The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project
[All information regarding this suspect is strictly based on (1) factual information contained in reports from the Columbus Dispatch, Columbus Citizen-Journal, and UA News, (2) indisputable, well-known facts such as geographical information, and (3) public records such as real estate records and court records. Any inferences that may be derived from this factual information do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the members of this project. Nobody has ever been charged with the murder of Asenath Dukat.]
Nearly four months after Asenath Dukat’s murder, a 20-year old Upper Arlington man became a prime suspect in the May 7, 1980 attack on Canterbury Lane. (Columbus Dispatch October 1, 1980) As a result, this man, who we will call Suspect2, also became a suspect in the murder of Asenath Dukat. The UAPD took a renewed interest in Suspect2 after he abducted a 13-year-old girl near the Olentangy Commons apartment complex on September 27, 1980. (Columbus Dispatch October 1, 1980)
A. General Information About Suspect2
Suspect2 graduated from Upper Arlington High School in 1978. (Columbus Dispatch October 1, 1980) In 1980, he was “6-foot-1, 195” pounds and lived on the same road as Suspect1’s childhood home. (Columbus Dispatch October 2, 1980; Columbus Dispatch October 1, 1980) Suspect2’s family purchased this house in either 1970 or 1971, and Suspect2’s house was approximately 365 feet north of Suspect1’s childhood home (just six houses away). Like Suspect1’s childhood home, Suspect2’s house was a little more than a mile-and-a-half away from the scene of Asenath Dukat’s murder. (As noted above, Suspect1 had moved to an apartment just outside of Upper Arlington. Nevertheless, in the police file documenting Suspect1’s crimes in Willoughby, Ohio, the address listed for Suspect1 is the house on this road. Members of Suspect1’s family still lived in that house.)
Based on a report of unusual behavior, the UAPD “first became aware of [Suspect2] in May” 1980. (Columbus Dispatch October 1, 1980) Apparently, a woman complained that Suspect2 had been following her. More specifically, the “woman complained to police that, as she was a pedestrian on Asbury Rd. (sic), about 6 p.m., May 28, a man she identified as [Suspect2] repeatedly passed her. She said the man, who was riding a red 10-speed bicycle, was smiling.” (Columbus Dispatch October 2, 1980) The UAPD questioned Suspect2 about the incident “but lodged no charges.” (Columbus Dispatch October 2, 1980)
(The Columbus Dispatch incorrectly reported that Suspect2 had followed the woman on “Asbury Rd.” There is no Asbury Road in Upper Arlington. There is only an Asbury Drive, which runs north from West Lane Avenue to Zollinger Road and intersects with Canterbury Road. The intersection of Asbury Drive and Canterbury Road is approximately .5 miles west of Suspect2’s house and approximately .65 miles east of the intersection of Canterbury Road and Canterbury Lane.)
“After the Dukat slaying, [Suspect2] was one of the many ‘suspicious persons’ listed in police files whom detectives chose to question in connection with the murder,” according to UAPD Chief Kenneth Borror. (Columbus Dispatch October 1, 1980) Apparently, Suspect2 passed a polygraph test related to his whereabouts on June 3, 1980, but there are conflicting reports about the types of questions he was asked. The Columbus Dispatch initially reported that Suspect2 “passed a lie detector test concerning his whereabouts on the night of the June 3 murder.” (Columbus Dispatch October 1, 1980) The next day, however, the Dispatch reported that Suspect2 “passed a lie detector test concerning his whereabouts on the day of the slaying.” (Columbus Dispatch October 2, 1980) Finally, the UA News reported that Suspect2 “was only asked general questions about his activities on the day of the murder.” (UA News October 8, 1980) Even though police “could not check his story, Borror said [Suspect2] was given a tentative clearance.” (Columbus Dispatch October 2, 1980) On the other hand, Borror also said Suspect 2 was “placed on a list of persons police ‘were willing to take another look at if anything came up.’” (Columbus Citizen Journal October 1, 1980) EDITORS NOTE: See Chapter 9 Addendum for new information regarding the polygraph.
More information about Suspect2 was made public after he became a prime suspect in the May 7, 1980 attack on Canterbury Lane. For example, Chief Borror described Suspect2 as a “‘loner.’” (Columbus Dispatch October 2, 1980) Additionally, Suspect2 was under the care of a psychiatrist. (Columbus Dispatch October 2, 1980) “Following [Suspect2’s] graduation in 1978 from Upper Arlington high school, [he] held jobs at a Lane Center supermarket and a convenience food store on W. Broad St.” (Columbus Dispatch October 2, 1980) Reports differed, though, as to Suspect2’s employment status at the time he abducted a girl near the Olentangy Commons apartment complex. According to one report, Suspect2 had “been a cleanup man at MCL Cafeteria in Kingsdale Center for two months.” (Columbus Dispatch October 2, 1980) Another report claimed Suspect2 “had worked at MCL Cafeteria for about a month, but had refused to say what his current status [was] at the cafeteria.” (Columbus Citizen Journal October 2, 1980)
B. The Abduction on September 27, 1980
The UAPD took another look at Suspect2 after he abducted a 13-year-old girl near the corner of Jasonway Ave. and Knightsbridge Blvd. at approximately 4:20 p.m. on Saturday, September 27, 1980, which was less than four months after the murder of Asenath Dukat. (Columbus Citizen Journal October 2, 1980)
Suspect2 was arrested by Columbus Police “on the basis of a license plate number taken by three women who saw a young male drag the 13-year-old from her bicycle on Jasonway Ave., west of the Olentangy Commons apartment complex…. The women said the man was attempting to force the girl into a wooded area when they ran screaming to her aid. He then fled in an automobile.” (Columbus Dispatch October 1, 1980) “One of the women recorded the license number of the car, and gave it and a description of the man to police, who traced the license to a car owned by” Suspect2’s mother. (Columbus Citizen Journal October 1, 1980)
(The intersection of Jasonway and Knightsbridge is just outside of Upper Arlington, about one mile from the corner of Kenny Road and W. Henderson Road. Suspect2 lived approximately four miles from the Jasonway-Knightsbridge intersection.)
Three days after the attack, the 13-year-old girl identified Suspect2 in a police lineup. Later, at Suspect2’s trial, she identified him again in open court. (Columbus Dispatch January 13, 1981; Columbus Citizen Journal January 14, 1981) In describing the attack, the girl testified “that she was riding her bicycle north on Jasonway Avenue north of Henderson Road when a man in a white car passed her and looked at her. She said after she rounded a bend, the car had been turned around and was facing her, the trunk was open and [Suspect2] was behind the car.
“The girl said [Suspect2] started to walk toward her, and as she tried to turn her bike around he grabbed her from behind with his hand across her mouth.” (Columbus Citizen Journal January 14, 1981)
“The girl said she lost her grip on her bike and was dragged off the road toward an embankment between the road and a field.” (Columbus Dispatch January 14, 1981)
“She said [Suspect2] released her and ran into the woods when another car stopped and three women ran to her aid.” (Columbus Citizen Journal January 14, 1981)
Other reports discussed the events of September 27, 1980, in even greater detail. For example, in a subsequent letter to the court, the prosecuting attorney noted both Suspect2’s “boldness” and the victim’s “young age.” (Columbus Dispatch June 10, 1981) The letter also described the crime in the following manner: “‘Evidence demonstrated that [Suspect2] followed the victim in his automobile, passed her, then reversed his direction of travel and, with his automobile trunk open, waited for his victim to approach.
“‘When the victim attempted to flee on her bicycle, it was shown that [Suspect2] did forcefully pull her from the bike and drag this young victim in the direction of a deeply wooded and weeded area where few people traverse.’” (Columbus Dispatch June 10, 1981)
That attack occurred on Saturday, September 27, and Suspect2 visited his friend’s house twice that day. First, Suspect2 visited his friend’s house around 1:00 p.m., but Suspect2’s friend was not home. Then, at approximately 4:20 p.m. that afternoon, Suspect2 attacked a 13-year-old girl near the Olentangy Commons apartment complex. Later that evening, around 7:00 p.m., Suspect2 returned to his friend’s house to hang out. The friend’s mother said that Suspect2 seemed normal that evening. The only thing the friend’s mother noticed was that, while Suspect2 was playing darts, he threw one extremely hard as if in a fit of anger.
The friend’s mother described Suspect2 as her son’s best friend. The friend’s mother also said Suspect2 had spent a lot of time at their house over the previous five years. Clearly, the friend’s mother knew Suspect2 fairly well. And she thought Suspect2 seemed “normal” less than three hours after he committed a violent attack on a child.
C. The Columbus Police Investigate Suspect2 for the September 27, 1980 Abduction
On September 28, 1980, Columbus Sexual Abuse Squad Detective Walter Colflesh went to Suspect2’s home “and learned [Suspect2] had been driving the car the previous day.” (Columbus Citizen Journal January 13, 1981) Colflesh later testified about his questioning of Suspect2: Colflesh “said he asked [Suspect2] if he knew anything about the incident, and [Suspect2] said he did. When [Suspect2] then admitted he was the abductor, Colflesh…‘asked him why he did it. He said he didn’t know.’” (Columbus Dispatch January 13, 1981) Apparently, Colflesh questioned Suspect2 in front of Suspect2’s mother. During questioning, Suspect2’s mother “asked her son whether the girl had done anything to him, and he answered, ‘No.’” (Columbus Citizen Journal January 13, 1981)
Colflesh noted that Suspect2 “called him at police headquarters the following day and told him he was going to see a psychologist about his problems.” (Columbus Citizen Journal January 13, 1981)
(The 13-year-old girl was not sexually assaulted on September 27, 1980. As an assistant Franklin County Prosecutor noted, “If it had not been for the intervention of good citizens who were passing by, this crime of abduction could have been much worse.’” (Columbus Dispatch June 10, 1981) Regardless, at least five members of the Columbus Police Department’s Sexual Abuse Squad received subpoenas for Suspect2’s trial, including Detective Walter Colflesh.)
D. The Upper Arlington Police Become Aware of the September 27, 1980 Abduction and Turn Their Attention to Suspect2
The same day he visited Suspect2’s home, Colflesh informed Upper Arlington police that he was investigating Suspect2. Because of the similarities between the September 27 abduction and the May 7, 1980 attack on Canterbury Lane, the UAPD quickly began investigating Suspect2 in connection with the May 7 attack. (Columbus Citizen Journal October 3, 1980)
The similarities between these two crimes include:
As noted in a previous chapter, there were also many similarities between the May 7 attack and the murder of Asenath Dukat. Because of these similarities, the May 7 attacker was considered the “best suspect” in Asenath’s murder. (Columbus Citizen-Journal June 6, 1980.)
On Tuesday, September 30, 1980, the victim of the May 7 attack on Canterbury Lane “immediately” picked Suspect2 out of a police lineup at the Franklin County Jail. (Columbus Citizen-Journal November 25, 1980; Columbus Citizen Journal October 1, 1980) “The Tremont student identified [Suspect2] as the man she saw riding a red bicycle in the area [of Canterbury Lane] before she was attacked.” (UA News October 8, 1980) Similarly, the Columbus Citizen-Journal reported that the “girl identified [Suspect2] as the man she saw riding a red, 10-speed bicycle near her seconds before the attack.” (Columbus Citizen Journal October 3, 1980) As a result, UA Police Chief Kenneth Borror called Suspect2 “‘a prime suspect’ in the attack May 7 on a 10-year-old (sic) Upper Arlington school girl.” (Columbus Dispatch October 1, 1980)
One might expect that charges would have been filed as a result of this identification. However, a neighbor of the Canterbury Lane victim was also at the lineup on September 30. It is believed this neighbor saw the Canterbury Lane attacker, but the neighbor did not identify Suspect2. Instead, the neighbor identified “none” of the men in the lineup. According to the Columbus Dispatch, the neighbor described seeing a man who had a different hairstyle and was much shorter than Suspect2. (Columbus Dispatch October 3, 1980)
“Borror also said that because of similarities between the assault May 7 and the slaying June 3 of 8-year-old Asenath Dukat as she walked home from school, police also [wanted] to question [Suspect2] again in connection with the Dukat case.” (Columbus Citizen-Journal October 2, 1980)
Because the victim of the May 7 attack identified Suspect2, the UAPD obtained a search warrant for Suspect2’s house and body. (Columbus Citizen-Journal October 1, 1980) The police impounded Suspect2’s “red, 10-speed Concord bicycle” and his “short, green khaki army jacket.” (Columbus Dispatch October 1, 1980) According to Chief Borror, the impounded jacket “somewhat resemble[d] one the attacker wore” during the May 7 attack. (Columbus Citizen-Journal October 1, 1980) The police also impounded Suspect2’s tennis shoes. (Columbus Citizen-Journal November 25, 1980) Finally, the police took samples “of [Suspect2’s] blood and hair” for testing at the FBI laboratory in Washington D.C. (Columbus Citizen-Journal October 1, 1980)
E. Additional Witnesses to the May 7, 1980 Attack View Photographs of Suspect2
There were additional witnesses to the May 7 attack on Canterbury Lane. One of those witnesses was the girl who had been walking with the victim shortly before the attack. Sometime after the May 7 attack, this girl’s family had moved to a Minneapolis suburb. The Columbus Dispatch described how this girl’s potential identification of Suspect2 could impact the case: “A young girl, now living in the Minneapolis area, who is a witness in the May 7 sexual assault of a 9-year old Upper Arlington girl will be shown pictures of 20-year old [Suspect2], charged with the attempted molestation of another youngster, Upper Arlington Police Chief Kenneth Borror said.
“Borror said if the girl identifies [Suspect2] as the man seen riding a 10-speed bicycle just before the May assault occurred, police will confer with Franklin County prosecutors about charging [Suspect2] with the attack.
“Borror said police in a Minneapolis suburb will show the photos to the girl, who was walking home from Tremont Elementary School with the victim just before the attack.” (Columbus Dispatch October 2, 1980)
It is unknown whether this girl identified Suspect2. We do know, however, that Suspect2 was never charged with the May 7 attack. Nevertheless, according to an assistant Franklin County prosecutor, “even if the second girl [recognized Suspect2] as a person she and her companion saw in the area before the attack that [would have been] insufficient evidence to file a charge.” (Columbus Dispatch October 3, 1980)
Another witness to the May 7 attack was “a middle-aged woman” who may have seen the attacker. (Columbus Dispatch October 2, 1980) This woman was also shown a photograph of [Suspect2], but there are conflicting reports about the woman’s response to the photograph – or even what she saw on May 7, 1980. An initial report claimed this witness “could neither confirm nor deny [Suspect2’s] presence at the scene.” (Columbus Dispatch October 2, 1980)
According to a second report, this witness “was unable to identify [Suspect2] as the individual she saw attacking the child last May.” (Columbus Dispatch October 3, 1980) Instead, this witness “described a man who has a different hair style and is much shorter than” Suspect2. (Columbus Dispatch October 3, 1980) And finally, Chief Borror told the UA News “a middle-aged woman who may have seen the attacker said she believes [Suspect2] is ‘definitely not the man she saw’ in the area.” (UA News October 8, 1980) But Borror added, “‘[W]e don’t know whether the person she saw is the right person either.” (UA News October 8, 1980)
F. As Suspect2 Awaits Trial for the September 27, 1980 Abduction, the Upper Arlington Police Continue to Investigate Suspect2
On October 2, 1980, Suspect2 was indicted for the September 27 abduction and released from jail “after his father posted a $500 bond for him.” (November 25, 1980; Columbus Dispatch October 3, 1980) Suspect2 would face trial for the September 27 abduction in January 1981. In the interim, the UAPD continued to investigate Suspect2 in connection with the May 7 attack and the murder of Asenath Dukat. Suspect2 refused to talk to the UAPD about either of these crimes. (Columbus Dispatch October 3, 1980; Columbus Citizen Journal November 10, 1980) Despite his refusal to talk, the UAPD tried to link Suspect2 to Asenath Dukat’s murder through forensic evidence.
The FBI ran tests on some of the items impounded through the search warrant for Suspect2. The Columbus Citizen-Journal reported on these tests: “Comparisons of tennis shoes owned by [Suspect2] to footprints found June 3 in the creek bed where Asenath Dukat’s body was found were ‘inconclusive,’ Upper Arlington Police Chief Kenneth Borror said Monday[, November 24, 1980].
“Borror said the FBI laboratory in Washington, D.C., said [Suspect2’s] tennis shoes were the same size and the same tread pattern as the shoes that left prints a few feet above Asenath’s crushed skull….
“Although FBI technicians said the ‘general wear area was the same’ on the tennis shoes and the plaster casts made of the footprints, they returned an ‘inconclusive finding,’ Borror said.
A comparison of hair found on Asenath’s body to [Suspect2’s] hair was negative and comparisons of blood found on Asenath’s body to [Suspect2’s] blood were ‘inconclusive,’ Borror said.” (Columbus Citizen-Journal November 25, 1980)
Accordingly, even though the match was deemed “inconclusive” to a scientific certainty, the footprints at the scene of Asenath’s murder exhibited the same size, the same tread pattern, and the same general wear area as Suspect2’s tennis shoes.
G. Suspect2 Faces Trial for the September 27, 1980 Abduction
Suspect2 remained free on bond while he awaited trial for the September 27 attack. (Columbus Citizen-Journal November 25, 1980) Before going to trial, Suspect2 pled innocent to “a charge of abduction.” (Columbus Citizen-Journal October 7, 1980) In Central Ohio, there was a great deal of interest in Suspect2’s trial because of the attention he received in relation to the Asenath Dukat case. Numerous media requests were made to photograph, record, and televise Suspect2’s trial. These included requests from the Columbus Dispatch, WBNS TV, and WCOL radio. Because of the media attention, Suspect2 asked the court to move his trial out of Central Ohio. In a court filing, Suspect2 and his attorneys stated: “The Defendant submits that the extensive news coverage concerning his alleged involvement in the act charged seriously jeopardizes his opportunity for a fair and impartial trial in Franklin County, Ohio.” (January 7, 1981 Motion) The judge denied Suspect2’s request, and the case was tried in Franklin County.
Jury selection for Suspect2’s trial began on Monday, January 12, 1981. (Columbus Citizen-Journal January 13, 1981) The next day, the victim of the September 27 attack “pointed to [Suspect2] in court…and said she is positive he was her attacker.” (Columbus Dispatch January 14, 1981) Suspect2 did not present any evidence in his own defense, and jury deliberations began on Thursday, January 15, 1981. (Columbus Dispatch January 15, 1981; Columbus Citizen-Journal January 15, 1981) After less than two hours of deliberation, the jury found Suspect2 guilty of abducting the 13-year-old girl near the corner of Jasonway and Knightsbridge on September 27, 1980. (Columbus Dispatch January 16, 1981) The judge sentenced Suspect2 to “a maximum prison term of three to 10 years in the Ohio State Reformatory at Mansfield and fined him $1,000.” (Columbus Dispatch January 16, 1981)
H. Suspect2’s Lawyer Addresses the Dukat Case
Media reports about Suspect2’s guilty verdict also mentioned the “June 3 rape-slaying of 8-year old Asenath Dukat.” (Columbus Citizen-Journal January 15, 1981; Columbus Dispatch January 15, 1981) After being arrested for the September 27 abduction, Suspect2 refused to talk to police about the Dukat case. (Columbus Dispatch October 3, 1980; Columbus Citizen Journal November 10, 1980) Despite this refusal, Suspect2’s attorney told the media that Suspect2 “cooperated in the [Dukat] investigation and has been cleared as a suspect.” (Columbus Dispatch January 16, 1981) The UAPD, however, “said they would like to talk with [Suspect2] again.” (Columbus Dispatch January 16, 1981) In turn, Suspect2’s attorneys said they would not allow the UAPD to “‘continue to badger’ their client.” (Columbus Dispatch January 16, 1981)
I. Information Following Suspect2’s Conviction for the September 27, 1980 Abduction
Facing three-to-ten years in prison, Suspect2 asked the court for either shock probation or a sentence reduction. An assistant Franklin County prosecutor “argued against both shock probation and a sentence cut on the basis that [Suspect2] ‘is a danger to this community.’” (Columbus Dispatch April 2, 1981) Eventually, Suspect2’s requests for a lighter sentence were denied.
Suspect2 was incarcerated from January 1981 until December 1983. He was on parole from December 1983 until January 1985.
In 1993, Suspect2 purchased a house in Columbus, Ohio. He has continued to live in that house to this day.
In October 1994, Suspect2 was charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. Eventually, he was found guilty of disorderly conduct, and the charge for resisting arrest was dropped. Except for numerous traffic-related incidents, this is Suspect2’s last known encounter with law enforcement.
In 2002, Suspect2 applied to have his conviction for the September 27, 1980 abduction sealed. The court denied his application.
In 2008, Suspect2 was a “Team Member” on a project team that was assembled to develop a community “Safe Routes to School Travel Plan.”
Suspect2 at the trial for the 9/27/80 abduction [Columbus Citizen Journal 1/13/81]
As written in previous chapters, a subject (or subjects) with some variation of dark hair, dark pants, and/or a white shirt who was seen throughout the area on June 3, 1980. This includes the following sighting: “At 4:30 p.m., a nurse at First Community Village saw a man wearing a white short-sleeved shirt, dark pants, and a hat ride his ‘old,’ ‘freshly painted’ red bicycle into the village.” For the first time, we are seeing greater detail of this account.
A staff nurse was interviewed by UAPD on June 6, 1980. She stated that she followed her normal routine of checking the patient at the North end of the building at 4:30PM on the day of Asenath’s murder. At that time she observed a white male, late teens/early 20’s riding a red bicycle east from the main entrance to the village in the exit lane. The subject was peddling very hard as if in a hurry. She remembers the bike being old fashioned (single speed).
On 1/23/81, UAPD returned to re-interview the staff nurse. She repeated the same story she had on June 6th. This time she indicated that she saw news coverage of an arrest in 1980 and she felt at the time, that the suspect was the same person she observed on the red bicycle in the village the afternoon of 6/3/80. During the trial of said suspect she again observed the defendant on the news and she stated that she is “certain” that he is the same person. She stated on a scale of 1-to-10 with 10 being positive, she would say a 10.
We now have reason to believe this nurse later identified Suspect2 as the man she saw riding the bike into the village on June 3, 1980.
Suspect2 was incarcerated at the Ohio State Reformatory in Mansfield, Ohio (where Shawshank Redemption was filmed) from January 1981 to December 1983. In a report prepared in February of 1994 regarding Suspect2, UAPD summarized interviews with fellow inmates. One of the inmates remembered that another inmate had "accused [Suspect2] of killing the little girl in UA". And while Suspect2 was in prison, it was remembered that he said something like "they forced me into committing a crime because I don't have a job."
Why is this curious?
Suspect2 was terminated from his job on 5/6/80. His mother pleaded for his rehiring with Suspect2's supervisor on that day. Based on an interview with that supervisor, the mother contacted the store later and asked the manager if there is was any way to hire her son back. The manager said "no". She then indicated that her son was upset due to losing his job and she was "afraid she might lose him" and that "he has had problems before".
The attack on Canterbury Lane occurs the following day on 5/7/80.
*Please note: Suspect2 was incarcerated for the abduction of a girl on 9/27/80 just outside of Upper Arlington. He was not in prison for "killing the little girl in UA".
The biggest development in the Asenath Dukat case occurred in February 1990, but that development was the result of events that transpired in June 1980. A couple weeks after the murder, a Pennsylvania man traveled to Upper Arlington to take photographs of the crime scene at First Community Village. Because of this unusual behavior, the UAPD field interviewed the Pennsylvania man about his actions. Nearly 10-years later, this same man was a suspect in one or more unsolved crimes in Pennsylvania. On February 6, 1990, two Pennsylvania State Police Officers visited the UAPD to review the Dukat case and, potentially, learn more information about the man who had taken photographs of the crime scene. One of the Pennsylvania officers happened to be a polygraph instructor for the Pennsylvania State Police, and he asked to review the charts from a man we will address in later chapters as Suspect2**.
Suspect2 took a polygraph on June 7, 1980..
When Suspect2 took his polygraph examination on June 7, 1980, he advised the UAPD “that he was extremely upset about the Dukat murder and asked that [the polygraph examiner] not ask any questions directly related to the murder as [Suspect2] stated it would upset him.” The polygraph examiner agreed, as that was the only way Suspect2 would take the polygraph. As a result, Suspect2 was asked the following questions during his polygraph exam:
-Did you deliberately lie about being at the park look out Tuesday afternoon, June 3rd?
-Did you deliberately lie about not being near Waltham & Rt. 33 June 3rd?
-Did you deliberately lie about being at the Quarry pond Tuesday afternoon, June 3rd?
-Did you deliberately falsify or omit anything about your activities Tuesday, June 3rd?
Suspect2 was the first of several individuals who took polygraph exams in the Dukat case, and Suspect2 was the only one who was not directly asked if he was involved in the crime. In contrast, this accompanying image shows the types of questions other suspects were asked during their polygraph exams.
Roughly ten years later, this officer determined that the polygraph charts had been misread and that Suspect2 had not been truthful during the exam. The FBI later examined the charts and confirmed the Pennsylvania officer’s analysis.
For the first time you are seeing the official polygraph report and the questions asked. It was discovered in 1990 that he had been deceptive in his responses to each of these questions.
The 1990 discovery triggered a new set of investigative actions that included: (a) the 1990 "FBI Profile" of the killer, was in all likelihood, based on what we have learned, is actually deliberately compiled profile of suspect2; (b) a 6/3/90 Dispatch news article that we believe was "planted" to aid in the investigation of Suspect2; (c) surveillance of suspect2's movement and mail service.
***You can learn more about Suspect1 and Suspect2 under the heading "The Suspects" as listed in the "What We Know" drop down menu.
After the UAPD learned in February 1990 that Suspect2 had failed his polygraph exam the interest in Suspect2 quickly escalated. In fact, the UAPD began a new, extensive investigation into Suspect2.
Suspect2 became a prime suspect in the murder of Asenath Dukat after he abducted a 13-year-old girl near the Olentangy Commons apartment complex on September 27, 1980. When Suspect2 was arrested three-days later, the UAPD tried to question him about the Dukat case. Suspect2 refused to talk about it, and the Dukat investigation eventually grew cold. When the investigation heated up again in 1990, Suspect2 continued to avoid police questioning.
In May 1990, Suspect2 was visiting his former fiancée, who lived in a building near The Ohio State University campus. During this visit, the UAPD arrived at the building in an attempt to speak with Suspect2. The building receptionist called the former fiancée’s room and asked Suspect2 to come outside and meet the police. But Suspect2 did something completely different. He ran out a rear door to a pay phone at 9th Avenue and North High Street. Approximately 10-minutes later, Suspect2’s mother pulled up in a vehicle and picked him up.
A few weeks later, the UAPD once again tried to speak with Suspect2 at a location that has been redacted from the files. The UAPD had hoped to have Suspect2 “voluntarily come in” for questioning. After talking with Suspect2 for approximately 30 minutes at this location, Suspect2 called his mother. She arrived at the location, picked up Suspect2, and advised him not to go anywhere with the police.
The UAPD also worked to generate new publicity about the case. The new publicity included the announcement of “a new FBI Profile of the killer.” (Columbus Dispatch 5/22/90 – The bullet points below are taken from the 5/22/90 article.) However, based on what we have learned, we believe this FBI Profile was actually a deliberately compiled profile of Suspect2 to aid in the renewed investigation. The profile and accompanying information about Suspect2:
“Was a loner in his early 20s with few friends.”
Suspect2 was 20-years old at the time of the murder, and Upper Arlington Police Chief Kenneth Borror specifically called Suspect2 a “loner.” (Columbus Dispatch October 2, 1980) In one of the initial police reports on Suspect2, the officer stated Suspect2 “appears to be very much a ‘loner’ with few friends – both male + female.”
“Was from a family with a strict, abusive father and protective mother.”
In their investigation, the UAPD noted that Suspect2’s father was “very strict.” Additionally, in the 1970s, the police made several runs to Suspect2’s house on account of physical altercations between Suspect2 and his father. During interviews in 1980, several of Suspect2’s former bosses said that Suspect2’s mother always drove him to and from work.
“Had one or more sisters who were more successful and received more recognition from their parents.”
Suspect2 has two sisters – one older and one younger.
“Failed in school or work because he was not accepted by fellow students and employees.”
Suspect2 attended college, but he left school and was back home the following year. Suspect2 also bounced around from job-to-job. He worked at a supermarket, a convenience store, and a cafeteria. (Columbus Dispatch October 2, 1980) During a 1980 interview, one of Suspect2’s former bosses noted that Suspect2 “was disliked by the other employees who felt he was strange and different.”
“May have sought treatment for depression.”
Suspect2 was under the care of a psychiatrist or a psychologist. (Columbus Dispatch October 2, 1980; Columbus Citizen Journal January 13, 1981) During a 1980 interview, one individual stated that Suspect2 was “very depressed” when he left college. During a different 1980 interview, a male acquaintance also claimed that Suspect2 was “very depressed.”
“Has attacked others but not necessarily killed them."
Suspect2 attacked a 13-year-old girl on September 27, 1980. He spent nearly three years in prison for that crime. Additionally, in 1980, the victim of the May 7, 1980 attack on Canterbury Lane immediately identified Suspect2 during a police lineup. (Columbus Citizen-Journal November 25, 1980; Columbus Citizen Journal October 1, 1980) (The UAPD currently has scientific evidence linking Suspect2 to the May 7 attack. It is unclear when the UAPD obtained or identified this particular evidence.) The UAPD also considered Suspect2 to be a person of interest in several attacks on The Ohio State University campus during 1980.
“Is physically strong and tends to choke or hit his victims.”
During a 1980 interview, one of Suspect2’s former bosses noted that Suspect “was very strong.” The victim of the May 7, 1980 attack on Canterbury Lane was both choked and hit.
Suspect2 uniformly failed a polygraph examination about his whereabouts on the afternoon of June 3, 1980. One could assume his alibi was fabricated with purpose. As with any false alibi, from a child who broke curfew to a person with criminal intent, the key points of a false alibi are meant to cover tracks, undo potential witness statements or to place someone some place they weren’t.
This could be why Suspect 2 created his alibi that was uniformly proven false with the following questions:
Did you deliberately lie about being at the park lookout on Tuesday afternoon, June 3rd?*
Did you deliberately lie about not being near Waltham & Rt. 33, June 3rd?
Did you deliberately lie about being at the quarry pond on Tuesday afternoon, June 3rd?
Did you deliberately falsify or omit anything about your activities Tuesday, June 3rd?
Assuming Suspect2 wasn’t being truthful, why did he create an alibi that put him about a half-mile from the crime scene? On a red bike? While the crime was being committed? Suspect2 claimed he was at a pond southwest of the Riverpark Apartments (now called Arlington Pointe). The apartment complex is near the corner of Lane Avenue and Route 33. That’s about a mile north of the crime scene, which was at the corner of Waltham Road and Route 33. Suspect2 claimed he got to the pond on a path through the woods behind the Riverpark Apartments. Because of development, we can’t say for certain where the alleged pond was. But according to Suspect2, it was southwest of the apartment complex and, therefore, closer to the crime scene. (It had to be more south than west because the Scioto River borders the apartment complex to the west.) Suspect2 claimed he spent one-to-two hours at the pond, by himself, catching frogs. After leaving the pond, Suspect2 claimed he took the same path back to the Riverpark Apartments, where he saw a former classmate. Suspect2 and his former classmate apparently waved to each other.
Again, assuming Suspect2 was not being truthful, we can theorize that Suspect2 concocted his alibi, in part, because he saw his former classmate at the Riverpark Apartments. The classmate would have seen Suspect2 on a red bike about a mile from the crime scene in the late afternoon of June 3, 1980. That alone would have drawn suspicion from the UAPD. After all, Suspect2 fit the general description given by at least two witnesses near the crime scene. But why did Suspect2 create the rest of his alibi? Suspect2 could have said he was anywhere before he saw his former classmate. He could have said he had just left home. He could have said he was somewhere north of the apartment complex and farther away from the crime scene. Why did Suspect2 choose to put himself *closer* to the crime scene, by himself, for one-to-two hours, while the crime was being committed?
So what of the other curious statements in his alibi? Were they potentially fabricated with intent as well?
In his alibi statement to the UAPD, Suspect2 claimed that rode his bike to the west side of the river to “the overlook”, the Scioto River park that overlooks Griggs Dam. There he said that he met an “unidentified man” and they talked for approximately one to one-and-a-half hours. Suspect2 was widely described in case files as “a loner” with “few friends” and repeatedly had social issues with co-workers. Would a person described in this manner strike up a lengthy conversation with a stranger at the river? Unlikely, yes, than why mention it? Could it be that he actually did have a conversation with someone for one to one-and-a-half hours and was concerned that someone witnessed them together? If that were true, would it be more likely that he knew that person? If he did, naming that person would’ve provided an actual witness to his whereabouts and a true alibi.
So why not provide the details of said person?
Perhaps it could be because that person was involved in the crime. In that case, he could not name the “unidentified man” because he would be identifying his accomplice to UAPD and providing the name of the second suspect before police were on to him. Could this one to one-and-a-half hour meeting at the river with an “unidentified man” actually been our two suspects concocting their crime? He repeated this story at his only two interviews with UAPD on June 6th and 7th 1980.
In Suspect2’s second interview at UAPD headquarters he claimed that after he spoke with the “unidentified male” he spent one-to-two hours at the pond behind the river park apartments (described in the polygraph exam as the “quarry pond”) “trying to catch frogs”. Although catching frogs does not seem to be a typical pastime of a 20 year old, to-each-his-own. However in 1990, the Pennsylvania State Police and the FBI polygraph examiners determined that Suspect2 was being deceitful when asked “Did you deliberately lie about being at the quarry pond?”.
So why fabricate the “catching frogs” alibi?
Remember, Suspect2 saw a former classmate at the Riverpark Apartments immediately after he was “trying to catch frogs”. The former classmate stated that the two acquaintances “waved at each other” implying the witness had a clear view of Suspect2. Would catching frogs be a good explanation for wet pants and muddy boots from walking through a creek bed, a culvert or Frankenstein’s Cave? Remember Suspect2’s shoes matched the size and tread pattern of shoe prints left in the mud near Asenath’s body.
The Riverpark Apartments on Route 33, near Lane Avenue.