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 and (2) indisputable, well-known facts such as geographical information. 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.]
The first suspect to receive extensive media coverage was quickly identified by Upper Arlington police. This suspect, who we will call Suspect1, was a 20-year-old man. (Columbus Dispatch June 9, 1980) He graduated from Upper Arlington High School in 1979 and spent a significant portion of his childhood in a home about one-half mile from Tremont Elementary School. (UA News July 16, 1980; Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980).
At the time of Asenath’s murder, Suspect1 lived just outside of UA in an apartment building at 1855 Independence Road – about a mile-and-a-half from the corner of Waltham and Hillside. (Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980)
Suspect1 exhibited violent behavior in the days before Asenath’s murder.
On May 30, 1980, Suspect1 was involved in an altercation with the Grandview Heights police.
Suspect1 “was arrested after officers responded to Grandview Avenue, near First Avenue, on a complaint of a man acting strangely and breaking glass on the street.” (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 11, 1980) When the Grandview police arrived on the scene at approximately 9:25 a.m., Suspect1 “leaped and crawled over a car moving about 15 miles an hour trying to escape from officers.” (Columbus Dispatch October 15, 1980; Columbus Dispatch July 10, 1980) The police then chased Suspect1, and a fight ensued before Suspect1 could be taken into custody. (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 11, 1980) One officer “said police worked about five minutes to control [Suspect1] who kicked, swung his arms and screamed when arrested.” (Columbus Dispatch October 15, 1980) As a result of this incident, Suspect1 was charged with one count of resisting arrest, two counts of assault on a police officer, and one count of marijuana possession. (Columbus Dispatch July 10, 1980)
The UAPD initially became interested in Suspect1 because of his unusual behavior the night of the murder. That night, Suspect1 and some of his friends visited a bar near The Ohio State University campus. (Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980; Columbus Citizen-Journal July 10, 1980) Apparently, while in the bar, Suspect1 was seen “weeping” or “crying.” (Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980; Columbus Dispatch June 9, 1980) He told other bar patrons that “he was afraid to go back to his apartment” and that “he could not go home.” (Columbus Dispatch June 9, 1980; Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980) When his friends took Suspect1 home that night, Suspect1 stated he did not want to enter his residence because “they are after me.” (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 10, 1980) The UAPD learned about Suspect1’s behavior through an anonymous phone call. (Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980; Columbus Dispatch June 9, 1980)
After Suspect1 was identified, various witnesses provided information about his whereabouts on the day of Asenath’s murder and, potentially, at the time of the May 7th attack. For example, on June 3, 1980, Suspect1 was seen on Upper Arlington’s south side at approximately 3pm. (Columbus Citizen-Journal June 9, 1980) The UAPD later claimed a witness may have seen Suspect1 in the immediate vicinity of Waltham, Hillside, and Malvern Roads. Apparently, an “auxiliary Franklin County sherrif’s (sic) deputy spotted a man standing on the service road between Waltham Road and the First Community Village at 2:10 p.m. on the date” of Asenath’s murder. (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 10, 1980) The UAPD said the auxiliary deputy “was shown a group of photographs, and he picked [Suspect1’s] picture as most resembling the man he saw on the service road.” (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 10, 1980)
Finally, after Suspect1 was identified, the UAPD shared photographs of Suspect1 with witnesses from the May 7th attack. Notably, the girl “attacked May 7 at U.S. Route 33 and Canterbury Lane and a friend with her minutes before the attack both chose [Suspect1’s] picture from a group of 10 photographs as the man who looked ‘most like’ the person they had seen shortly before the attack.” (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 10)
Suspect1 also attracted interest because of the red-10-speed bicycle seen near the crimes on May 7 and June 3. The UAPD noted that Suspect1 had “been known to ride a red 10-speed bicycle which matches the description of one seen by witnesses.” (Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980) More specifically, friends of Suspect1 “told police he [owned] a red, 10-speed bicycle he quit riding ‘immediately after the assault of May 7.’” (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 10, 1980)
Furthermore, the day after Asenath’s murder, one of Suspect1’s “friends noticed [Suspect1’s] bike in the friend’s garage, and [Suspect1] said he didn’t want to ride it anymore.” (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 10, 1980)
Reports differed as to whether Suspect1 matched the well-known composite drawing of Asenath’s suspected killer. In one report, UA Police Chief Kenneth Borror “was reluctant to call [Suspect1] a prime suspect, saying he does not match the composite sketch of the killer put together by police.” (Columbus Citizen-Journal June 9, 1980) However, a later report claimed the UAPD was “interested in” Suspect1 because, among other things, he “resemble[d] a composite drawing of the suspected killer made by police artists.” (Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980)
After the UAPD received the anonymous phone call about Suspect1’s behavior the night of Asenath’s murder, “detectives sought [Suspect1] for questioning, but found his apartment abandoned.” (Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980)
Suspect1 had fled the Central Ohio area. The UAPD subsequently learned that Suspect1 visited a friend’s home on June 5, 1980 – two days after Asenath’s murder. While visiting his friend, Suspect1 peered out the windows and stated, “‘Are the cops coming? … If the cops don’t quit hassling me, I’m going to kill them.’” (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 10, 1980) Then, while leaving his friend’s home, Suspect1 said, “‘I got to get out of here, they’re going to bust me.’” (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 10, 1980)
At 11:30 p.m. that night, Suspect1 returned to his childhood home near Tremont Elementary School and took his parents’ car. Suspect1 then drove north toward the Cleveland, Ohio area. Suspect1 exhibited even more violent, unusual behavior while in Northeast Ohio.
On June 6, 1980, at about 7:45 a.m., police officers found Suspect1 stranded in an automobile in Willoughby, Ohio – a suburb of Cleveland. (Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980) “When officers approached [Suspect1’s] car, he closed the window and began to jab himself in the groin with a loaded hypodermic syringe…. Officers, who said they were forced to break the car’s window to subdue [Suspect1], said they scuffled with him outside of his car and again at the police station when they tried to move him to a holding cell.” (Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980) The Willoughby Police Chief explained that Suspect1 “‘was acting wild, like he was on drugs or something’” and put up “‘quite a physical battle.’” (Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980) As a result of the June 6, 1980 incident, Suspect1 was charged with attacking police officers, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and illegal possession of a hypodermic needle. (Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980) As far as we can determine, the contents of the hypodermic needle have never been publicly disclosed.
After the UAPD learned that Suspect1 was in custody, two UA detectives drove to Willoughby to question Suspect1 about the Dukat murder. (Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980) The detectives did not mention “the purpose of the questioning, but [Suspect1] immediately said he ‘didn’t hurt anyone.’” (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 10, 1980) The UA detectives questioned Suspect1 for two hours on June 8, 1980, and apparently, Suspect1 even agreed to take a polygraph test. (Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980; Columbus Citizen-Journal July 9, 1980) But on the advice of his attorney, Suspect1 refused to take the test and stopped talking to police. (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 9, 1980)
Eventually, the UAPD obtained a sample of Suspect1’s blood. The police also obtained a search warrant for Suspect1’s apartment. After searching the apartment, officers “confiscated a pair of white tennis shoes, a pair of red corduroy pants, a white washcloth containing brownish stains, a short-sleeve shirt and hair samples.” (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 10, 1980) The confiscated items and Suspect1’s blood sample were sent to the FBI for testing. Obviously, the tests performed on the blood and other items never led to an indictment. And although he received more intense media scrutiny, the UAPD noted Suspect1 was “one of as many as 15 persons being investigated in the slaying.” (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 10, 1980)
Many reports about Suspect1’s mental health emerged as he dealt with his legal issues in Willoughby and Grandview Heights. A Willoughby Municipal Court Judge “said a social worker told her [Suspect1 had] a history of mental illness and the social worker [believed Suspect1] to be ‘paranoid.’” (Columbus Dispatch July 10, 1980) The judge then ordered Suspect1 “to receive extensive psychiatric examination while in jail.” (Columbus Dispatch July 10, 1980) Suspect1 also pled not guilty by reason of insanity “to charges that he assaulted two Grandview Heights police officers” on May 30, 1980. (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 19, 1980) As a result, Suspect1 was tested for mental competency by the Forensic Psychiatric Center of the Southwest Community Mental Health Center. (Columbus Dispatch September 18, 1980) The results of those tests were leaked to the press. According to the tests, Suspect1 was “‘developmentally still a young teen-ager.’” (Columbus Dispatch September 5, 1980) He had “an ‘impaired ability to recognize unusual, problematic aspects of his behavior’ and was unable to control the ‘unlawful aspects of his responses or refrain from execution of his acts.’” (Columbus Dispatch September 5, 1980) Suspect1 also admitted to illegal drug use and suffered from “occasional hallucinations, paranoia and sometimes has believed furniture was moving in his apartment or doors refused to open for him.” (Columbus Dispatch September 5, 1980) In essence, the report on Suspect1 outlined “a history of domestic unrest, mental instability and drug abuse.” (Columbus Dispatch September 18, 1980)
Eventually, Suspect1 reached a plea bargain on the charges resulting from the June 6, 1980 incident in Willoughby. He pled guilty to “two counts of assaulting police officers, one count of possessing a hypodermic needle and one of resisting arrest.” (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 11, 1980) In return, Suspect1 was sentenced to six months in jail. (Columbus Citizen-Journal July 18, 1980)
Suspect1 also reached a plea bargain on the charges resulting from the May 30, 1980 incident in Grandview Heights. He pled guilty to just one charge: resisting arrest. (Columbus Dispatch October 15, 1980) As a result, the judge “sentenced [Suspect1] to 90 days in jail but suspended 45 days contingent on [Suspect1’s] receiving mental health counseling and paying Grandview Heights police for damaged property.” (Columbus Dispatch October 15, 1980) Suspect1 was to “serve the 45 days after” he completed the six-month jail sentence “he received in the Willoughby Municipal Court.” (Columbus Dispatch October 15, 1980) The prosecutor acknowledged that Suspect1 received a relatively light sentence for the Grandview Heights incident.
Throughout his various legal issues, Suspect1 refused to talk to UA police about Asenath Dukat’s murder. The UAPD commented on Suspect1 and another suspect in November 1980. According to the Columbus Citizen Journal: “Although police still have no prime suspects, they would like to question two men who have been arrested on unrelated charges and have been linked to the Dukat murder.” (Columbus Citizen Journal November 10, 1980) However, attorneys “for the suspects will not allow police to talk to them, and [Upper Arlington Police Chief Kenneth] Borror said police do not have enough evidence to arrest them.” (Columbus Citizen Journal November 10, 1980)
As the first real suspect publicly identified by the UAPD, Suspect1 received a great deal of media attention. For example, in a June 13, 1980 article, the Columbus Dispatch revealed specific details about Suspect1’s parents. As the Dispatch reported: “[Suspect1’s] apartment is about a mile east of the Waltham and Dublin Rds. murder site, while the home of his parents, [the article proceeds to name Suspect1’s parents and their home address] is only about a half mile away.” (Columbus Dispatch June 13, 1980) (Although most of the cited information was accurate, the Dispatch incorrectly printed the distance between the parents’ house and the site of Asenath Dukat’s murder. In reality, the house was a little more than a mile-and-a-half away.) As a result, Suspect1’s father sued the Columbus Dispatch for invasion of privacy. Both the trial court and the appellate court, however, ruled against Suspect1’s father and in favor of the Dispatch. (2 Ohio App.3d 377, 442 N.E.2d 129 (10th Dist.1982)).
There is no additional, relevant public information related to Suspect1 until 1984.
In June 1984, Suspect1 committed suicide. Apparently, Suspect1 jumped from his room at the Downtown Columbus YMCA. “Police received a call about 4 a.m. [June 8, 1984] that a nude body was lying on the sidewalk on the Front St. side of the Y. [Detective David] Cash said [Suspect1] had been staying alone in a sixth-floor room on that side of the building. The door was locked and the window was open.” (Columbus Dispatch June 8, 1984)
The night before he committed suicide, Suspect1 had a final run in with the Upper Arlington police. According to the UAPD, relatives “of [Suspect1] called police about 6 p.m. [on June 7, 1984] because they wanted [Suspect1] out of their house.” (Columbus Citizen Journal July 9, 1984) Consequently, Upper Arlington medics and a UA police officer accompanied Suspect1 to a hospital. Later, after “a brief stay at the hospital, [Suspect1] was taken to the YMCA by a member of his family.” (Columbus Dispatch June 8, 1984) Suspect1 was found dead early the next morning.
At the time of his suicide, there were conflicting media reports about Suspect1’s potential connection to the Dukat murder. The Columbus Dispatch reported there was never a “‘supergood (sic) alibi for’” Suspect1. (Columbus Dispatch June 8, 1984) The Columbus Citizen Journal, however, reported that Suspect1 “‘had an alibi [the UAPD] couldn’t break.’” (Columbus Citizen Journal June 9, 1984)
Regardless, authorities found nothing of significance at the YMCA that could link Suspect1 to the murder of Asenath Dukat. Nevertheless, June 8, 1984, was just a few days after the four-year anniversary of the murder, and Suspect1’s brother stated: “‘Every year, for the past few years in June [Suspect1] gets this way.’” (Columbus Dispatch June 8, 1984) Some have inferred that this quote, and the timing of Suspect1’s suicide, could have some relation to Asenath Dukat.
Suspect1’s obituary ran in the June 10, 1984 Columbus Dispatch. His memorial service took place on Sunday, June 17, 1984, at the Deyo-Davis Funeral Home in Grandview Heights.
An anonymous phone call led UAPD to the apartment of Suspect1.
We have long known that Suspect1 was seen on Upper Arlington’s south side at 3pm on June 3, 1980. However, we have learned the specific location where Suspect1 was seen that day. On June 3, 1980, at 3pm, Suspect1 was seen at the Jones Junior High School/Devon Pool area. Asenath Dukat passed by this area on her walk home from school that day, and the Jones Junior High School/Devon Pool area is just several hundred feet from where witnesses last saw Asenath. Additionally, a witness identified Suspect1 as the man standing on the service road at First Community Village at 2:10pm on June 3, 1980. The service road ran over the culvert where Asenath’s body was found.
The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat project has obtained a detailed account of the arrest of Suspect1 on June 6th, 1980 with the cooperation of the Willoughby, Ohio Police Department.
[This account is directly sourced from the City of Willoughby Public 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.]
As referenced in Chapter 8: Bizarre Behavior Leads to the First Suspect, the UAPD received an anonymous phone call about the behavior of Suspect1 the night of Asenath Dukat’s murder. The UAPD sought Suspect1 for questioning but found his apartment abandoned. On the night of June 5th, two days after Asenath’s murder, Suspect1 returned to his childhood home, took his parents car and headed North toward Cleveland. The following is a detailed report of his encounter with the Willoughby, Ohio Police Department.
On the morning of June 6th, at approximately 7:40am, police received a call from a nearby Sunoco station that a car was in a ditch on the St. Clair exit between Lost Nation and Erie Road. Upon arrival, [Patrolman1] discovered a 1979 Cadillac in a ditch with Suspect1 lying across the front seat.
“After arousing the subject, [Suspect1] was asked to open the door or window. He would not open either. He then started the vehicle and attempted to flee the scene. At this time the police vehicle was in position to block escape and [Patrolman1] got the lockout tool and attempted to open a door. This could not be done because of electric locks.”(Willoughby Crime or Incident Report, Primary: 80-5151)
[Patrolman2] arrived on the scene and was briefed on the situation at hand. [Patrolman2] attempted to persuade Suspect1 to open a door or window which he [Suspect1] wouldn’t do.
“At this time the subject produced a hypo-syringe and took out his testicles and began stabbing the syringe into them. [Patrolman2] then instructed [Patrolman1] to break the window with a nightstick which he did. The suspect began screaming and fighting and was removed from the vehicle and the patrolmen attempted to handcuff the subject. He began kicking, punching and biting the officers. One handcuff was placed on his right wrist, but the officers could not get the other on.”(Willoughby Crime or Incident Report, Primary: 80-5151)
“He had been cuffed only on his right wrist and began using the loose end like a whip, hitting [Patrolman2] and the other two officers. Subject appeared to be a mental (mentally impaired) or-and (on) drugs, yelling “you are all devils and will burn in Hell”. (Willoughby Crime or Incident Report, Supplemental : 80-5151)
“At this time the subject was maced by the officer and this had no effect at all. The subject was swinging the handcuffs wildly at the officers and kicking and screaming. Realizing this subject was a mental (mentally impaired) we used restraint in combating him. At this time [Patrolman3] arrived and we all attempted to subdue him. At this time [Suspect1] stabbed [Patrolman1] repeatedly in the right hand with the syringe and [Patrolman3] in the arm. [Patrolman2] was hit in the face with handcuffs. We then wrestled him to the ground in the mud and finally got one set of handcuffs on in front of him. We then put a bell chain and leg irons on him and cuffed them together. [Patrolman4] was then called to bring a screened police unit (unit specially trained for dealing with mentally impaired subjects) to the scene- which he did.”(Willoughby Crime or Incident Report, Primary: 80-5151)
All three patrolman were treated in the hospital for cuts and received tetanus shots.
[Patrolman1] received x-rays of “a jammed knuckle sustained while striking the subject”. [Willoughby Crime or Incident Report ,Primary: 80-5151]
At 10:04am on the day of the incident, Willoughby police reached a representative for Suspect1’s family. That representative stated that Suspect1 has had some psychotherapy, but that his main problem is with drugs. The representative stated that [Suspect1’s mother] will call this afternoon. In addition, the representative provided the contact information for Suspect1’s psychiatrist. (Willoughby Police Department, Case Notes #80-005151, 30-H)
Suspect1’s parents were eventually reached who said “he has a history of mental and drug problems. He is also facing charges of resisting arrest and assault of police officers at this time in Grandview Hts, Ohio. This occurred on May 30, 1980.” [Willoughby Crime or Incident Report, Primary: 80-5151]
On June 8, 1980, The UAPD requested a copy of the mug (shot) and (finger) prints of Suspect1 from the Willoughby Police Department and provided them with a copy of a Crime Bulletin with the description of the unknown suspect in the Asenath Dukat murder. (Willoughby Police Department, Case Notes #80-005151, 30-H)
On June 9, 1980, The UAPD advised Willoughby PD to "Search for the above's [Suspect1} shoes per UAPD." (Willoughby Police Department, Case Notes #80-005151, 30-I)
Suspect1 was described as 20 years old, 5’7”, 140 lbs. with brown hair, brown eyes, medium complexion and American descent. (Police Department, City of Willoughby, Ohio, Bureau of Criminal Identification, No. 2594)
The "Mugshot" photo of Suspect1 from the 6/6/80 arrest in Willoughby. Suspect1 died 6/8/84.
As we have pored over the police files, we have learned about clues that were not mentioned in the initial media reports. One of those clues was a red comb found in First Community Village, near the stone wall separating First Community from 2199 Waltham Road. This comb was unusual for two reasons. First, it was a promotional comb from a barbershop in West Jefferson, Ohio. But even more significantly, the phone number printed on the side of the comb was incorrect. As a result, the owner of the barbershop didn’t give many of these combs out, and very few of these combs were in circulation. How did a rare comb from West Jefferson end up near the crime scene at First Community Village?
On June 20, 1980, a UA police sergeant went to the barbershop to check on the red comb. During this visit, the sergeant showed the barbershop employees one or more pictures, and the employees identified an unknown subject. (The name of the subject is redacted from the police files.) After the June 20 visit and a subsequent tip related to West Jefferson (again redacted), the UAPD found the comb significant enough to send to the FBI for analysis. The comb, however, did not provide any relevant physical evidence.
Suspect1’s father was a member of the Central Ohio Anglers & Hunters Club in West Jefferson. That club was less than three miles from the Brown & Gold Barber Shop – the source of the promotional comb. Furthermore, the husband of a UAPD dispatcher told detectives he had seen one of the suspects in West Jefferson. Significantly, the dispatcher’s husband was also a member of the Central Ohio Anglers & Hunters Club. Finally, the UAPD sent the red comb to the FBI along with the items obtained from the search warrant of Suspect1. On July 7, 1980, the UAPD delivered only the following items to the FBI: (a) 13 items obtained from Suspect1, (b) the red comb, and (c) a plaster cast of a footprint found at the scene.
We have also obtained information that Suspect1’s father may have received haircuts in West Jefferson from time to time. We cannot say for certain whether Suspect1’s father visited the Brown & Gold Barber Shop. However, it seems likely he did based on (a) the barbershop’s proximity to the Central Ohio Anglers & Hunters Club and (b) the small number of barbershops in a village the size of West Jefferson. (In another possible connection, the owner of the Brown & Gold Barber Shop was a Korean War Veteran who served in the Air Force. So was Suspect1’s father.)
On June 20, 1980, a UAPD sergeant visited the Brown & Gold Barber Shop to check on the comb found near the crime scene. During that visit, employees of the Brown & Gold Barber Shop identified the picture of a suspect. Ten days later, the UAPD dispatcher’s husband told detectives he saw one of the suspects in West Jefferson. Based on what we have learned, we believe both the barbershop employees and the dispatcher’s husband identified Suspect1.
The Brown and Gold Barbershop in West Jefferson, Ohio was roughly 20 miles from Upper Arlington.
[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)
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)
“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]
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".
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. 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.
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.
[The information contained on this site is not approved or connected to the City of Upper Arlington. Nobody has ever been charged with the murder of Asenath Dukat or the assualt on Canterbury Lane on May 7th, 1980. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.]
Through a partnership with the Upper Arlington Police Department, we have gained insight that will become discoverable upon the release of public records. The case is currently in inactive status. This does not prevent the UAPD from investigating new, actionable information if it is brought to their attention, however they are actively preparing the case files for public release.
Based on our investigation and discussion with the UAPD, suspect1 and suspect2 have enough circumstantial and scientific evidence, as well as a personal connection between them, to warrant a primary focus of the case moving forward.
The key to this case is making connections across the three abductions that occurred on May 7th, June 3rd and September 27th 1980. If you look at the timeline of events and witness statements, the UAPD investigators were often flummoxed by the conflicting descriptions provided by witnesses and the associated timelines as to where and when the suspects were seen. This is likely because the police were initially looking for a single perpetrator of these crimes, not two.
For example if a witness saw suspect1 at the scene and provided a description, it would conflict with a second witness who saw suspect2. As mentioned in the narrative, both suspect1 and suspect2 had very different height, weight and hairstyles. These witness conflicts could have potentially provided exculpatory evidence for each of the suspects at that time. At the same time, as reported in earlier chapters, it is highly unlikely that these crimes are not connected, namely three girls of similar age, similar attack patterns, time of day and proximity to each other. We also know that both suspect1 and suspect2 were the same age, lived six houses apart and had a personal relationship.
The key question remains, based on the high likelihood of the connectivity of the three crimes, not were the suspects involved in the three abductions, but were they together for the first two and what role did each of them play (we know that suspect1 was incarcerated during the September 27th attack and suspect2 acted alone).
What we recently learned from the UAPD cannot be denied and is the most critical evidence to date.
The UAPD has conclusive scientific DNA evidence placing suspect1 at the scene of the Asenath Dukat murder, but no physical evidence tying suspect2 to that same scene. They have refrained from charging a deceased individual for murder. They have chosen not to release that information as they do not believe that is the end of the investigation.
UAPD also have conclusive scientific DNA evidence placing suspect2 to the May 7th Canterbury Lane attack, but no physical evidence to place suspect1 at that same scene. They are unable to charge suspect2 for the May 7th crimes as the statute of limitations has passed for the crimes committed in that event.
For this reason, the UAPD has continued to investigate the case, despite the conclusive evidence tying suspect1 to Asenath Dukat’s murder in order to continue to seek conclusive evidence to allow the prosecution of suspect2 for the murder of Asenath Dukat.
We do know, without a doubt that suspect2 was found guilty to the third abduction of a young girl on September 27th, 1980.
The UAPD has visited suspect2 as recently as Q4 2018 who continues to remain silent, referring the UAPD to his unnamed attorney.
The Upper Arlington Police Department has faced criticism over the last 39 years for not bringing forward arrests for these crimes, however upon our investigation we’ve discovered they had likely identified the correct, suspected individuals within days (in the case of Suspect1) and weeks (in the case of Suspect2) of the murder and have actively investigated and monitored the suspects every day since.
Suspect2 is top left, suspect1 bottom left, next to the UAPD composite sketch from Dukat murder.
Our research has revealed conflicting reports about the relationship between Suspect1 and Suspect2. As mentioned, we know they both lived on the same street near Northam Park, six houses apart and were roughly the same age. Anecdotally, we've heard they spent time together and were friends, others have said they weren't friends at all and there was animosity between them. Quite remarkably they each found themselves with enough circumstantial and scientific evidence to both be primary suspects in a child rape and murder. Here is Suspect2's answer when asked about last seeing Suspect1.
The Long Walk Home Team
References: *Columbus Dispatch, 6/8/80 **Columbus Dispatch, 6/14/80 *** Columbus Dispatch, 6/13/80; 10/1/80 **** Columbus Dispatch, 6/17/80 *****Columbus Dispatch, 9/5/80 ^Columbus Citizen Journal, 6/5/80 ^^ Columbus Citizen Journal, 5/18/81 ^^^ Columbus Dispatch, 6/18/80; Columbus Citizen Journal, 6/19/80; Upper Arlington News 6/25/
The material and information contained on this website is for general information purposes only. You should not rely upon the material or information on the website as a basis for making any business, legal or any other decisions. While we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such material is therefore strictly at your own risk.
The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project will not be liable for any false, inaccurate, inappropriate or incomplete information presented on the website.
Although every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly, due to the nature of the Internet and the technology involved, The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project takes no responsibility for and will not be liable for the website being temporarily unavailable due to technical issues (or otherwise) beyond its control or for any loss or damage suffered as a result of the use of or access to, or inability to use or access this website whatsoever.
Certain links in this website will lead to websites which are not under the control of The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project. When you activate these you will leave the The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project website. The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project has no control over and accepts no liability in respect of materials, products or services available on any website which is not under the control of The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project
To the extent not prohibited by law, in no circumstances shall The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project be liable to you or any other third parties for any loss or damage (including, without limitation, damage for loss of business or loss of profits) arising directly or indirectly from your use of or inability to use, this site or any of the material contained in it.
Blogs. Browse our community of bloggers but be aware that the opinions expressed by the bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project.
The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by bloggers or in relation to any comments that are posted. You should bear in mind that circumstances change and that information that may have been accurate at the time of posting will not necessarily remain so.
Comments. The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project will not tolerate defamatory or libellous material, obscene content and abusive or intimidating comments. The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project will monitor comments on this website and may remove any material from the website at its sole discretion, without warning and without prejudice to any other accrued rights
These disclaimers and exclusions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the law.
Liability is not limited by the above disclaimers in relation to death or personal injury arising from negligence on the part of The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project.
Whilst precautions are taken to detect computer viruses and ensure security, The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project cannot guarantee that the website is virus-free and secure. The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project shall not be liable for any loss or damage which may occur as a result of any virus or breach of security.
While making every attempt to secure personal data, The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project cannot accept responsibility for any unauthorised access or loss of personal information that is beyond the control of the The Long Walk Home: The Asenath Dukat Project.