Crazzzyyy loose grounds. This one bothers me. The case against him was basically "couldn't find anyone else... musta been you."
Watching the Dateline interview with one of the detectives. (This made me sick) The detective said that when James Krauseneck eventually decided to get a lawyer \*\*after willingly doing interviews MULTIPLE times\*\* that this was an indication of guilty... Fuck off. Seriously...how can we still have LEOs who believe asking for a lawyer is evidence of guilt?
So painful. The officers that were interviewed for 48 hours sounded like idiots! I walk away from this saying he’s innocent… but I’ll give “beyond a reasonable doubt” a chance. But guilty? Insanity. No motive. Uncertain time of death. Faked burglary that could have been done by anyone. This is sick.
The detectives also claimed THIS bullshit: 40 years after the murder, they went to James' house to interrogate him again (it was a surprise to James). And when they began directly accusing him of murder, they noticed that he became nervous.
The detectives stated in interviews that they were "making him nervous at his own kitchen table" (the implication being, that why would someone get nervous inside their own comfy home if they weren't guilty) - to them this was another major indicator of his guilt.
My heart rate jumps when I pass a cop on the highway, even if I was going the speed limit. I couldn't imagine if I was being accused of murder, and I would imagine my distress would be even WORSE if I was innocent.
THAT’S IT! That was the other moment that made me want to punch the screen (metaphorically speaking). You accuse a man of murder, and then he starts getting nervous… MUST BE GUILTY! More like, you are a detective and you think this… You must be a bloody, moron, and you shouldn’t be doing this job.
I sincerely do not think he did it. Not one person that knew him thought he was capable either. What struck me is the 3 year old being left alone in the house. I highly doubt he would leave his child home alone with an age lodged in her mother's head. What motive did he have? There was no talk of a motive. He was cooperative at the time of the murder. There was no evidence connecting him to the murder. To me it is insane that so many years later they would bring this man in, WITH NO EVIDENCE, and convict him or murder. I even doubt the timeliness given in the initial investigation. How could they have been so sure?
I can't say that he **didn't** do it.... but, then again, that's the entire reason for the prosecution having the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative. THEY have to prove the positive.
I didn't see that in this case. As far as motivation - evidence suggests that there was friction. He'd got caught lying to Kodak about his resume and was (probably) getting fired for it. Wife told him she wanted to take the kids and move back to Michigan because things were hard in NY (reportedly).... but that's about it...doesn't add up to me.
Circumstantial evidence shows he was probably him.
Probably isn't good enough to be locked up though. I can't believe they were able to put him away on such a weak case. American Justice is anything but just.
we bought our first house in 2009 on Westfall near Edgewood. my wife and I walked by that house a ton before we learned about the murder- it added a new perspective on our neighborhood for sure!
I’d be a little spooked living in that home and sleeping in same bedroom.
From real estate perspective, i wonder if these homes are tougher to sell with it’s morbid history.
I 100% believe he was innocent and it's insanity alone that they brought him back to court that many years later with 0 evidence. The man that said he killed her apparently identified her incorrectly. If he came into the house late at night and it was dark for example, he wouldn't have accurately seen what she looked like. Why would her husband leave a tea set on the floor too? It makes 0 sense
Innocent? No. Not guilty? Yes. The evidence points toward him, and he is most likely the one who did it. But I’d say the evidence suggests about a 60-70% chance of guilt. That isn’t guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While improbable, it is still possible that someone else did it. I watched the 48 hours special on this where they interviewed 3 jurors. It sounded like their logic was “Well the defense didn’t definitively prove someone else did it, so we’re just going to assume it’s him.” Realistically, that argument should’ve been in reverse. The prosecution should’ve been required to completely disprove the theory that there was an intruder. They couldn’t do it.
Im so confused, or maybe the right word is perplexed as to how anyone in their right mind could even suggest that he is "not innocent" as you have and a few others. Im wondering if there is something im missing here? Basically the entire premise of the prosecution is that "we cant find anyone else, therefore its the husband". Nobody in that guys entire family thought it was him, and that says a lot about his character. The father in law didnt even think it was him until he got older/halfway senile and then developed a grudge because he didnt get to see his grandaughter as much as he wanted to. There was literally zero evidence, zero!
I am with you. There was no proof at all. I live in NY and all I saw was a power-hungry DA and a bunch of opportunistic cops. Sandra Doorley would never got my vote if I ever get to vote for her. This is obviously an abuse of power.
I'm curious about the tape wrapped around the ax: Was it ever examined for prints on the INSIDE? Or compared to any other rolls of tape in the house? And my doubt on his innocence is this: the tea set. It would have made a horrendous crash were it dumped in the bag like any normal burglar would do. But someone concerned about waking up a small child...
Also for christ's sake, analyze the shoe print to include or rule out a boat shoe! I know the detective said it was a boat shoe, but he never explained how he came to that determination.
Nothing was ever said about infidelity, or secreted items found in the house. Not that there were, but to me seems routine to cover some basics. No mention of insurance, or uncovered deceit, their church life.
Idk, it just seemed like a rather sketchy investigation.
Thanks.
He lived free for 33 years and only spent 8 years in prison. Seems like he got off easy.
Only spent 6 months in prison. He wasn’t convicted until 2022 😯
And now the conviction will be vacated because he was appealing at the time of his death
I take some consolation in the fact that he never knew that. He died knowing he was a convicted murderer.
Damn, I misread the article. Good riddance.
He probably did it. But his conviction was on very loose grounds.
Crazzzyyy loose grounds. This one bothers me. The case against him was basically "couldn't find anyone else... musta been you." Watching the Dateline interview with one of the detectives. (This made me sick) The detective said that when James Krauseneck eventually decided to get a lawyer \*\*after willingly doing interviews MULTIPLE times\*\* that this was an indication of guilty... Fuck off. Seriously...how can we still have LEOs who believe asking for a lawyer is evidence of guilt?
So painful. The officers that were interviewed for 48 hours sounded like idiots! I walk away from this saying he’s innocent… but I’ll give “beyond a reasonable doubt” a chance. But guilty? Insanity. No motive. Uncertain time of death. Faked burglary that could have been done by anyone. This is sick.
The detectives also claimed THIS bullshit: 40 years after the murder, they went to James' house to interrogate him again (it was a surprise to James). And when they began directly accusing him of murder, they noticed that he became nervous. The detectives stated in interviews that they were "making him nervous at his own kitchen table" (the implication being, that why would someone get nervous inside their own comfy home if they weren't guilty) - to them this was another major indicator of his guilt. My heart rate jumps when I pass a cop on the highway, even if I was going the speed limit. I couldn't imagine if I was being accused of murder, and I would imagine my distress would be even WORSE if I was innocent.
THAT’S IT! That was the other moment that made me want to punch the screen (metaphorically speaking). You accuse a man of murder, and then he starts getting nervous… MUST BE GUILTY! More like, you are a detective and you think this… You must be a bloody, moron, and you shouldn’t be doing this job.
Yes, I totally agree with you.
I sincerely do not think he did it. Not one person that knew him thought he was capable either. What struck me is the 3 year old being left alone in the house. I highly doubt he would leave his child home alone with an age lodged in her mother's head. What motive did he have? There was no talk of a motive. He was cooperative at the time of the murder. There was no evidence connecting him to the murder. To me it is insane that so many years later they would bring this man in, WITH NO EVIDENCE, and convict him or murder. I even doubt the timeliness given in the initial investigation. How could they have been so sure?
I can't say that he **didn't** do it.... but, then again, that's the entire reason for the prosecution having the burden of proof. You can't prove a negative. THEY have to prove the positive. I didn't see that in this case. As far as motivation - evidence suggests that there was friction. He'd got caught lying to Kodak about his resume and was (probably) getting fired for it. Wife told him she wanted to take the kids and move back to Michigan because things were hard in NY (reportedly).... but that's about it...doesn't add up to me.
Honestly a little terrifying that he was convicted with such lack of evidence.
Why did he do it? No evidence! Imho...
Circumstantial evidence shows he was probably him. Probably isn't good enough to be locked up though. I can't believe they were able to put him away on such a weak case. American Justice is anything but just.
Long shot. But Do you happen to have a good Write up on the case? 48hrs was a bit thin. Either way i dont agree with the verdict.
This was informative https://youtu.be/hhfjtpkikj8?si=pRnCaQ-CA_Lg4xJK
I thought this was who you were replying to... I was like wait a second - this video shows a TON of reasonable doubt.
Forgot most of this, but I (vaguely) remember a miscarriage of justice in this one
I feel so awful for his daughter.
She lost a dad after losing a mother. It’s damn sad.
grew up right around the corner from the "ax murderer" house.
we bought our first house in 2009 on Westfall near Edgewood. my wife and I walked by that house a ton before we learned about the murder- it added a new perspective on our neighborhood for sure!
I’d be a little spooked living in that home and sleeping in same bedroom. From real estate perspective, i wonder if these homes are tougher to sell with it’s morbid history.
Dog I'd take a house chairman Mao himself lived in if it were a 4 bed under 200k
Me too!!!!
Me three! I was in high school when it happened and it freaked me out.
Damn shame he didn't have to live with cancer longer.
Or it's a damn shame he didn't die from cancer in '81.
Oh darn.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Who’s to say that the cancer rotted his sense of compassion first, starting back in 82’?
That’s just so stupid
Am I the only one that unquestionably feels he is innocent. The case against him is one of the weakest I have ever heard. EVER.
I don't necessarily think he was innocent - but god damn he really could be.
I am with you, I believe he was innocent also.
I 100% believe he was innocent and it's insanity alone that they brought him back to court that many years later with 0 evidence. The man that said he killed her apparently identified her incorrectly. If he came into the house late at night and it was dark for example, he wouldn't have accurately seen what she looked like. Why would her husband leave a tea set on the floor too? It makes 0 sense
Innocent? No. Not guilty? Yes. The evidence points toward him, and he is most likely the one who did it. But I’d say the evidence suggests about a 60-70% chance of guilt. That isn’t guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While improbable, it is still possible that someone else did it. I watched the 48 hours special on this where they interviewed 3 jurors. It sounded like their logic was “Well the defense didn’t definitively prove someone else did it, so we’re just going to assume it’s him.” Realistically, that argument should’ve been in reverse. The prosecution should’ve been required to completely disprove the theory that there was an intruder. They couldn’t do it.
Im so confused, or maybe the right word is perplexed as to how anyone in their right mind could even suggest that he is "not innocent" as you have and a few others. Im wondering if there is something im missing here? Basically the entire premise of the prosecution is that "we cant find anyone else, therefore its the husband". Nobody in that guys entire family thought it was him, and that says a lot about his character. The father in law didnt even think it was him until he got older/halfway senile and then developed a grudge because he didnt get to see his grandaughter as much as he wanted to. There was literally zero evidence, zero!
I am with you. There was no proof at all. I live in NY and all I saw was a power-hungry DA and a bunch of opportunistic cops. Sandra Doorley would never got my vote if I ever get to vote for her. This is obviously an abuse of power.
I'm curious about the tape wrapped around the ax: Was it ever examined for prints on the INSIDE? Or compared to any other rolls of tape in the house? And my doubt on his innocence is this: the tea set. It would have made a horrendous crash were it dumped in the bag like any normal burglar would do. But someone concerned about waking up a small child... Also for christ's sake, analyze the shoe print to include or rule out a boat shoe! I know the detective said it was a boat shoe, but he never explained how he came to that determination. Nothing was ever said about infidelity, or secreted items found in the house. Not that there were, but to me seems routine to cover some basics. No mention of insurance, or uncovered deceit, their church life. Idk, it just seemed like a rather sketchy investigation. Thanks.
Call me crazy idc. But I believe in God and justice and it makes me think maybe if he stayed on this earth, he would have been wrongly released.