Q: What was the motive?
A: That’s not known. What is known is that there were some stress points in the marriage. Krauseneck was under pressure from his employer, Eastman Kodak, to produce evidence that he had earned a Ph.D. as he claimed. He had not been awarded a Ph.D. because he never finished editing his dissertation. Cathy Krauseneck had confided to friends that he was so disagreeable when he got home from work she was considering taking their daughter and going back to her hometown in Michigan. Both parents doted on the girl.
Q: Why could they never charge him in 1982?
There was no direct evidence. No one saw the killing. He claimed his wife was alive when he left for work that morning. Witnesses said he was at work all day There were signs of a burglary, even if police believed it had been staged. The medical examiner couldn’t pinpoint the time of death. There were no fingerprints on the weapon and even if there had been, it was Krauseneck’s ax, which he frequently used to chop wood, so the presence of his fingerprints would in no way mean he used it to kill his wie.
Q: The daughter was home all day with her mother. If a burglar came in after Krauseneck left for work, wouldn’t she have seen or heard anything?
Sara was just under four years old at the time. Other than brief conversations with authorities on the night of the murder, she was never questioned. Her father would not permit it. When she was about seven years old, she talked in school about the day her mother died, but prosecutors didn’t believe whatever she said was enough to bring charges.
Q: How can police tell if a burglary is “staged” or real?
Neatness at the scene is a big factor. Burglars are in a hurry to grab what they can and get out before they are caught. That usually means leaving a mess behind: Think of a burglar looking for jewels in a sock drawer. He’s not going to waste valuable time picking through each pair of socks or even a stack of stocks. He’s going to quickly toss them all out to see if anything’s hidden underneath or in the back of the drawer. In this case, the scene was very neat. A silver tea set had been moved from the dining table to the floor, upright. Cathy’s purse was turned over on the dining room carpet with contents that appeared to have been pulled out. Money on the dresser in the bedroom was untouched.
Another factor is burglar routine. If there had been a burglar, why would he leave the valuables, go upstairs and kill a sleeping woman? The medical examiner said Cathy was killed while she was sleeping.
Q: What about DNA? Couldn’t that be solid evidence?
There was no such thing as DNA testing in 1982 when the crime occurred. While it’s true that DNA testing could be done now on the preserved evidence, it’s a tricky proposition: The suspect, Krauseneck, lived in the house and his DNA would nataurally be there in many places. One forensic scientist told us that even Krauseneck’s DNA were found in his wife’s blood, it wouldn’t be irrefutable evidence. Krauseneck could have leaned over Cathy’s body when he discovered her and shed some tears. A loose hair could have dropped off his jacket onto her wound.
Q: Why did the FBI cold case unit get involved, and when?
In 2016, then-Brighton Police Chief Mark Henderson asked the unit to consider taking on the case. Any law enforcement agency can seek help on cold cases through the FBI’s unit although not all cases are accepted for investigation. This is a group of dozens of law enforcement officials who review every aspect of a case file to see if fresh eyes and forensic testing not available at the time could help lead to a charge and conviction. The Rochester unit was impressed with Henderson’s presentation and believed further investigation was warranted. One agent in the FBI’s Rochester office – who had no prior knowledge of the case – was assigned to review every piece of paper and evidence in the case. Standard operating procedure is that others on the unit also review some or all aspects of the file, and as a group they test theories, search for overlooked connections, review witness statements, and much much more. The FBI forensic lab in Quantico analyzes evidence as determined primarily by the FBI in consultation with the local officials.
Q: So what evidence do they have that’s new?
Many aspects of forensic analysis have improved since the killing, and we have interviewed several forensic scientists – using the facts of this case – about how evidence might be better evaluated today than it was back then. The very absence of anyone else’s DNA in the house is new evidence. Investigators also used improved photo technology to analyze the shoe print left in a garbage bag on the dining room floor.
“I understand people want a singular piece of evidence that can directly point to James Krauseneck Jr.,” Brighton Police Chief Charles David Catholdi said at a 2019 press conference when the charges were announced. “This is not one of those cases. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances along with all the evidence and the timeline of events. DNA, fingerprints or the lack thereof can speak volumes.”