GUILTY NJ - Carolyn Byington, 26, killed inside her home, Plainsboro, 10 June 2019 *Arrest* #2

So he wanted to kill her and intended to do so. It doesn't mean he had to do much planning. I guess they don;t care about that. But to prove he had a purpose, there must be evidence of planning, I think?
In one of the many articles it stated that the hearing was being postponed until Tuesday so that the defense attorney could review the computers, cell phone and other evidence seized.
 
Question....Many weeks ago there was talk of Panera.. I lost track of some posts and I see a Panera Bread mention again. Was there record of Carolyn going to Panera that day and then home to eat lunch? Thanks..
Panera was brought up a few weeks ago because someone on here said that someone who previously worked at Panera was being questioned by the police. I don’t think Panera has anything to do with the case.
 
I don't set a sociopath vibe from this guy - more like a loser who is easily offended and acts out on grudges. In this case, something wounded him so much that he killed.

I think it was something at the work place - an upwardly-bound, attractive, smart woman put him down professionally (or he perceived that she put him down or left him out in the workplace). I don't think it was lust, but more hatred of successful women in general and her specifically.

Just a hunch.

jmo

I see what you're saying. But to go on with his husband/new father life and how he appeared as the perfect 'family man' to his sister. He tried so hard to deceive those close to him in his life-- to keep his wife/relatives and perhaps others at work, etc. blind to his dark side. Something is wrong with their brain-- inside their brains they lack the ability for certain emotions, including guild and can't regulate impulsiveness. So like others said, things could have been going bad in his marriage..there's a lot of stress with becoming a young, new parent.. As someone else said, he could have snapped and took it out on the object of his obsession. He already shows he has trouble regulating impulsiveness-- his crimes of the cars of former colleagues, his traffic violations. I had to learn a lot about sociopaths after I was a victim of a crime 20 years ago-- this guy appeared perfect to me and others on so many levels until he attacked me-- It took me many years to fully understand it. Their brains jus work MUCH differently than the average citizen.
 
I hadn't read this article before (New Details As Co-Worker Charged In NJ Woman's Lunch-Break Murder). It is interesting in terms of a compilation of details. He texted his supervisor during his break. He appeared to be withholding information as well.

>>> RSBM<<<

While Byington was at her apartment having lunch, detectives said she was stabbed several times and suffered blunt force trauma, according to court documents. Police didn't say what object was used to attack Byington.

Co-workers said they saw cuts on Saal's knuckles and hands in the days immediately after Byington died, according to authorities. His demeanor had also changed, and he asked a co-worker if he could be arrested on circumstantial evidence alone."

bbm
Sounds like lots of rage to me. Stabbing and blunt force trauma can certainly cause a lot of hurt and damage -- easy to see the pain he caused -- damage and revenge that he could be "proud of," IMO.

Was he striking at Byington specifically, or at women in general?
Was he hurting all women who ignored him and made him feel inferior, possibly going back to when he was a teenager and a young man?
Did his wife "ignore" him (in his mind, anyway) now that the baby was a part of their family -- less sex, less attention?
Did Byington ignore him at work, or not sit with him at lunch time when he invited her, or not return phone calls or emails?
Whatever, he got his revenge...
 
So he wanted to kill her and intended to do so. It doesn't mean he had to do much planning. I guess they don;t care about that. But to prove he had a purpose, there must be evidence of planning, I think?
If they can demonstrate that he brought a weapon with him to Carolyn's house, this would be strong evidence of planning. Based on all the reports so far, she was killed as soon as she entered her apartment. I'm assuming he walked in with her, the front door closed, and he killed her before she had a chance to put her bag down.
So there wasn't time for an argument to escalate or for someone to run into the kitchen for a weapon; and the weapon wasn't an opportunistic object within reach of the front door.

The big question is whether she agreed to meet him at her place (and why?) or did he stalk her there, and "happen" to meet her at the front door? Speculating, if this polite friendly young woman happened to see someone from work - a non-threatening person she's known for a few years - and he says "What a coincidence seeing you here, I'm supposed to pick something up from Apartment B, but it seems like nobody's home. Can I wait at your place?" She might think it odd, but she wouldn't have time to think it through before letting him in. I think he achieved this crime because he was familiar and seemingly non-threatening.
 
The timing of the crime is strikingly unusual, but there's a terrifying logic to it. As a married man and colleague, that lunchtime slot was probably the only time of day he wasn't accountable to work or his wife. Weekends, and before and after work on weekdays, he is accountable to his wife so she would expect to know where he is, even if he's not with her. At work, he and Carolyn are in full view of their co-workers. His only chance was to act quickly during their lunch break, and when Carolyn went home for lunch, he had a secluded location to commit the crime. He probably expected to be sitting back at his desk within the normal time frame, completely disconnected from the crime.
 
Reading all of his traffic citations, I note two things--

The first is an assumption by me that he seems to be a road rage type of individual and one that thinks he is not accountable and can do as he likes regardless of others.

The second is there are a lot of municipalities, etc. in the ticketing agencies over a number of years. I do know he had various jobs and went to school in various places but still he seemed to either travel around different areas and if not, at least continued his behavior throughout his years, the areas and his life to date.

Jmo.
 
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.
bbm
bbm

No, it doesn't, and aren't we glad?!

I think LE zeroed in on Saal early on in their investigation. Her office friends apparently knew her well enuff to worry when she didn't return from her lunch at home -- and she had no roommate to check on her, etc. They may have gotten worried even more if they had found out that Saal was late in returning to the office from lunch.
LE investigated and found a (the) co-worker who was late back to work, probably asked some questions about him, or talked with him, and got suspicious. So they probably took their first steps to rule him out, and found enuff info to put him high on their list. Every day or so, IMO, LE found more reason to list him as a likely suspect. They ruled others out, and solidified their case again Saal, IMO, and here we all are.
 
Reading all of his traffic citations, I note two things--

The first is an assumption by me that he seems to be a road rage type of individual and one that thinks he is not accountable and can do as he likes regardless of others.

The second is there are a lot of municipalities, etc. in the ticketing agencies over a number of years. I do know he had various jobs and went to school in various places but still he seemed to either travel around different areas and if not, at least continued his behavior throughout his years, the areas and his life to date.

Jmo.
Reading through all the traffic citations, he seemed to get them quite consistently and then there would be a significant gap in time, so I'm speculating that he lost his licence more than once.
 
If KS phoned his supervisor (right after he murdered CB), to say his car was being serviced, it makes me think the murder *may not* have been premeditated. I say this because he could have told his supervisor *before lunch* that he had an appointment to have his car serviced that day and he would be late (or wouldn’t return to work), giving him plenty of time to do the murder, clean up afterwards, etc.
Deleted double post.
 
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
Here's a bit about Matthew Teeter -- looks like Saal knew what kind of attorney he needed...

Attorney Matthew Teeter

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney
[...]
Matt’s passion is best demonstrated in the courtroom. He thoroughly enjoys representing individuals facing serious criminal penalties and consequences within the state of New Jersey. Matt limits his practice to criminal law, traffic offenses, DWI/DUI, domestic violence restraining orders, and juvenile delinquency matters. As a former casino card dealer in Atlantic City, New Jersey, Matt exclusively handles all of the firm’s underage gambling matters.


Attorney Matthew Teeter | Representation for Serious Crimes
 
@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.

Gee willikers, Batman! I hope Saal had already retained that atty. I'm sure Atty Teeter, assuming Saal had already retained Teeter, got on the phone asap and demanded from the ADA's to hear the evidence against him so far. Yep, happens every day, right?? :rolleyes: :confused: Gimme a break.
If it was Teeter, Teeter would likely assume that his client is indeed guilty -- which is something most defense attorneys do not want to know.
It's one of the the don't-ask-don't-tell mantras of the legal profession, IMO.
That's so because if the atty puts his/her client on the stand, one of the questions would certainly be, "Did you harm or kill Jane Doe, Sir?" But now it could be something s/he may not be able to ask since s/he would be risking subornation of perjury, which is a serious crime for an attorney.
Do we know for sure that Saal really asked Teeter this question? If so, how do we know that?
What will happen tomorrow? SMH.
 
This seems to be the year of stupid, stupid murderers--first Chris Watts, then this guy. We can't all be above average, can we?

So he wasn't good looking, in shape, interesting, rich, brilliant, charming, artistic, or creative (you need at least ONE to attract the opposite sex, imho). He had anger issues, road rage issues, and he vandalized co-workers vehicles--so he had a few personality disorders, too (one of which was being a psychopath). Plus, he was married with a kid. There's no way she had an affair with him. Why would a stunning, single, educated, successful, upper-class-background, twenty-something, childless woman want anything to do with him?

Yes, back in the day, in graduate school, when I was considered easy on the eyes, I dated a poor, unattractive, skinny, short, guy who had a very different background than I did. He grew up in a trailer in rural North Carolina, said "ohl" (one syllable), not "oil" (two syllables), and was bi-polar--and I fell madly in love with him until he dumped me. However, he was also charming, intelligent, hard-working, on his way to being highly educated, and extremely creative. He's a brilliant poet who's gone on to publish 3 or 4 books, and at the age of 48, he married a woman who is 20 years younger, brilliant, and gorgeous. So, yes, superficial "mismatches" happen, but there's usually a good reason/explanation behind them.

What boggles my mind, having followed true crime for years, is the timing of this (lunch time, broad daylight, in the middle of a workday, with a departure time the same as the victim's). This, paired with the premeditated nature of the crime, seems crazy.

The only explanation seems to be what some of you have already mentioned--this was the best he could do under the circumstances--but that leads to the question of WHY he would want to put himself in this extremely risky (to his freedom) position in the first place? Is getting caught stealing money (just using that as an example) so bad that you would kill someone and risk life imprisonment or the death penalty over it?! This isn't some career criminal with a history of extreme violence--this is an accountant who would probably have gotten probation. What the heck could have possessed him to want to do this AND to actually do it in such a risky way?

We may never know, but I can see how living an hour away from work with a wife and kid would have meant that he couldn't follow her around (and perhaps she rarely went out on the town), and he couldn't lurk around her apartment complex at all hours, hoping for a lucky break under the cover of darkness. He'd still have to break into her apartment or ambush her in the parking lot, which would be noisy and attract attention. Plus, his wife would have been calling him the whole time, wondering where the heck he was and what he was doing. She is probably nursing the baby at night, so she would know.

So, I can't begin to imagine how he convinced her to meet him at her apartment (unless he surprised her--I've read two very different accounts of where he was--outside her door vs. inside her apartment when she arrived).

What could he possibly have done to get her there? I would never meet a work colleague of the opposite sex at my apartment to "talk." That would be way too awkward, would lead to office gossip, and, besides, there are cafes everywhere for that, if necessary. But think about it-- how often have any of us been asked to have a "personal" talk away from the office with a work colleague of the opposite sex that you weren't close to or romantically interested in? I've never been asked to do this, and I can't think of anyone who has.

If I sensed that they were attracted to me, and that was what the talk was about, then I would politely decline or maybe say, "why don't you give me a call this evening." A phone call would be the "most personal" one-on-one arrangement that I would offer a male colleague, and only if it seemed absolutely necessary (and if I felt "safe" around him, in general). If a phone call wasn't good enough for him, that would set off alarm bells in me.

I wouldn't ask a man from work to help me move furniture, either. These are professionals, not college kids, and there are maintenance guys at an apartment complex that could help with that, or perhaps a trusted male or female neighbor. And if furniture is being delivered, those guys can help you move things around. Besides, I can move around 90% of the furniture in my family of four's home myself, and I'm a weakling. How often would a single woman in a small apartment need to move around super heavy furniture after she's gotten moved in and settled? And even if it were the case, why would you ask a professional work colleague? It just seems tacky and unprofessional to do this, not to mention the fact that the colleague could possibly get hurt if the furniture is that heavy--just a bad idea all around.

I'm astounded that no one had a doorbell cam that saw him in this day and age--surely they would have brought him in for questioning much sooner if they had footage. But thank goodness he did stupid things that got him caught.

I feel so sick and terrible for what she must have gone through--can you imagine? You've worked hard all of your life in school and at work; you're a good person; you're law-abiding, gentle, and caring; you don't hang out with criminals or engage in risky behaviors of any kind, and one day you go home for lunch and your co-worker brutally and painfully slaughters you with a knife after, perhaps raping you--and that's it. It's over for you. A complete stranger has ended your life in a horrific way, your family and friends are devastated and will never be the same...and for what?! Ugh! It's so unfair.

I'm not trying to excuse his behavior but men can suffer postpartum depression symptoms. Usually it seems to be irritability, anxiety, aggressive or restless behavior, not murderous behavior. Killing a coworker isn't on any lists for it. The daytime attack could be like a daytime robbery, there are actually less people around. If he had watched her building he might know when people came and went. He could have left for work extra early even taken his baby on stalker runs. If he claimed to be working overtime or late and he was miserable at home maybe his wife wasn't demanding his help. We don't know much about her. From personal experience having the father of my child be more difficult than a newborn made me fine when he did his own thing. My ex did drugs he wasn't stalking anyone but me and even then drugs messed with his attention span.
The fact that Carolyn was murdered by someone she probably barely knew is awul on it's own. It's not like he was a scorned lover or ex that couldn't move on. He was a random coworker that might have been living in a fantasy world. The guys you have had no romantic relationship with and have either very little interaction or clearly platonic interactions are invested in you as a figure in their fantasy. Like men that stalk local news reporters. They see a connection to you, the girl on TV, a coworker, neighbor, and create a story involving one of you. They create characteristics that you can't live up too, especially when you are blindsided by them. No matter what you do you will let these creepers down. At least a crazy ex knows who they are stalking.
 
He has what seems to be a beautiful wife and a new baby.

Remember how the hot car guy was always texting beautiful young women and they were meeting him?I think Harris was the name

Guys think they are hot even when they are not.

The going home for lunch when it was not usual throws me.

Did he watch her every movement? How would he know she is going home instead of to Starbucks, for instance?

She could have spilled coffee on her outfit, gotten her period, had a package delivered. He could have followed her there. He could have had something delivered that needed to be signed for.
 
I'm not trying to excuse his behavior but men can suffer postpartum depression symptoms. Usually it seems to be irritability, anxiety, aggressive or restless behavior, not murderous behavior. Killing a coworker isn't on any lists for it. The daytime attack could be like a daytime robbery, there are actually less people around. If he had watched her building he might know when people came and went. He could have left for work extra early even taken his baby on stalker runs. If he claimed to be working overtime or late and he was miserable at home maybe his wife wasn't demanding his help. We don't know much about her. From personal experience having the father of my child be more difficult than a newborn made me fine when he did his own thing. My ex did drugs he wasn't stalking anyone but me and even then drugs messed with his attention span.
The fact that Carolyn was murdered by someone she probably barely knew is awul on it's own. It's not like he was a scorned lover or ex that couldn't move on. He was a random coworker that might have been living in a fantasy world. The guys you have had no romantic relationship with and have either very little interaction or clearly platonic interactions are invested in you as a figure in their fantasy. Like men that stalk local news reporters. They see a connection to you, the girl on TV, a coworker, neighbor, and create a story involving one of you. They create characteristics that you can't live up too, especially when you are blindsided by them. No matter what you do you will let these creepers down. At least a crazy ex knows who they are stalking.

What I really like about your post is the nuanced recognition of the complexity of these cases. It's super easy just to categorize these murderers as merely evil people who don't think or feel much.

But in so many years following these cases I realize it's never so black and white. I mean they're super evil. Don't get me wrong. But there are often precipitating factors like a job loss or as some have mentioned a change in the family dynamic, or relationship issues, or even depression like you've mentioned.

Of course people with a moral compass don't kill people in order to solve their problems. You have to be evil for that.

But I do think it doesn't always just stop with "evil". There's more to it. Humanity is complex. Evil people can have complex emotions. They can be impacted by stressors. They can feel vestiges of love and even guilt, at times, IMO. Not like everyone else of course...

But I really like what you've expressed here.
 
What I really like about your post is the nuanced recognition of the complexity of these cases. It's super easy just to categorize these murderers as merely evil people who don't think or feel much.

But in so many years following these cases I realize it's never so black and white. I mean they're super evil. Don't get me wrong. But there are often precipitating factors like a job loss or as some have mentioned a change in the family dynamic, or relationship issues, or even depression like you've mentioned.

Of course people with a moral compass don't kill people in order to solve their problems. You have to be evil for that.

But I do think it doesn't always just stop with "evil". There's more to it. Humanity is complex. Evil people can have complex emotions. They can be impacted by stressors. They can feel vestiges of love and even guilt, at times, IMO. Not like everyone else of course...

But I really like what you've expressed here.

Thanks. I think giving people evil genius attributes makes them scarier and more powerful than they are. It also makes it harder to identify behavior that crosses lines or boundaries but isn't overtly threatening. If Carolyn ran into Kenneth Saal at random places, like starbucks or her local grocery store, she might not have noticed him but even if she did, she probably didn't jump to stalking. If that was happening. If someone's behavior makes you uncomfortable or gives you a bad vibe I feel like you should listen to that instinct. Her changing her routine could have made him feel like he was stood up for a date she didn't know existed. If he showed up at her door she might have been annoyed and he might not have taken that well.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
182
Guests online
3,553
Total visitors
3,735

Forum statistics

Threads
592,299
Messages
17,966,985
Members
228,737
Latest member
clintbentwood
Back
Top