Ray Krone: The Anatomy of a Wrongful Conviction

Ray Krone spent ten years in an Arizona prison, four of them on death row, for a crime he did not commit.  Shocking?  Not really.  He was the one hundredth person to have served time on death row and later to be exonerated by DNA evidence.  To date, 227 people have been cleared of murder convictions due to DNA evidence thanks to Project Innocence.

What is shocking to me is that the so-called evidence used to convict Ray was so flimsy. Even worse, it was theory and hypothesis dressed up as "science." Due to what is being called the "CSI effect", people are more and more swayed by so-called "scientific evidence" and less by motive, character, logic and even alibi witnesses. The problem is, much of what passes as science is in fact so much sleight of hand. Barry Scheck aptly coined the term "junk forensics" to describe speculative theories that do not meet the standards actual science requires. Examples of junk forensics include bite mark "matches", tire track "matches" and shoe print "matches," all of which can be confirmed only by visual inspection. Unlike DNA & fingerprints which are matched with scientific certainty, visual inspection is subjective, and yet presented as fact. It then becomes a "battle of the experts"--if the defendant can afford to hire his own expert at all (and most can't). Jurors hears this evidence presented by scientists and forensic "experts", and given the impression these matches are based on science.

Paula Zahn ("On the Case with Paula Zahn," 1/23/11, Shadow of a Doubt) reported on the Ray Krone case in January of this year.  You have to think that, were it not for shows like
this and reporters like Ms. Zahn, many less wrongfully convicted folks would be exonerated. Project Innocence estimates that at least 5% of people convicted for violent crimes in the
U.S. are innocent, which is tens of thousands of people  

In Ray Krone's case, the story begins in 1991. Krone, an Air Force veteran and postal worker with no criminal record, was a regular at the CBS Lounge in Phoenix, Arizona where he liked to play darts. In December of '91, Kim Anacona, a bartender at the CBS Lounge and the mother of three, was brutally murdered. She was sexually assaulted and tortured and left on the floor of the men's room with a visible bite mark on her breast.  It was a horrific murder, and the kind a community wants solved, and pronto!  Detectives on the case looked at the bite mark on the victim's breast and thought it appeared "snaggle-toothed" and felt it would have come from someone with extremely crooked teeth.  During the investigation, bar patrons remembered that bar regular Ray Krone had extremely crooked front teeth due to a car accident.  Asked about any relationship between Krone and Anacona, several said they saw Krone give Kim Anacona a ride to a holiday party that many bar patrons attended. Some saw Ray Krone give Kim Anacona a kiss under the seasonally placed mistletoe. Investigators became eager to speak with Ray who was asked to come in to speak with them about a murder and who willingly cooperated.

When first questioned about Kim Anacona, Ray asked, "Who?" That was because he only knew the CBS bartender as Kim, and had never known her last name.  Becoming suspicious, they asked again, "You don't know Kim Anacona from the CBS Lounge?" Once they mentioned the CBS lounge, Ray replied that he did in fact know the bartender there, a woman named Kim but hadn't known her last name.  This made detectives even more suspicious. "You don't know your girlfriend's last name?" they demanded. Ray did not.  And that, of course, is because Ray and Kim were not boyfriend and girlfriend which Ray explained. Their entire relationship outside the bar consisted of his giving Kim a ride to the party that night, and one kiss under the mistletoe.

Because the bite mark seemed like such an important clue, the DA asked a forensic dentist employed by the state to examine the bite marks. That dentist on a superficial exam said, yes, those bites are identical. This was the day after Anacona was murdered.  All investigation stopped then.  This, despite the fact that the lab had identified hairs left at the scene as Native American, and despite the fact that police received an anonymous note saying, "An Indian did it- I saw him behind the CBS bar. He was 6 foot and 200 lbs."  The state forensic dentist changed his opinion about the bite mark match after he made a mold of Ray's teeth and examined the bite marks, further.  The prosecution discharged their own expert from the case, and found another dentist who was willing to say it was a match.  The information about the original dentist changing his mind was withheld from the defense. 

There was blood at the scene that did not belong to the victim, but DNA was not yet sophisticated enough to match this blood to anyone, let alone Ray.  Shoeprints were found at the scene, too.  The shoes were never found and the prints were a full size smaller than what Ray wore, yet the jury was told the shoe prints were "close" to Ray's size. At the trial, the jury Ray's attorney did not call another expert to challenge the bite mark. This was probably Ray's attorney was unaware of the "junk"-like quality of this type of forensics. Barry Scheck's "Junk Forensics" had not yet been written. If only his lawyer had known that he could have found numerous forensic dentists who would contest the original analysis. In fact, when retrying the case, three independent forensic dentists stated they were 100% positive the bite marks were NOT Ray's. One of them was a longtime expert for the state. So if Ray's attorney didn't know how precarious this type of evidence was, certainly one could not expect the jury to have such information.

In presenting the bite mark, the prosecution used a fancy projection technique to show an overlay of Ray's teeth on a picture of the bite mark, and voila, it looked like a match.  This type of showmanship is typical when "junk forensics" is used. This "evidence" (an expert saying the bite matched Ray), combined with the fact that several people testified that they had seen the two together and it looked very much like they were romantically involved, which Ray denied. Other evidence included that "close" shoe print match.  (The shoe prints were actually smaller than his foot and he couldn't have gotten a shoe that size on his feet.) Also, experts said that a couple hairs were "similar" to Ray's (although in fact, they were dark straight hairs which most felt came from someone of Native American descent).  All of this so-called "evidence" was enough to convict Ray. A faulty bite mark "match", a visual inspection of hair that wasn't tested for DNA and a "close" footprint size.  Ray's lawyer did not challenge any of this "forensic evidence." Ray became known as the "snaggle-toothed killer and was sent to death row.

Ray had almost no family and no money.  He was pretty much on his own.  However, luckily for Ray, he had a curious cousin whom he had never met.  Jim Rix learned from his mother that the man on death row, the snaggle-toothed killer, was actually related to him. It never occurred to him that Ray was innocent, but he became highly curious about how a member of his own family could have committed such a brutal crime.  He decided to write to Ray and see what he had to say.  Ray wrote back to Jim and told him he was innocent, explained his side of the story.  After several letters were exchanged, Jim became curious enough that he wanted to meet Ray Krone.  After a meeting with Ray, Jim Rix became very curious about the bite mark.  He hired a forensic dentist himself and gave that dentist the molds and the pictures on which the match had been based.  Lo and behold, the dentist told him that he was positive Ray was not the person who bit Kim Anacona. 


The more he learned about the case, the more appalled he became, and Jim Rix hired a lawyer himself to represent his cousin at appeal.  He worked with the attorney, and they uncovered so much exculpatory evidence they were beside themselves.  Ray won an appeal for a new trial, although he was not allowed bail.  At that trial, three forensic dental experts all testified that they were CERTAIN Ray's bite mark did NOT match the bite mark on Ms. Anacona.  They explained that, while the jaw size might be similar, there were striking inconsistencies.  One definitive inconsistency was that the "biter" had pronounced spaces between his lower teeth.  That was clear.  Ray had NO spaces in his lower teeth.  NONE.  Also, the DNA found at the scene had been identified, and it was determined it did NOT match Ray Krone.  The footprints could NOT be Ray Krone's because they were a size SMALLER than his.  (It might be possible to wear shoes larger than one's own size, but smaller? Clearly not.)  The hair at the scene, which in the first trial was thought to possibly match Ray (from visual examination), was proven through DNA testing NOT to belong to Ray.  So in this second trial it seemed that Ray would be exonerated.  I was SHOCKED, then, when a jury convicted Ray a second time.  So, too, was the judge, who said that this case "would haunt him the rest of his life" and added that he had serious doubts about the identity of the killer.   However, for whatever reason, the judge did not overturn the jury verdict.  And back to prison, though not death row, went Ray.

For many, that would be the end.  But Ray's cousin, Jim Rix (author of Jingle Jangle) and his lawyer could NOT let this go.  They knew Ray was innocent.  And his attorney explained that in order to free Ray, they would, for all intents and purposes, have to catch the killer.  So his attorney petitioned the court to test the DNA again, not just to exclude Ray (which they had), but to put the DNA through the DNA database and see if they could find who's it was.  As Ray says, the court resisted this, saying it was "a wild goose chase, a waste of the court's time and money... "  But what happened was, when put through the database, they got a match. The hair and saliva and other DNA samples matched a man who was a Native American and a convicted sex offender, and who was currently incarcerated.  That man was Kenneth Phillips. Motions were filed to overturn the conviction based on this match, but the court refused because the DNA was not "new evidence."  Ultimately, Ray's attorney had to send an investigator to meet with Kenneth Phillips and somehow extract a confession from him. The confession, however, was considered new evidence, and finally, Ray's attorney got the conviction overturned.

So finally, Ray Krone was set free.  Ten years later.  Ray actually got a settlement from the state, not that it made up for the lost ten years. As the prosecutor said, it's too bad this couldn't have been detected sooner...  Talk about an understatement!  However, I'm impressed he actually admitted that Ray was innocent.  This rarely happens. He did not, however, acknowledge that he withheld the initial investigator's report saying he did not believe Ray Krone's bite to be a match to the bite  on the victim.

When Ray Krone was released, there were cameras and journalists everywhere as he was the 100th person who had served time on death row to have his conviction overturned.  When asked what he was feeling by the press, Ray Krone's first words were about Kim Anacona, the crime victim, and her family.  He wanted her to be remembered.  He also stated that he planned to look ahead, and not back.  That he didn't want to waste any more time.  He spoke with a grace and dignity that is unexpected after going through what he had. And since Ray's release in 2002, he has been a speaker all over the country on the topic of wrongful convictions, and an advocate for those wrongfully convicted. 

Just a reminder folks- Our justice system may be the "best in the world" but still, is seriously flawed and we need to be aware of that.  We have to know that everyone in prison is not necessarily guilty- that jury verdicts are not magical- that juries can be WRONG! 

And maybe next time you are called for jury duty, don't try to get out of it.  If those of us who know the system is flawed do not serve, you can see what happens. Thank you Paula Zahn.  Thank you Ray Krone for the dignity with which you walked through this nightmare, and for the work you do now to educate others.  Thank you Cousin Jim for your dogged determination.  What a nightmare!  Let's free the innocent who are locked up and allocate funds for DNA tests.  Please!  

To read more about this case, read Jim Rix's book about his and Ray's experience: "Jingle Jangle."  

Casey Anthony Verdict: Why the Jury Did the Right Thing

Our justice system is based on the idea that it is better for ten guilty to go free than for one innocent to suffer. That's why it isn't easy to convict someone even if it seems "obvious" they are guilty-or rather, it should not be.  Once convicted, even proof of actual innocence can't always free the innocent. And despite all the checks on our system, there are tens of thousands of innocent people in prison.  The looser the requirements to convict, the more innocent people go to prison (or are executed).  That's why it's GOOD that our system demands a certain level of proof before convicting people of serious crimes.

As to the Casey Anthony verdict, the jury did not find her "innocent."  They found her Not Guilty (by law). And they did so because there was a) no cause of death presented by the medical examiner, meaning, the state medical examiner could NOT rule out accidental death; b) no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that linked Casey to a murder weapon (i.e., evidence she bought ingredients to make chloroform, evidence she made chloroform); c) no connection between Casey and the body (the state perhaps effectively proved the odor of decomp was in the car; they did not prove beyond doubt it was Caylee); and d) in lieu of all the missing pieces, they didn't present evidence that Casey would like to be rid of Caylee or had any motive (as horrific as Casey's behavior, it does not prove she wanted Caylee dead prior to her death).

Many people compare this case with the O.J. case.  Except for the large viewing audience, I see no comparison. O.J. was a popular celebrity, an African-American man on trial in an atmosphere of racial tensions and recent rioting. In the O.J. case, there was PLENTY of evidence.  An embarrassment of riches, as they say.  His DNA (blood) was at the crime scene, a bloody glove with his Nicole's blood (and Ron Goldman's blood) was found at his
house, he had a cut on his hand. He fled from the police with his passport and a large sum of cash in his car. He had a history of beating up Nicole, and she had a history of calling 9-1-1 and reporting it.  He had a clear motive.  She left him and he wanted her back. When she made it clear she wasn't going back that time, he, like many other abusive controlling spouses before him, made sure no one else was going to have her.
It's unheard of to have that much evidence in a murder case. And that was a clear case of jury nullification. The jury members were charmed by O.J. and did not want to send him to prison.  In the Casey Anthony case, people are likely to want to punish someone for the death of a child. I think jurors no doubt WANTED to be able to convict her but couldn't.

 Did she do something, whether murder her daughter or cause her death by neglect or cover up an accident? One of those scenarios seems probable. But I still couldn't say which one I thought it was. While the most casual observer can see that Casey Anthony is cold, narcissistic and perhaps truly evil, the exact nature of the crime she committed unfortunately was not proven.

When you have no official cause of death, no murder weapon, no timeline, no evidence circumstantial or otherwise as to how she did it, no motive beyond conjecture, I'm not sure a jury can say guilty AMD follow the law and keep their sworn oath.

There are cases where people are convicted without a body having been found.  There are cases like this one where the corpse has decomposed to the point that no cause of death can be known, and the killer is convicted.  But those cases are the exception.  They tend
to have a lot more evidence than this case does. With no cause of death and no evidence (physical or circumstantial) linking Casey to the actual body, this case was a long shot.  If it hadn't been covered to such an extent in the media, the verdict would have been no surprise.

People are upset because they believe they "know" Casey Anthony is guilty of murder--and I'm not saying she isn't.  What I am saying is, the evidence in this case was lousy. And it turns out that the prosecution was aware before the trial began that there were NOT 86
searches for chloroform, but only one, and never turned that info over the defense. The prosecution is required to turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense and not doing so is a serious violation.  IF Casey Anthony had been convicted, she would have been granted a new trial.  Judge Perry might even have done so immediately.  This would have been equally devastating for all, if not worse.

When you follow as many wrongfully convicted criminal cases as I do, it's a relief to see a jury make a ruling not on emotion but on evidence. This verdict actually gave me hope there will be less wrongful convictions in the future. The fact that jurors are having to quit their jobs and go into hiding due to death threats is a whole new tragedy. I think it must have been truly hard and painful to do the right thing here. I do believe however that that's what these 12 did.