Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / The Brighton AX Murder

Transcript

The Brighton AX Murder · Murder Files Unsealed

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Right, get ready to dive into a case that has
• 0:03
  captivated people for well over forty years. It's a long
• 0:07
  time it is. It's the Krausnick case, and we're going
• 0:09
  to go through excerpts from this really detailed article. I
• 0:13
  think it's going to be a good one.
• 0:14
  Speaker 2: Yeah, this is a fascinating case.
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: It is, you know, kind of one.
• 0:18
  Speaker 2: Of those cases that just grabs you right from the start.
• 0:20
  You know, when you hear about, you know, a picture
• 0:23
  perfect family and then suddenly tragedy strikes. Yeah, it really
• 0:27
  makes you wonder, like what goes on behind closed doors exactly?
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: And today that's kind of what we're going to try
• 0:33
  to do. Yeah, we're going to untangle all these facts
• 0:35
  and evidence, the conflicting accounts, and see if we can
• 0:38
  make any sense of what happened to Kathy Krausnack.
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: Yeah, because this case has it all it does. You've
• 0:43
  got a staged crime scene, you've got conflicting timelines, and
• 0:47
  you've got a suspect who always maintained his innocence.
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: Like a real life who done it exactly. So let's
• 0:53
  start at the beginning. Jim and Kathy Krausnack high school sweethearts,
• 0:58
  married in nineteen seventy four. They seemed like the all
• 1:01
  American couple, right.
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: They did. They had that storybook romance. Yeah, they were
• 1:05
  high school sweethearts. They got married, had a beautiful daughter,
• 1:10
  and seemed to have it all.
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: They had their daughter, Sarah in seventy eight, and they
• 1:14
  moved around a bit because of Jim's.
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: Career, right first to Colorado, then Virginia following those academic opportunities.
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: And finally they landed in Brighton, New York in nineteen
• 1:24
  eighty one. Eighty one.
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: Yeah, Jim got a job at Kodak as an economist.
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: They were living the dream.
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: Bright On the surface, it seemed like it.
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: But here's where things start to get a little, well,
• 1:35
  a little murky murky.
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: Shortly after settling in Brighton, Kodak made a startling discovery.
• 1:41
  Jim he'd never actually finished his PhD.
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: Whoa hold on, can you imagine that?
• 1:46
  Speaker 2: Yeah, he'd built this whole career, landed this prestigious.
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: Job that Kodak, Yeah, all.
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: Based on basically a lie.
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: Yeah. That's a lot of pressure.
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: Oh, immense pressure. Yeah, talk about a house of cards
• 1:59
  waiting to collapse.
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: It's a few months after this discovery tragedy strikes.
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: It was February nineteenth, nineteen eighty two.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: A day that would change everything absolutely. So Jim Lee's
• 2:09
  for work around six point thirty in the morning.
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: Seems like a normal day, just like any other day.
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: But when he gets home that afternoon.
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: He finds his wife, Kathy, brutally murdered. Oh my god,
• 2:19
  it's a horrific scene.
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: I can't even imagine.
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: He calls the police, of course, and describes finding Kathy
• 2:25
  in bed, an axe embedded in her head, and signs
• 2:28
  of a possible break in.
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: So a first glance, it looks like a.
• 2:31
  Speaker 2: Burglary r right, He found the garage door open, there
• 2:34
  was broken glass by the front door, A mall was
• 2:36
  lying nearby, all classic signs of forced entry.
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: So maybe a robbery gone wrong.
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: That's what it seemed like initially. Yeah, but remember this
• 2:45
  is nineteen eighty two. DNA testing it wasn't even a
• 2:48
  thing back then, right, Investigators had to rely on fingerprints,
• 2:52
  witness accounts, good old fashioned detective work. Well, as they
• 2:56
  started digging, dever, things didn't quite add.
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: Up, Like what what didn't add up?
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: For starters, nothing of value seemed to be missing. Yeah,
• 3:05
  valuables were scattered around shore, but no electronics, no jewelry,
• 3:09
  no cash was taken.
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: That's weird.
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: It's almost like the intruder was trying too hard to
• 3:14
  stage a robbery, right, right. And then there's the murder
• 3:17
  weapon itself, the axe. Yeah, it belonged to the Krausnacks.
• 3:21
  What it was found in their garage.
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: So you're telling me a burglar brought their own axe.
• 3:27
  Speaker 2: It doesn't make a lot of sense, does it.
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: No, it doesn't.
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: Why would a burglar bring their own tools, let alone
• 3:33
  leave them behind at the crime scene.
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: I mean you see that in movies sometimes, right, you do,
• 3:37
  where the killer wants to make it look like something
• 3:39
  else exactly.
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: It's almost too perfect. Yeah, like a carefully constructed narrative
• 3:44
  designed to mislead the investigators.
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: Did they think that at the time.
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: Oh, they definitely picked up on the inconsistencies. Okay, they
• 3:52
  started to see this staged burglary for what it might
• 3:55
  have been, a desperate attempt to cover up something far
• 3:58
  more sinister.
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: Wow, started getting intense.
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: Oh and there's more.
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: There's more.
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: There's this curious detail of a faint shoeprint, A shoeprint
• 4:08
  found inside a trash bag near some of the scattered.
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: Valuable Wait, in a trash bag.
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it was like a cue that was almost hidden
• 4:16
  in plain sight.
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: Why didn't they test that further?
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: Well, technology back then wasn't what it is today.
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's true.
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: It was nearly impossible to get a clear match from
• 4:25
  such a faint print.
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: It seems like that could have been a direct link
• 4:28
  to whoever was in the house.
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: You would think, so, right, It's one of those details
• 4:32
  that just makes you wonder what other forensic opportunities might
• 4:35
  have been missed.
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it makes you wonder if some crucial piece of
• 4:40
  the puzzle is still out there somewhere.
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: It's possible.
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: Okay, So we've got a stage crime scene, we've got
• 4:47
  a mysterious shoeprint. But Jim's daughter Sarah was home, right,
• 4:52
  she was.
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: She was only three years old at the time.
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: Did she see anything? Did she talk to the police
• 4:56
  about the bad man?
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: Well, that's where things take an even more disturbing turn. Oh, Sarah,
• 5:02
  obviously traumatized by the events, did mention a bad man
• 5:05
  to the detective. Okay, but her description wasn't what you'd expect.
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: How do you mean, I mean She's three years old, right,
• 5:12
  what could she possibly say?
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: Well, she said the man had a hammer in his head,
• 5:16
  and then later changed it to.
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: An axe, an axe in his head.
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and she also described his face as having many colors.
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: Hmm.
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: Now the detective interviewing her, detective flood, he started to
• 5:29
  connect the dots. God, what if Sarah wasn't describing a
• 5:32
  man at all? Oh no, what if she was describing
• 5:34
  her own mother lying dead, covered in blood.
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: Oh God, that's just awful. It's heartbreaking to think about,
• 5:41
  isn't it a three year old witnessing something like that.
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: It's a stark reminder of the brutal reality of this case.
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: It also makes you think about how much you can
• 5:50
  rely on the testimony.
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: Of a child, especially one who's experienced something so traumatic.
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: Exactly, their memories, especially traumatic ones, they can be so
• 5:58
  easily influenced, stored it over time.
• 6:01
  Speaker 2: Absolutely, it's a delicate balance for investigators to try and
• 6:03
  sort through fact and fiction.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: Okay, so we've got a stage crime scene, an unreliable witness,
• 6:09
  and a husband who seems a little too eager to
• 6:11
  point the finger at a random burglar.
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: It's a lot to unpack. It is and that's just
• 6:16
  the beginning.
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: What happened next to the autopsy tell him anything?
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: Well, the autopsy did confirm that the axe wound was
• 6:22
  the cause of death, okay, and there were no signs
• 6:24
  of sexual assault. The medical examiner was able to narrow
• 6:28
  the time of death to somewhere between four thirty am
• 6:31
  and seven thirty am.
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: And this is where things take another turn.
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: What happened Jim?
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: He agreed to meet with investigators again? Okay, but then
• 6:42
  he suddenly packs up and leaves for Michigan with Sarah
• 6:46
  before the scheduled meeting.
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: Hold on, he just took off, he did? Why would
• 6:50
  he do that if he had nothing to hide.
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: It's a question that has lingered over this case for decades.
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean it seems pretty suspicious, it does, doesn't
• 6:57
  It Like was he running because he knew the police
• 6:59
  were closed.
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: Or was he, as his supporters later claimed, trying to
• 7:04
  protect his daughter from the media frenzy that was already
• 7:06
  starting to swirl.
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: Wow, this is getting good, But I think we need
• 7:09
  to take a break and come back to this.
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: Agreed, We've only just scratched the surface of this case.
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: This case is already full of twists and turns, and
• 7:16
  it's only going to get more complicated from here.
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: Now. Absolutely, we've got a lot more to uncover.
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: We'll be right back, Okay. So we left off with
• 7:23
  Jim leaving for Michigan with Sarah.
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: Right before that crucial medium with investigators.
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: Definitely not a good look, right, I mean, it kind
• 7:32
  of makes you wonder what he was thinking.
• 7:34
  Speaker 2: It raised a lot of eyebrows, that's for sure.
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: So what happened during those years when the case went cold?
• 7:39
  Did the police just give up?
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: Well, they never officially closed the case, but Lee's were
• 7:45
  drying up. Yeah, no new evidence. It was tough to
• 7:48
  move forward.
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: So Jim just went on with his life.
• 7:51
  Speaker 2: He did. He remarried, moved out West. It seemed like
• 7:54
  Kathy's murderer would remain unsolved.
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: But then decades later, something happened that brought the case
• 7:59
  back into the spotlight.
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: In twenty fourteen, a career criminal named Edward Larabee confessed
• 8:05
  to Kathy's murder. Wait, what, Yeah, a deathbed confession?
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: No less, Wow, that's like something out of a movie.
• 8:10
  Speaker 2: It seemed like a major break in the case.
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: So did it check out? Did his story match the evidence? Not?
• 8:17
  Speaker 2: Really? That's the thing.
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: Oh, his details were off, His timeline didn't add up.
• 8:21
  He even described Kathy as a brunette when she was
• 8:25
  actually blonde.
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: So a false confession.
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: It seems that way.
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: Sad to think that Kathy's family might have gotten their
• 8:33
  hopes up only to be disappointed.
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: It's definitely a tragic twist in an already tragic story.
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: But it did bring the case back into the public eye.
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: Oh absolutely. And with that renewed attention came a renewed
• 8:44
  effort to find the truth. So what happened In twenty fifteen?
• 8:47
  The Brighton Police Department decided to reopen the case. Okay,
• 8:51
  they partnered with the FBI, took another look at the
• 8:53
  evidence and reinterviewed witnesses.
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: Did they talk to Jim again?
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: They did. They tracked him down in Washington States.
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: His reaction, He agreed.
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: To be interviewed, but this time the investigators weren't holding back. Really,
• 9:06
  Detective liberatore, he actually accused Jim directly.
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: Wow, that must have been intense.
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: He pointed out the inconsistencies in Jim's story, the suspicious
• 9:16
  timing of his departure back in nineteen eighty two. What
• 9:19
  did Jim say he maintained his innocence, but the investigators
• 9:22
  weren't convinced.
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: Did they have any hard evidence not at that point,
• 9:25
  But the tide was starting to turn. How So entered
• 9:28
  doctor Michael Baden.
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: Doctor Baden, the famous forensic pathologist.
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: The one and only.
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: What was his role in the case.
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: They brought him in to take a fresh look at
• 9:36
  the evidence, specifically the time of death. His findings were
• 9:40
  a game changer.
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: What did he find?
• 9:42
  Speaker 2: He narrowed the time of death to around three point
• 9:45
  thirty am.
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: Three thirty am.
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: But that means that Jim would have been at home
• 9:51
  when Cathy was murdered.
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: His alibi was shattered completely, and that was enough to
• 9:56
  finally arrest him.
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: It was in November twenty nineteen, more than thirty seven
• 10:01
  years after Kathy's death, Jim Krausneck was indicted for her murder.
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: Wow, what a turn of events.
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: He pleaded not guilty, setting the stage for a high
• 10:10
  profile trial that would grip the nation.
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: This is unbelievable. I can't wait to hear what happened next.
• 10:15
  So the trial, right, this is at the moment of
• 10:17
  truth after all these years, Yeah.
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: After more than three decades the krafsneck case was finally
• 10:21
  going to trial.
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: I bet the media had a field day with this one.
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, it was a media frenzy.
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: I can only imagine.
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: Reporters, cameras. Everyone was there waiting to see if justice
• 10:30
  would finally be served.
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: So walk me through it. What was the prosecution's case?
• 10:35
  How do they try to prove that Jim was guilty?
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: They really focused on painting a picture of Jim as
• 10:42
  this like calculating killer, Okay, driven to murder because he
• 10:48
  was terrified of his secret being exposed.
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: Little PhD things exactly. Yeah, I mean that could ruin
• 10:53
  a career pretty quickly.
• 10:54
  Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, especially back then. They argued that he killed
• 10:59
  Kathy to parted his reputation, his career, his whole life basically.
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: So what kind of evidence did they use to support that?
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: Well, they kept coming back to the staged burglary, right,
• 11:09
  the lack of forced entry, the fact that nothing was
• 11:12
  actually stolen, It all pointed to a carefully planned crime, they.
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: Said, like he was trying to misdirect the investigation.
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: It's all starting to sound very like movie plot.
• 11:22
  Speaker 2: You know, it does, doesn't it.
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: But what about the defense? What was their strategy.
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: They had a tough job ahead of them, that's for sure.
• 11:29
  Their main argument was that the prosecution's case was completely circumstantial.
• 11:35
  They kept saying, look, there's no direct evidence linking Jim
• 11:38
  to the murder.
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: Did they challenge doctor Baden's time of death?
• 11:41
  Speaker 2: Oh, they definitely did, Okay. They argued that it was
• 11:43
  based on estimations, not like hard science.
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: And they kept hammering home the lack of a clear motive.
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: Right like, why would Jim kill Kathy if they had
• 11:54
  a happy marriage?
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: Exactly? They said there was no evidence of any problems,
• 11:59
  no infidelity, no financial issues, nothing that would typically drive
• 12:03
  someone to murder their spouse.
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: What about that shoeprint in the trash bag? Did that
• 12:08
  come up?
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: It did, actually, but it kind of backfired on.
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: The defense really how so? Well?
• 12:13
  Speaker 2: The prosecution brought in an expert who said the print
• 12:16
  was probably from a specific type of boat shoe that
• 12:19
  was popular in the early eighties. Okay, And get this,
• 12:22
  they showed photos from the crime scene back in eighty two,
• 12:26
  and there was a pair of shoes in those photos
• 12:27
  that looked exactly like the ones the expert described what and.
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: They were in Jim's house. Hey, why didn't they test
• 12:33
  them against the footprint?
• 12:34
  Speaker 2: That's the big question, right, Yeah, it seems like a
• 12:36
  no brainer, But for whatever reason, those shoes were never tested.
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: Wow. That's a huge missed opportunity.
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: It really is. And the defense jumped all over that.
• 12:46
  Of course, they said the whole shoe thing was a distraction,
• 12:49
  oka a way to shift focus away from the fact
• 12:51
  that there was no physical evidence tying Jim to the murder.
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: No fingerprints, no DNA, nothing exactly. Wow. This trial sound
• 13:00
  like it was really intense.
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: It was both sides fought hard, but ultimately it was
• 13:05
  up to the jury to decide.
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: And I guess everyone was waiting to hear from Sarah.
• 13:08
  Speaker 2: Oh. Absolutely, everyone wanted to know what she would say.
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: I can't imagine what that must have been like for
• 13:13
  her to have to testify in her own father's murder trial.
• 13:17
  Speaker 2: It must have been incredibly difficult.
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: So what did she say?
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: She defended her father, said he was a loving husband
• 13:23
  and father.
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: She believed he was innocent completely. Wow. That's powerful.
• 13:27
  Speaker 2: It was a very emotional moment in the trial. You know,
• 13:30
  this wasn't just about evidence and arguments. It was about
• 13:33
  real people whose lives had been torn apart by this tragedy,
• 13:37
  and the.
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: Jury had to weigh all of that, all the evidence,
• 13:40
  all the testimony, and come to a decision see exactly.
• 13:43
  Speaker 2: And after days of deliberation, they reached a verdict.
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: What was it?
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: Guilty?
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: Wow? Guilty of what?
• 13:50
  Speaker 2: Second degree murder?
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: After all these years, Jim Krauznek was found guilty of
• 13:55
  killing his wife.
• 13:56
  Speaker 2: It seemed like justice had finally been served. But even
• 13:59
  with a verdict, there were still so many.
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: Questions you can imagine, like was it really him? Did
• 14:04
  they get the right guy?
• 14:05
  Speaker 2: Exactly? It's a case that stays with you, you know.
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: So what happened after the verdict? Did Jim appeal?
• 14:11
  Speaker 2: He did? He was sentenced to twenty five years to life,
• 14:14
  but he always maintained his innocence.
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: Did he say anything at the sentencing?
• 14:18
  Speaker 2: Both he and Sarah gave statements. They criticized the justice system,
• 14:22
  said they would keep fighting to clear his name.
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: And his wife, Sharon, she.
• 14:26
  Speaker 2: Was there too, vowed to appeal the verdicts, that she
• 14:28
  would never give up on him.
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: Wow. Even with the conviction, it sounds like there are
• 14:32
  still so many people who believe he didn't do it.
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: The Krafsnet case. It really shows you how divided people
• 14:38
  can be, even when there's a legal resolution.
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: It makes you think about what justice really means.
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: It does.
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: So did Jim ever get to appeal?
• 14:46
  Speaker 2: Sadly know what happened? He died in prison in May
• 14:50
  of twenty twenty three. Oh wow, he died from cancer
• 14:53
  before he ever got the chance to clear.
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: His Name's that's really sad it is.
• 14:57
  Speaker 2: It's a tragic end to a case that's full of tragedy.
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: So here we are at the end of our deep dive,
• 15:03
  and I have to say, I'm still left with so
• 15:05
  many questions.
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: I think that's the nature of these kinds of cases,
• 15:08
  you know, they make you think. They challenge you to
• 15:11
  examine the evidence, to consider different perspectives.
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: Was Jim Krausneck a cold blooded killer? Or was he
• 15:18
  wrongly convicted? I guess we'll never know for sure.
• 15:21
  Speaker 2: That's the thing about cold cases. They often leave us
• 15:23
  with more questions than answer.
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: But that's part of what makes them so fascinating.
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: Right Absolutely, they force us to confront the complexities of
• 15:30
  the human experience, the limits of our knowledge, and the
• 15:33
  enduring power of mystery.
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: And that's what we try to do here on the
• 15:36
  deep dive, to explore these cases, to examine the evidence,
• 15:41
  and to hopefully get a little closer to the truth,
• 15:44
  even if it's always just out of reach.
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: Sometimes the journey is just as important as the destination.
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: Well said, Well said. Thanks for joining us on this
• 15:52
  deep dive into the Krowsneck case.
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: It's been a pleasure.
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: And to all our listeners out there, keep those minds sharp,
• 15:57
  keep asking questions, and remember sometimes the most compelling mysteries
• 16:02
  are the ones that stay with us long after the
• 16:04
  case is closed.