GUILTY NJ - Carolyn Byington, 26, killed inside her home, Plainsboro, 10 June 2019 *Arrest* #2
- Thread starter PastTense
- Start date
gitana1
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 29,358
- Reaction score
- 229,666
I know what you mean but I wanted to clarify that the principle of innocent until proven guilty is for a court of law. It has to do with how the judge as jury must treat and view the defendant.
It doesn't apply to us at all.
The fact that LE investigated for over a month, arrested him, she apparently had his DNA under his fingernails, he had scratches and marks, he lied about the reason for his coincidentally long lunch and as you said, he asked about circumstantial evidence...it's enough for me to judge him as highly likely to have committed this crime.
I definitely agree with you and I personally think they have the right person. I just want to be fair and I know we don't have even half of the details yet. But right now everything points at him and I doubt LE messed this up. It seems like they have been quiet all this time because they knew exactly who did it but needed enough evidence to confirm and convict and once the DNA evidence came back that was the end of that.
kaen
Trying to be a good human.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
- Messages
- 6,648
- Reaction score
- 47,963
@gitana1, how common is it for a person to call an attorney and ask them to call the investigating LEO to see what evidence they have?
For me, this is the most curious action he took. It is not uncommon for criminals to lie to the boss, talk about a crime with co-workers, etc. But, I have never heard of a person asking a lawyer to check out what the police are finding out about a crime they committed.
For me, this is the most curious action he took. It is not uncommon for criminals to lie to the boss, talk about a crime with co-workers, etc. But, I have never heard of a person asking a lawyer to check out what the police are finding out about a crime they committed.
imstilla.grandma
Believer of Miracles
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2018
- Messages
- 30,563
- Reaction score
- 207,584
NJ.com reports that 30-year-old Kenneth Saal pleaded not guilty Friday in Middlesex County Court in the slaying of 26-year-old Carolyn Byington.
Defense attorney Matthew Teeter said his client, who also faces a weapons charge, "is cloaked in a presumption of innocence until he's proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
Detention hearing slated for man in co-worker's slaying
Defense attorney Matthew Teeter said his client, who also faces a weapons charge, "is cloaked in a presumption of innocence until he's proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
Detention hearing slated for man in co-worker's slaying
And from that article "Saal's sister, Lauren Saal, told NJ Advance Media that the family believes her brother "is not involved in this.""
I wonder if "the family" includes Saal's wife?
gitana1
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 29,358
- Reaction score
- 229,666
Precisely.
gitana1
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 29,358
- Reaction score
- 229,666
I think super rare and incriminating. Except for perps who are always being arrested. My law partner has a few clients like that. One is a porch pirate. Sigh. So annoying. He is constantly calling my law partner to check and see if he has a warrant out and if so, to find out what the evidence is. (Can you say ring camera and/or selling the stolen goods on Craig's list?).
gitana1
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 29,358
- Reaction score
- 229,666
I'd be pretty certain they were the culprit.
Blondie in Spokane
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2009
- Messages
- 10,992
- Reaction score
- 13,622
Yeah, that phone call right there would tell the attorney he’s speaking with a guilty person, so how would an attorney handle that situation? He can’t just call LE & tell them he wants an update on the case for an unnamed client.
ETA just saw your post gitana.
borndem
Anglophile & registered demwit
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,973
- Reaction score
- 49,567
I've thought about it as well...
Lunchtime, IMO, would be a less busy time in their workplace parking lot than end-of-workday, as would the traffic in her apt complex WRT both vehicle and human-walking-around traffic in both locations.
How he knew she was going home for lunch that day, I'd really like to know. How big was that business at that address? 20 employees or 200 employees? One break room for coffee, water, juice, or 10-15 break rooms?
Maybe he overheard her say she was going home for lunch that day, or maybe he pretended to be an employee of her complex and called her at work to say that there was a leak in her apt, and he needed her to let him in to fix it right away. If there were a emergency situation at her apt -- a ruse -- I think she would have told someone -- a boss, in case she might be late coming back; or a coworker, just letting him/her know she wouldn't be around for lunch.
Unless Carolyn told an employee about it, we may never know what lured her out there. IMHO.
kaen
Trying to be a good human.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
- Messages
- 6,648
- Reaction score
- 47,963
Me, too. Although I am not a lawyer, I would guess that Saal made sure that he had the cloak of lawyer/client privilege before he asked.
Last edited:
So from the various articles/reports, it's a little unclear what scenario may have taken place. Did he end up at her apartment by:
1 - Carolyn was taking the rare lunch at home, nothing to do with any set up, and he overheard this and spontaneously followed her home or got there first and was waiting for her. And just happened to have a weapon ready...
2 - He lured Carolyn home under some type of false pretenses that to her knowledge had nothing to do with him - made up an issue with her apartment, package she needed to sign for, some kind of file she needed to retrieve, etc - then followed her home or got there first.
3 - He asked Carolyn if they could meet outside of work during the day at her place to talk about something important - whether it was a work issue or relationship issue, etc.
4 - He offered to help Carolyn with something in her apartment - move a couch, hang a shelf - but when she told other coworkers she was going home for lunch, she didn't mention anything about KS to them. And also, one article says he followed her home which makes me think she didn't make a prior plan with him to come over.
4 - I have no idea... some other reason/scenario.... ?
If she wasn't expecting him, but if he knocked on her door, it's possible she didn't think she had any reason to fear him, even if she found it odd that he showed up, and just let him in. In most cases, especially in a professional/corporate type job, my personal feeling (right or wrong) is that you kind of think your coworkers are vetted and safe -- meaning they've been screened by HR, passed a background check, you know who their boss is, you know how and where to find them, you've known them for several years, you often know a little bit about their family life. Meaning, that "stranger danger" warning alarms in your head may not be instantly going off without time to process and reflect. It's like oh, you know this person.
From what was reported in the articles, it just said she was going home for lunch that day. It seems like if it was something like "oh I gotta get this file" or "Ken said he would help hang a shelf for me," she might have told another coworker the reason for her rare lunch at home. So that makes me think she was lured home under false pretenses, then maybe opened the door to him not thinking he was there to kill her. Or was it just a total coincidence that for some reason she decided to go home for lunch that day, and he somehow heard this and had a weapon ready to follow her home...that seems less likely.
Just trying to make sense of it... what do you all think?
As far as knowing her address, my previous place of employment had an employee address book you could request for the purpose of sending Christmas/holiday cards. You could opt to have your information not included in this, but from what I remember, most people were listed. It seems all kind of crazy and unsafe now looking back, especially as I was a young, 20 something year old single woman at the time in a total sports/entertainment male dominated industry in New York City, but yea, any employee there could have requested an employee address book!
1 - Carolyn was taking the rare lunch at home, nothing to do with any set up, and he overheard this and spontaneously followed her home or got there first and was waiting for her. And just happened to have a weapon ready...
2 - He lured Carolyn home under some type of false pretenses that to her knowledge had nothing to do with him - made up an issue with her apartment, package she needed to sign for, some kind of file she needed to retrieve, etc - then followed her home or got there first.
3 - He asked Carolyn if they could meet outside of work during the day at her place to talk about something important - whether it was a work issue or relationship issue, etc.
4 - He offered to help Carolyn with something in her apartment - move a couch, hang a shelf - but when she told other coworkers she was going home for lunch, she didn't mention anything about KS to them. And also, one article says he followed her home which makes me think she didn't make a prior plan with him to come over.
4 - I have no idea... some other reason/scenario.... ?
If she wasn't expecting him, but if he knocked on her door, it's possible she didn't think she had any reason to fear him, even if she found it odd that he showed up, and just let him in. In most cases, especially in a professional/corporate type job, my personal feeling (right or wrong) is that you kind of think your coworkers are vetted and safe -- meaning they've been screened by HR, passed a background check, you know who their boss is, you know how and where to find them, you've known them for several years, you often know a little bit about their family life. Meaning, that "stranger danger" warning alarms in your head may not be instantly going off without time to process and reflect. It's like oh, you know this person.
From what was reported in the articles, it just said she was going home for lunch that day. It seems like if it was something like "oh I gotta get this file" or "Ken said he would help hang a shelf for me," she might have told another coworker the reason for her rare lunch at home. So that makes me think she was lured home under false pretenses, then maybe opened the door to him not thinking he was there to kill her. Or was it just a total coincidence that for some reason she decided to go home for lunch that day, and he somehow heard this and had a weapon ready to follow her home...that seems less likely.
Just trying to make sense of it... what do you all think?
As far as knowing her address, my previous place of employment had an employee address book you could request for the purpose of sending Christmas/holiday cards. You could opt to have your information not included in this, but from what I remember, most people were listed. It seems all kind of crazy and unsafe now looking back, especially as I was a young, 20 something year old single woman at the time in a total sports/entertainment male dominated industry in New York City, but yea, any employee there could have requested an employee address book!
borndem
Anglophile & registered demwit
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,973
- Reaction score
- 49,567
What made this nut think:
1)...that an attorney would do that
2)...that LE would tell anybody anything about evidence
Why didn't he just walk down to the court house and just confess?
IANAL - so, just my observations...
daikon.radish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2019
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 333
I don’t think there’s an awful lot of thought going on here — he seems to be quite impulsive and chaotic.
Yes, every time someone mentions “innocent until proven guilty” I think in a court of law, of course, but here in a conversation? All bets are off.
What the heck? I hope his lawyer told him that it would be a stupid thing to do... but it happened anyway so I guess Saal prevailed.
acutename
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2019
- Messages
- 3,548
- Reaction score
- 24,551
let me preface this by saying that I do not think he is innocent, BUT if I had to ask myself who would hire an atty, ask these Qs, etc, I imagine that a truly innocent person who had some other reason to be late, lie about having a car fixed, drive through Plainsboro that day and have cuts on their hands, could realize that they looked extremely suspicious and could start planning their defense. I cannot imagine explaining the DNA. I think he would need to have had some other highly coincidental compromising situation - another affair, an undisclosed car accident, something like that. How close is the DNA match? There is such a thing as being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but this is a lot of circumstantial evidence.
acutename
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2019
- Messages
- 3,548
- Reaction score
- 24,551
Not used to seeing coworker addresses shared routinely, but as an accountant, with access to financial data bases, maybe he had access to whatever records he wanted? Payroll, some HR records?
I think it was planned, but badly planned, as in he didn't anticipate how long the crime would take and he didn't anticipate that their colleagues would make a welfare check, pinning the time of death to lunch time.
If he had managed to get back to work without being noticeably late from lunch, and if the colleagues had not been alarmed that Carolyn failed to return from lunch, then arguably the timeframe wouldn't link him so closely to the crime. And he hasn't done anything outside his usual schedule.
To have "succeeded" he would have needed Agatha Christie-style timing, where everyone is seemingly exactly where they are supposed to be when the murder is committed.
If he had managed to get back to work without being noticeably late from lunch, and if the colleagues had not been alarmed that Carolyn failed to return from lunch, then arguably the timeframe wouldn't link him so closely to the crime. And he hasn't done anything outside his usual schedule.
To have "succeeded" he would have needed Agatha Christie-style timing, where everyone is seemingly exactly where they are supposed to be when the murder is committed.
Motive theory - he's been married for just over a year and they have a new baby. His wife has probably cooled towards him, especially when we consider that there was a dark side to him that was gradually becoming more apparent to her. So he turns to the friendly look-alike at his office as a kind of replacement wife. But when Carolyn consciously or unconsciously rejects him, the anger of a second rejection sparks the murderous rage. He can't take it out on his wife, but he can take it out on the replacement.