Dark Downeast - The Murder of Kara Laczynski (Connecticut)

Episode Date: July 31, 2025

Almost 38 years later, the truth about what happened to Kara Laczynski and who is responsible for her death still has yet to be revealed. Two suspects were arrested and charged in the case, but after three trials with three separate juries and weeks upon weeks of testimony, no one has ever been convicted. Here’s what investigators thought—and tried to convince the jury—really happened, based on highly disputed evidence that stirred controversy even before it hit a courtroom. But with the case unsolved, what could be done today with contemporary forensics to figure out once and for all what happened on that October night in 1987?If you have any information relating to the 1987 homicide of Kara Laczynski, please contact the Hartford Police Department at [phone].View source material and photos for this episode at: darkdowneast.com/karalaczynskiDark Downeast is an audiochuck and Kylie Media production hosted by Kylie Low.Follow @darkdowneast on Instagram, Facebook, and TikTokTo suggest a case visit  darkdowneast.com/submit-case

Almost 38 years later, the truth about what happened to Kara Lazinski and who is responsible for her death still has yet to be revealed. Two suspects were arrested and charged in the case, but after three trials with three separate juries and weeks upon weeks of testimony, no one has ever been convicted. I'm going to share with you what investigators thought and tried to convince the jury really happened based on highly disputed evidence that stirred controversy even before it hit a courtroom. And then we're going to talk about what could be done today with contemporary forensics to figure out once and for all what happened on that October night in 1987. I'm Kylie Lowe and this is the case of Kara Lazzinski on Darkdowne East.

It was a Monday morning, October 5, 1987, and a new-ish reporter at the Journal Inquirer in Manchester, Connecticut hadn't shown up for work yet. According to Liz Willens reporting for the Hartford Current, 24-year-old Kara Lazzinsky had been at the paper only a few months at that point, but she was reliable and conscientious and wouldn't have missed work without letting someone know. So when her absence was noted by an associate editor at the paper, another reporter who lived next door to Kara was sent to see if she could find her. The fellow reporter tried calling Kara's apartment, but there was no answer, and so she walked over to the building at 31 Evergreen Avenue in Hartford. That's when she noticed that the screen on Kara's bathroom window was neatly slit. Unsettled at the site, the reporter went to go find a maintenance worker for the building,

and together they went inside Kara's. apartment. That's when they found her nude body on the floor. The telephone had been ripped from the wall, so the maintenance worker plugged it in and called police. A swarm of Hartford police detectives soon arrived at Kara's small efficiency apartment. From the first assessment of her body and the scene, it appeared that this was a burglary that turned violent and deadly. Dresser drawers were stacked up on top of Kara's bed and clothing was tossed onto the floor from her closet. Some of Kara's stuff, including her class ring, may have been stolen. Peter Layden and Valerie Finnholm report for the Hartford Current that Kara's wrists were bound

in front of her using leather straps that were cut from a purse or two at the scene. There was also a black vinyl belt and a tarycloth bathrobe sash around her neck and torso. She had scrapes on her back, knees, shins, and arms as well as bruises on her body. The marks on her back were believed to have been caused by a sharp object the size of a coin, possibly a penny. The medical examiner ruled that Kara likely died between 1 and 2 a.m. on October 5th, early in the morning on the same day she was found, and concluded that she was both manually strangled and that her assailant also used the terry cloth sash and vinyl belt. The fact that Kara was found nude raised questions of possible sexual assault.

However, the medical examiner later ruled that she was not sexually assaulted. Kara's killer, or killers, may have encountered her while she was in the bathtub, hence her state of undress. The tub was full of water when police first arrived at the scene, and Kara's hair was wet, too. The apartment was in disarray, and forensic technicians, early on the scene, began collecting and photographing everything. Actually, not everything, because a forensic expert working part-time for Hartford PD collected a pair of scissors found about a foot from Kara's head on the floor of the bathroom, before any photos could be snapped of their placement. The cut bathroom screen that Kara's fellow reporter noticed that day was located on the driveway side of the building about nine feet off the ground. A pipe that ran along the wall below

the window only about three feet from the ground could serve as a step to reach the bathroom window. The screen had been neatly cut on three sides and pulled back. After further investigation, police determined that whoever strangled Kara probably did not climb through the cut bathroom window, though it was not entirely ruled out. It was only about two feet by two feet in size, small for a person to shimmy through. Forensic examination indicated it was more likely that the killer entered through the front door. That raised the question, did Kara know her killer or killers and willingly let them inside? That question, among countless others, were the folks.

of the early investigation into Kara's murder as police tried to figure out who would want the woman dead and why. She wasn't an enemy to anyone, and in fact, everyone who met her found something to love about Kara. Kara herself loved piano, real Italian pizza, Jesse Jackson, the Beatles, William Sapphire, and the Mets. Her friends and family said she could discuss music and art as well as she could dig into politics and literature. She was a fierce protector and advocate for the underdog. She wore a pin that stated boldly, question authority. According to reporting by Teresa Sullivan Barger for the Hartford Current, Kara attended the University of Pennsylvania and earned her bachelor's degree in both English and economics.

Journalism wasn't always her plan, but she'd worked as editor for the Nutley Sun, a weekly newspaper in her home state of New Jersey, before moving to Connecticut for the job at the journal Inquirer only about seven months before her death. Managing editor at the journal inquirer, Chris Powell, said that in the few short months Kara was at the paper, she proved herself to be, quote, an excellent reporter, intelligent, educated, friendly, persistent, but courteous and gentle, conscientious, and a fine writer, end quote. Veda Crosby reports for the Hartford Current that,

Over the first weekend in October of 1987, Kara had been in Pennsylvania visiting a friend. On her way back to Connecticut, she stopped by her New Jersey hometown to visit her parents and siblings. She had dinner with them on the night of October 4th. It was the last time they ever saw her alive. About a week into the investigation, some personal items that appeared to belong to Kara were recovered from a trash bin and grassy area near her apartment. However, her credit cards, watch, keys, and possibly a gold necklace were still missing. Hartford police put out a notice to other departments to be on the lookout for these items at pawn shops or elsewhere. Investigators learned from a neighbor that he heard a woman screaming around 9.45 p.m. that Sunday night,

and he had called the police about it. Early reporting about this tip indicates that investigators on Kara's case checked it out, and the screams didn't appear to be related to Kara's murder. Later reports state that the screaming was connected to a domestic dispute next door at 35 Evergreen Avenue. We're going to talk more about that in a little bit. Investigators also spoke to a former resident of Kara's apartment building. She said that about two weeks before Kara's murder, a man intercepted her at the front door of the building

and said that he got locked out and asked if she'd let him in and she did. About 15 minutes later, the man knocked on her door and asked to use the phone and she let him. After hanging up the call, the man started making obscene remarks to her and asked what she would do if he hurt or killed her. She asked him to leave over and over and he finally retreated after she threw a magazine at him. On October 28, police met with that former resident to develop a composite sketch of a person believed to be involved in that suspicious. incident. He was described as a white male, 25 years old, six feet two inches tall, about

180 pounds, and he had blonde hair. The man was wanted for questioning relative to Kara's murder, but not specifically identified as a suspect. A little less than a month into the investigation of Kara's murder and the apparent burglary at her apartment, another burglary at another woman's apartment in Kara's neighborhood raised the suspicion of investigators. Ephrain Hernandez Jr. reports for the current that this incident, which occurred on November 3rd, showed unspecified similarities to Kara's attack, and so police collected fingerprints from the scene of that burglary. The West End neighborhood of Hartford, and specifically the area surrounding Kara's apartment building, had seen an increase in burglaries over the previous three months.

There were four burglaries reported on Kara's Street itself since September 1st. Working off that burglary angle, the lead investigator and other detectives on the case pulled files from every burglary case in the neighborhood over the previous two years. Narrowing the possibilities down, they handed the files over to state police, along with a piece of evidence recovered from Kara's apartment. A fingerprint on a pair of scissors. Hartford Police forensic analyst James MacDonald had lifted a smudged, partial latent fingerprint from the scissors found on Kara's bathroom floor.

Investigators believed that the killer or killers used the scissors to cut the purse straps used to bind Kara's wrists, and so that print could prove critical to identifying the perpetrator. And indeed, the print was critical. State police forensic experts worked in collaboration with Hartford PD, specifically renewing that print in the context of all the previous burglary suspects. On December 9, 1987, state police investigators found a print among the burglary files that showed similarities to the print left on the scissors. It was tricky, though. The state police fingerprint expert couldn't say, for sure, it was the same as the print in the burglary files. There were

too few similarities to draw a confident conclusion. So, two days later, an FBI specialist analyzed the prints. That analyst was able to identify a match with certainty. The print on the scissors, according to the FBI, allegedly belonged to 22-year-old Joseph Lomax. As you'll soon see, the use of the word allegedly here is imperative. Because that smudged partial latent print found on the scissors became the center of major controversy and debate almost as soon as Joseph Lomax was arrested and charged with Kara's murder. It was Christmas Eve, December 24, 1987, when police took Joseph Lomax into custody without incident. It was also what should have been Kara Lazzinski's birthday. Joseph Lomax was

charged with murder, felony murder, and first-degree burglary. Court records show that Joseph had been arrested and charged with two burglaries within two blocks of Kara's apartment in the past year. In one of the two cases on January 7, 1987, witnesses said that Joseph was listening at the back door of an apartment on the second floor of a building at 20 Frederick Street. He tried to force open a door to the building, but realized he was being watched and quickly ran down the back staircase and away from the building. One of the witnesses chased Joe down and held him until police arrived. Joseph was handed a suspended 30 to 90 day sentence and one to three years probation for that incident.

An apartment at 13, Frederick Street, had been burglarized the same day. The tenant heard noises in her bathroom and went to investigate only to find the bathroom empty, but the window open and a suitcase propped up to serve as a step. One drawer to her dresser was pulled out and on her bed, but nothing was stolen. A fingerprint on the window matched Joseph Lomax, and so he was charged with third-degree burglary in that case, but it had not been prosecuted at the time of his arrest. arrest in Kara's case. Joseph had a prior conviction for burglary in 1983 and received a six to 12 month sentence, and as recently as June 5th of 1987, Joseph was charged with larceny, but the

disposition on that case at the time of his arrest was unknown. The arrest warrant affidavit was sealed at the time of Joseph's arrest, and it wouldn't be unsealed until his probable cause hearing a few months later. However, police hinted that there was a potential second. second suspect in the case, just not enough evidence to make an arrest at that time. So details about that second suspect, and even the fingerprint evidence, had yet to be publicly revealed in any official way. But the forensic expert who first lifted the suspect print off the pair of scissors decided to speak out about all of it, because he was adamant that the fingerprint he lifted did not belong to Joseph Lomax at all.

In October of 1987, well before Joe Lomax was arrested or identified by the FBI, Captain James Meehan of the Hartford Police told Peter Layden of the Hartford Current that the PD's part-time civilian forensic expert James McDonald was analyzing evidence in the case, and quote, if anybody can read a print, that guy can, end quote. James was a seasoned forensic analyst and fingerprint examiner. He'd worked in and around law enforcement and forensic for over 40 years, including 20 years as a state police officer. He did forensic work as a civilian for multiple Connecticut departments,

but was full-time with Waterbury, PD, and had helped open and run their crime lab. He had two master's degrees and taught course. on forensics, including fingerprint identification. Colleagues of James said that they'd never known him to be wrong. He testified in many trials, including high-profile homicides, and his work was trusted and respected. According to James, he compared Joseph's print to the print on the scissors in October and determined that it was not Joe's print, but fast-forward two months and the FBI and state

police were saying it was Joe's print. In a series of interviews with local media, James made his opinion clear. The FBI was wrong. That print was actually his own. He accidentally left it on the scissors during his analysis of the evidence. James stated that he handled the scissors four separate times. First, to check if they'd been used as a weapon and if they had blood on them, which they did not. Later, he checked to see if they were used to cut the straps of the handbags used to bind.

Kara. His print could have landed on the scissors any of those times, or when he was taking them in and out of the evidence back, he wasn't sure. It wasn't until four days after Joe was arrested that James discovered the print was his own. He said he thought it might be his before Joseph was arrested, but didn't fully study it until after. He was so sure it was his own because the print had a scar across it, just as he had on his left ring finger. Joseph did not have have a scar on his finger. You can see a photo of the print that I found in old press coverage in the show notes for this episode at darkdownease.com.

James said he disagreed with the FBI's techniques. According to James, the FBI analyzed a negative of a picture of the fingerprint versus the picture of the print, meaning that the ridges and furrows of the fingerprint were reversed. He said of the FBI's conclusion, quote, They are absolutely totally wrong. That is not Joe Lomax's print. That guy shouldn't be locked up. I'd like to get the guy who killed her too, but I'd like to get the right guy based on the evidence. They made a very serious mistake, end quote.

Calling out the FBI was a bold move. It was met with some negative attention on James McDonald's credentials. He apparently failed two tests in the early 1980s, including a certification test from a private group, the International Association of Identification. A caveat to that is more than 50% of first-time test takers fail that test,

but he chose not to take it a second time. Worth noting, all FBI fingerprint experts must be certified by the association. James was asked to resign from his position with Hartford PD in part because of his disagreement over the print. Hartford Police Chief Bernard R. Sullivan said,

quote, for the best interests of the organization, it would be better if he was not the department technician. It's what's best for the organization at this present time, end quote. Basically, if it wasn't his print, they couldn't have a guy around that undermined an investigation, and if it was his print, they also couldn't have a forensic expert contaminating evidence. Hartford State's attorney John Bailey told Peter Layden of the Hartford Current

that five experts from the FBI analyzed the fingerprint and agreed that the fingerprint belonged to Joseph Lomax. Even after comparing James McDonald's prints to those on the evidence, they were still certain that it belonged to the suspect. According to the superintendent of the latent fingerprint section of the FBI in Washington, making a positive identification on a fingerprint is absolute. There was no possibly, probably, or likely.

fingerprint identification is a science, not a subjective ruling as far as the FBI was concerned. The fingerprint wasn't the only evidence in the case. Once the arrest warrant affidavit was unsealed, more details about what investigators found at the scene were revealed. The affidavit stated that an informant told police they received information from the killer's accomplice, implicating Joseph Lomax, and the fingerprint supported the informant story. Interestingly, though, the alleged accomplice whose name was redacted from the document originally was in jail at the time of the murder, so it didn't make a whole lot of sense that this person could be an accomplice to anything while in custody. Nevertheless, on October 26th,

the informant told police that a man told him that he and Joseph Lomax went into Kara's apartment and tried to drug her, but when the drug didn't take effect, he killed her. According to the affidavit, Connecticut state police forensic experts had independently matched Joseph Lomax's fingerprint to the partial print on the pair of scissors before they knew that an informant would implicate him in the crime. I've been unable to find any follow-up on this story about the assailant potentially drugging Kara or if toxicology showed anything to support this. I'm unable to access case files that could clear this up either. The arrest warrant also indicated that investigators had collected several pieces of hair at the scene and on Kara's body.

The affidavit suggested that the hair evidence came from the second suspect who was still at large. There were 47 hairs, including 28 head hairs found on Kara's body and intertwined with clothing fibers in her fingers. Two of the hairs were determined to be pubic hair. James McDonald claimed that the hairs were determined to be from a white person and Joseph Lomax's black, but we'll get into discussion of tracing the identity of that hair evidence later on. I'll say now, though, that there was at least some hair at the scene believed to be from a person who is black. Meanwhile, James McDonald's, the forensic expert who resigned from his position with Hartford PD, had continued to fight to prove that the fingerprint on the scissors did not belong

to Joseph Lomax, and he asked the International Association of Identification, the Association with the exam, he failed, to determine whose print it was. James himself took new prints from Joseph and sent large format photos to the board for review. Addressing some of the things James had said about misidentification of the print, the secretary of the association William Willis said, it was possible that a negative of a fingerprint was mistaken for an original photograph, as James argued happened with the FBI review of the prints. On Friday, February 19th, ahead of Joseph's probable cause hearing, the seven-member certification board of the IAI released their findings. They determined that the disputed latent fingerprint did, in fact, belonged to Joseph Lomax.

Based on all the evidence, a judge found probable cause to charge Joseph Lomax and ordered him held on $200,000 bond. He was unable to post bail, and so Joseph was held in jail as he awaited a trial. Joseph Lomax's arrest drew the attention of the Hartford branch of the N.A.C.P. The organization started a defense fund for him because the group's members felt that Joseph wasn't being treated fairly. In April of 1988, Joseph A. Moniz, a partner at Connecticut's largest law firm, agreed to represent Joseph Lomax after the NWACP contacted him. The first trial of Joseph Lomax began in late January of 1989. Unsurprisingly, the fingerprint swiftly took center stage. Despite his very public disagreement about the identity of the fingerprint on the scissors,

James MacDonald was called to testify for the prosecution about lifting the print from the evidence. He described arriving at the scene and collecting hair samples and a pair of scissors. He testified that he picked the scissors up by the handle and put them in a plastic bag before they were transported to the lab where he disassembled them for analysis. However, James did not testify, yet, about the identity of the fingerprint, or rather his findings of the identity of the fingerprint. An FBI expert witness, David Larrabee, testified for the prosecution that the print on the scissors belonged to Joseph Lomax, using photos of the print on the scissors and comparing

it to a print from the defendant's pinky finger, the specialist pointed out at least 15 similar characteristics between the two. On cross, the defense attorney pointed out that the expert had never examined the scissors firsthand, only photos, and possibly a negative of the print lifted from the evidence. Something I'd mentioned we'd get into a little more is the hair fragments recovered from the scene. Although previous reporting said none of the hairs were determined to come from a black person, testimony indicated that there were hairs that fit that description. A state police forensic expert then testified that a hair found in a knot which bound Kara's wrists and one on a rug was similar to a sample from the defendant.

However, the expert also admitted during testimony that hair analysis was not an exact science and hair could not be matched to a specific individual based on visual characteristics, but it was possible to examine hairs for characteristics that could indicate the race of the person who left the hairs there. On cross-examination, the defense attorney pointed out that two officers and an assistant medical examiner, all of whom were black, could have left their hair at the scene. Another forensic expert testified that under microscopic analysis,

the hair was actually similar to a person who once lived in the building next to Caras but had since moved. That person was considered a suspect in the case, and he'd been questioned extensively, but there just wasn't enough evidence to charge him. Although his name came up in discussion of the hair evidence, a judge ruled that the jury could not hear testimony that implicated this other suspect. A man will refer to by the fake name, Marcus. Joseph Monez called several witnesses for the defense, including a neighbor on Evergreen Avenue that said on the night of October 4th,

he heard terrifying screams coming from an apartment building on the street, but couldn't be sure exactly where. Moniz asked for the audio from that call to be played for the jury, and you could hear the operator get frustrated with the caller and eventually hang up. According to the witness, police never responded to the call. A second call was made. to police for an incident on Evergreen Avenue that same night, this one relating to a domestic dispute involving Marcus. James McDonald was called to the stand again, this time for the defense.

He told the jury he disagreed with the FBI's methodology of analyzing the fingerprint on the evidence, and that he left the print with his left ring finger during his analysis of the evidence. He testified that Joseph Lomax did not leave the print. In a rare occurrence, Joseph Lomax testified in his own defense. He told the jury, he had an alibi. He was with his girlfriend at her apartment all night long, watching videotapes, and then he left around 6 a.m. for work at a local drugstore. Joseph's girlfriend at the time corroborated his story,

testifying that she was with him the entire night, and they never left her apartment at 26 Owen Street, which was about four-tenths of a mile from Kara's apartment. Her story was challenged, though, with testimony from a newspaper reporter. Joseph's girlfriend had some apparent inconsistencies in her statements. The reporter testified that Joe's girlfriend said the previous year that she couldn't remember where she and Joe were on the night of the murder. The state summed up their case in closing arguments.

It was Joseph Lomax, who robbed Kara Lizzynski, left a fingerprint on a pair of her scissors, along with pieces of his hair and strangled her to death. In the prosecutor's view, the hair and fingerprint were enough to convict Joseph Lomax. But the defense summarized their own theory that Kara was killed by professionals who were looking for something specific in her apartment. A burglar would not have spent so much time, quote, doing this awful thing for a couple hundred dollars worth of jewelry, end quote.

Deliberations began on February 21st, 1989, and lasted a while. A few days in, the jurors asked to rehear certain testimony from four of the fingerprint experts. After four days, the jury passed a note to the judge asking to be dismissed for the weekend. They were at an impasse and couldn't come to a unanimous verdict yet. They were released for the weekend. There was still no verdict when the jury returned to the following. week. On February 28, 1989, the judge declared a mistrial. Ten jurors believed Joseph Lomax was guilty, but two did not, and they could not reach an agreement beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the two

jurors on the side of acquittal said that the issue came down to the fingerprint. Most members of the jury believed that someone else was with Joseph Lomax at Kara's apartment when she was murdered. The state fully intended to bring Joseph Lomax to trial again, and they'd have new evidence to present to a jury the second time around, because as of April 17, 1989, a second suspect was in custody. Just a few months after the mistrial, Hartford police arrested 21-year-old Willie Eskew on charges of murder, felony murder, conspiracy to commit murder, first-degree burglary, and first-degree conspiracy to commit burglary. According to Jack Ewing's reporting for the Hartford Current, police stated that Willie had always been a suspect, but there hadn't been enough evidence to charge him until then.

According to an arrest warrant affidavit, a witness allegedly saw Willie and Joseph looking into Kara's windows on the night of her murder. Willie allegedly told a different witness sometime after the murder that he and Joe went into a woman's apartment and, quote, knocked her down when she caught them in the process of burglarizing her home. During a probable cause hearing, another witness said he saw Willie and Joseph a few days after the murder, and they, allegedly, had credit cards belonging to Kara Lizinski in their possession. Following the hearing, a judge found there was enough evidence for Willie a to stand trial on the felony murder and murder charges. His bail was set at $350,000. The second trial of Joseph Lomax began in December of 1989. The fingerprint evidence was still

at the center of the case against him. This time, James McDonald was permitted to testify from the beginning that he believed the print on the scissors was his own and did not belong to the defendant. He testified to this in the first trial, but not until near the end of the proceedings after all of the other experts had given their testimony. James also testified that the 27 head hares found on Kara's body did not belong to Kara or to a person who was black, in contrast to other expert testimony from the first trial that the hairs could have been from Joseph Lomax. The FBI expert, David Larrabee, testified again, stating that the print on the scissors

belonged to Joseph Lomax's little finger with 17 points of identification. Several other experts followed and echoed this conclusion. While much of the testimony was the same or similar, the major difference between the first and second trial was that now the prosecution had witnesses who placed Joseph Lomax and his alleged accomplice Willius Kew at the scene of the murder and with some of Kara's personal belongings. A woman testified about seeing Joseph and the other side,

suspect outside Kara's apartment on the night she was killed. The witness who claimed he saw Joseph and the other suspect with Kara's credit cards in the days after the murder also told the jury his story, but his credibility was called into question when it was revealed during cross-examination that he was a paid informant for Hartford PD long before this particular case. The defense's case this time around was also slightly different. Defense attorney Joseph Moniz raised testimony that the time of death determination made by the medical examiner may have been inaccurate. An expert witness for the defense found that Kara had most likely died between 7 and 9 a.m. on October 5th and not earlier in the morning as the medical examiner had ruled. This

alternate time frame would have placed Joseph Lomax at work at the time of the murder. This conclusion by the defense's expert witness was based on pooling of blood in Kara's body and the fact that her hair was still wet when she was found. This drew the inference that she bathed closer to when she was killed. If she had taken a bath around midnight, the witness thought her hair would not still be wet 12 hours later, though he admitted there was nothing scientific to support that. Interestingly, the state's medical examiner also seemed a little wishy-washy in his determination of the time of death. Under cross-examination, the ME agreed that the body was sending quote-unquote mixed signals as to the time of death. He also testified that he once told the defense team

that the time of death could have been 3 a.m. to 7 a.m., but he later changed his mind. A few weeks into trial, the defense introduced a surprise witness that refuted the claims by the woman who said she saw Joseph and the other suspect at Kara's window. The witness told the jury that the woman claiming she saw Joe was lying. This witness said the other woman used drugs and fabricated stories and did, quote, anything for a hit, end quote. Under cross-examination, though, the witness admitted she herself battled substance use disorder and had run-ins with the law for theft,

and she had used heroin as recently as that morning. Yet another surprise witness for the defense was the man we're calling Marcus, who was brought to court by a bounty hunter. Marcus was identified as a suspect in Kara's case himself. However, the judge did not allow any testimony about him being a suspect, and he was not asked about any possible involvement in her death,

but the topic sort of came up anyway. Marcus described being taken into custody and fingerprinted, and testified that his hair samples were taken. He was also asked if he knew how to pick a lock, and he demonstrated that he did. Once again, Joseph Lomax testified in his own defense and professed his innocence to the jury. Although Joseph's former girlfriend had testified during his first trial, giving him a strong alibi for the night of the murder, a friend of his former girlfriend testified in the second trial that the alibi was a fabrication.

They were watching the news together one night when a story about the case came on and when the witness asked Joseph's former girlfriend where he was on the night of the murder, the former girlfriend allegedly said that Joseph wasn't home. She said that the former girlfriend didn't want her to come forward to testify that the alibi was a lie, but it was keeping her up at night

that she had this information and hadn't disclosed it to investigators. At the conclusion of testimony, the prosecution simplified their case this time around, into one main point, the fingerprint at the scene belonged to Joseph Lomax. The defense's summation centered on the opinion of the expert witness regarding Kara's time of death. It was between 7 and 9 a.m., which meant Joseph could not have killed her because he was at work. Once again, deliberations began, and once again, the jurors asked to hear some of the testimony from forensic experts read back to them. They wanted to rehear testimony about the

fingerprint evidence, the time of death from the state's medical examiner, as well as testimony from two police officers and the maintenance man who was one of the two people who discovered Kara's body. Actually, they asked to get a copy of the transcript for the entire trial, but were told that that would take months to create. The jury spent six weekdays deliberating the case before breaking for the weekend. They returned the following week for two more days of deliberation, but still, no verdict was reached. A note from the jury was just two sentences long. It read, quote, the jury finds that it is unable to come to a unanimous verdict. We are hopelessly deadlocked at a six-six tie and have been split since the first day of deliberations,

end quote. For a second time, the trial of Joseph Lomax ended in a mistrial. Would the third time be the charm for the prosecution? They fully intended to bring Joseph Lomax to face the charges in front of a judge and jury once again, but a few key things happened in the meantime. After the second trial, Joseph tried to get his bail reduced to $10,000, but a judge refused to lower his bail that far and dropped it to just over $150,000. Joseph was still unable to make that bail, though, and was held as he awaited his third trial on the same charges, now three years after the murder of Kara Lizzynski.

A new prosecutor, John H. Malone, took over the case from Dennis O'Connor, who was working on a death penalty case at the same time. There was also a new judge, Maxwell Heeman, at least for the beginning of the jury selection process, which was painstaking. Many of the potential jurors were dismissed based on their pre-existing opinions of the case, which is typical. But also, the prosecution challenged the selection of some jurors that had previously been accepted, and it appeared that the challenges were based on the race of the jurors.

Out of the 18 peremptory challenges each side was allowed to use to reject jurors, the prosecution eliminated three members of the jury who were black. The judge did not agree with the defense attorney's argument that this was an attempt by the state to eliminate minority representation on the jury, but nonetheless, the judge dismissed the entire jury pool and the three members of the jury already selected who were white. After a week and a half of jury selection, they were back at square one. The issue of the racial makeup of the jury pool is an important issue to begin with. But it was especially important to the defense for this case

because of how things played out in the second trial. The jurors were split six-six in their verdict. All five jurors who were black and one juror who was white wanted to acquit Joseph Lomax, while the other six jurors, all of whom were white, voted to convict him. Meanwhile, the judge had been nominated to the state appellate court in the midst of jury selection, and so yet another new judge was assigned to the case. But finally, after more than five weeks, jury selection concluded on December 12, 1990. Among the 12 members of the jury, 11 were white, and one was black.

Testimony began on January 7, 1991. I'm not going to repeat the evidence that remained the same from the first two trials, because a large part of the case presented by the state was unchanged, the partial fingerprint, the hair fragments, the eyewitnesses. But there was some new evidence that the jury heard this time around. So James McDonald, the fingerprint guy, he testified that there were other fingerprints besides the disputed partial print found in Kara's apartment.

James testified he identified prints from a person who was not Joseph Lomax on a piece of paper with a note written on it. he couldn't remember if he sent the paper with the prince to the state lab or if he kept it at his office or when if he ever told police about it and then he said he did tell hartford police about the prince but they were dismissive because they knew whose prints they were and that person had been ruled out already as reported by thomas d williams for the current the paper in question had to be analyzed for prints before they were admitted as evidence until then there'd be no discussion about who wrote the note or what it said.

When a new witness took the stand for the prosecution, her testimony stood to change everything previously considered true about the case. This may not have been a stranger-type homicide. It's possible if the testimony was true that Kara and Joseph and the other suspect knew each other. A woman who owned a video rental store in Hartford at the time of the murder testified that she saw Kara with Joseph Lomax and the other suspect, Willie Askew, in her video store before Kara was killed. They all rented a movie together.

She had a full conversation with the three customers as she checked them out using Kara's credit card. The witness testified that a few days later, Willie Askew came into the rental store and asked for copies of the rental paperwork, which included an impression of Kara's credit card and a receipt. The interaction was tense. She said that Willie made a motion as if to choke her, but she redirected him with a compliment about his haircut and he had turned around and left. She put a copy of the receipt and paperwork aside,

but unfortunately she could not find it now. She testified that there were a few reasons she didn't come forward earlier, with her story. Among them, she assumed police were already aware that Kara and the suspects knew each other. In reality, that possibility had never been introduced in the two previous trials. On the same day the prosecution rested their case, Joseph Lomax was released on bail. He was able to post the $156,000 with the help of a local church community that put up the church itself as collateral. Joseph got dinner at a Chinese restaurant that night, and he didn't leave his mother's side. The following day, he returned to the courthouse as his attorney began calling defense witnesses.

As reported by Bridget Greenberg for the record journal, the defense tried to raise a new theory in Kara's murder. She may have been working on sensitive stories at the newspaper that could have upset someone. Moniz called a new witness, a Connecticut car dealer who was visiting. a woman across the hall from Kara on the night of the murder. Monez wanted to introduce into evidence articles that Kara had written that somehow referenced this car dealer or people he knew, but the judge wouldn't allow it. According to Moniz, he wasn't trying to point to the car dealer as a potential suspect, but rather he wanted to show that the witness knew trash haulers in the area,

and Kara may have been working on a story about corruption within the trash hauling industry at the time of her death. Regardless of what he was trying to do, though, the judge would not allow the articles to be entered into evidence, citing irrelevance to the case. But the defense was not done with this alternate theory. The defense called another witness, a guy who went by the code name Turtle.

He said he was an FBI informant helping investigate a price-fixing conspiracy among Hartford area trash haulers. Turtle said that Tara was indeed working on a potentially, quote-unquote, explosive story about the trash hauling industry, and he claimed that she was supposed to expose the alleged corruption at a town council meeting on October 6th, the day after her murder. Turtle believed that her life was in jeopardy because of the story she was working on.

The jury didn't actually hear this testimony, though. It was presented to the judge only, so that a determination could be made if it was admissible. and the judge ultimately ruled it was too speculative for the jury to hear. On March 4, 1991, after six weeks of trial, the jurors were left to deliberate. After several days, the jurors could not reach a unanimous decision. Though a majority of the 12 jurors were for the acquittal of Joseph Lomax on the murder charge, two held firm in the guilty camp. There was nothing they could do to reach a verdict.

So, for a third time, a judge declared a mistrial. A few days later, the state announced that it would not pursue a fourth trial, and the defense motion to dismiss all charges against Joseph Lomax was granted. A prepared statement from the state's attorney's office reads in part, quote, While we have always believed in the correctness of our cause, I cannot represent to you, Your Honor, that we feel we would be able to convince, any subsequent jury of the accused's guilt. It means that the death of Karalazinski may go without full redress, and my heart, as always, is with her family, end quote. The dismissal landed heavy

on the hearts of Karalazinsky's parents, Edward and Francis. Edward told the Hartford current, quote, I have very little hope, very little hope. Hope went out the window for us, end quote. Still, her parents held on to the shred of a chance. that the person or persons responsible for their daughter's death would one day face the consequences of what they did. In the summer of 1991, they asked the state's attorney's office to authorize a reward for new information in the case, and they agreed to a $10,000 reward for information leading to a conviction.

But still, today, the case is unsolved. In a 1991 interview with Jack Ewing for the Hartford Current, Kara's parents said the last thing they wanted was for their daughter to be forgotten. They said it hurt when people around them avoided saying Kara's name, quote, like she never existed, end quote. They loved talking about their daughter.

They'll always remember her for the lively, bright, and compassionate young woman she was. Who killed Kara Lazzinski? The second suspect in Kara's case, Willie Askew remained in custody for a while unable to make his bond. He was still in jail

when Joseph Lomax's third trial ended without a verdict. and when all the charges against Joseph were dismissed. With the case against Joseph falling apart, the one against Willie fell with it. In May of 1991, all the charges against Willie Askew were dropped, too. What about the guy we're calling Marcus?

Marcus's hair had similar characteristics to much of the hair evidence found on Kara's body and in her hand, and he testified that he knew how to pick a lock, like the one on Kara's apartment. He also told police that he knew her and had borrowed a cigarette from her once, So maybe she willingly let him into her apartment that night. Remember, there were no signs of forced entry,

and police did not believe the suspect entered through the cut window screen. I don't know if Marcus remains a suspect. Kara's family did not give much weight to the theory that the defense raised about a sensitive story she was working on about trash haulers. Police said they checked into it, but also did not get the sense there was any true risk to her life for the work she was doing. However, it does not appear that this theory was fully ruled out either. What about the man from the original composite sketch?

The man who asked to use the phone of a woman who once lived in Kara's apartment building? The man who made obscene remarks to the woman and asked what she would do if he hurt or killed her? What about that guy? He was described as a white male, 25 years old, six feet, two inches tall, about 180 pounds, and he had blonde hair. defense attorney Joseph Moniz pointed out that there were hairs identified as belonging to a white person at the scene, like the composite sketch, yet investigators had singled out a black man as the suspect. In testimony at trial, forensic experts told the jury that neither blood nor hair could be used to identify a specific person, that it wasn't an exact science. But this was

the late 80s and early 90s forensics. Today, we know that in many scenarios, we can get a DNA profile from blood and hair samples. We know that those profiles can be compared to known suspects or can be used as an investigative tool to identify new suspects with the help of genetic genealogy. It is most definitely an exact science. So can it be done in Kara's case? I have contacted the office of the Hartford Police Chief,

the deputy chief of investigations, and the lieutenant of the criminal investigations division. I asked to talk about Kara's case. I told them I know of a nonprofit called Season of Justice that may be able to help fund DNA testing if it's of interest or even possible if the evidence still exists almost 40 years later. I'm still waiting to hear back from Hartford PD.

If you have any information relating to the 1987 homicide of Kara Lizzynski, please contact the Hartford Police Department at 860-757-4,000. Thank you for listening to Dark Down East. You can find all source material for this case at darkdowneast.com. Be sure to follow the show on Instagram at Darkdowneast. This platform is for the families and friends who have lost their loved ones and for those who are still searching for answers.

I'm not about to let those. Those names or their stories get lost with time. I'm Kylie Lowe, and this is Dark Down East. Dark Down East is a production of Kylie Media and Audio Check. So, what do you think, Chuck? Do you approve?