brent Strutner. Glenn said “that he only considered the name vaguely familiar.” But Glenn “didn’t identify it as anyone he knew.”
We will have more to share soon. In the meantime, please re-read the entire series related to Ian and Nate. We first started posting about Ian and Nate in July 2021. Over the past 13 months, we have shared 15 posts and nearly 12,000 words related to Ian, Nate, and the Dukat investigation. As you re-read the series on Ian and Nate, please note the following:
Nate died in 1994. He was 34. There are conflicting reports about Nate’s cause of death, but there is speculation his death was drug related. At the time of his death, Nate had a pending kidnapping charge in Gregg County, Texas.
We believe Ian still lives and works in the Central Ohio area. We also believe Ian married a female member of the UAHS Class of 1979. As far as we can tell, they were married in October 1980 and are still married today. In 2000, Ian had multiple charges related to driving under the influence. Ian has also been cited for multiple traffic violations. We have found no other charges related to Ian.
“Glenn” still lives in Upper Arlington.
“Rob” still lives in Upper Arlington.
“Conrad” still lives in Central Ohio.
“Martin” still lives in Central Ohio. He is 78 years old.
“Mrs. Cagney” died on March 3, 2000. She was 67.
We don’t have any current information related to “Tiffany.” However, we recently learned that Tiffany once had a relationship with Robert Chris Winchester. According to Tiffany, they “dated” for a month approximately two years before Winchester attacked a girl at the Olentangy Commons apartment complex.
As we pored over the casefiles, we shared theories and ideas with each other. This collaboration helped build our knowledge and understanding of the case. Now we ask for your collaboration. After you have re-read the series, please share your thoughts about Ian, Nate, and the Dukat investigation. You can share as a comment to this post or in an email to the Long Walk Home. What jumps out at you? What are your theories and ideas? Do you have any questions for us? Thanks in advance for your help.
