By November of 1995, six certified odontologists had examined the bite mark evidence and concluded the Ray’s teeth were not responsible for the bite wound. One of them, Dr. Dick Souviron later encountered the prosecution’s expert Rawson at a national conference. Souviron told Rawson that he had seen the evidence and advised him to “get out of that case.” Rawson replied, “I’m in too deep.”1 Dr. Gerald Vale had been approached by Rawson about testifying as a witness for the prosecution, and Vale initially agreed, but switched sides when he learned that an abrasion which Rawson attributed to a tooth was not present in the original photographs taken at the crime scene.2
Rawson could not find a single odontologist to corraborate his bite-mark match conclusion.3
The mounting exculpatory evidence was being detailed in The Ray Krone Story newsletter. Outraged, Prosecutor Noel Levy filed a motion asking the court to order the Lemings and Rix to cease publication, arguing that the newsletter “impedes” the State’s right to a fair trial. Judge McDougall, though, refused to grant Levy’s request.4
Shortly before the trial began, defense investigator Mike Pain found sidewalk-cleaner Dale Henson. Pain had read Detective Gregory’s police report detailing his interview with Henson and had been searching for Henson for seven months. Henson gave Pain a full description of the man he saw go into the bar around 2:00 a.m. on the night Kim Ancona was killed. When Pain pointed out that according to Detective Gregory’s report it was 6:00 a.m. when Henson saw the man go into the bar, Henson was confused. He explained that he would have gone on to his next job by then. When Prosecutor Levy learned that Hensen would testify, he forced him to undergo five lie detector tests. The results were inconclusive to the extent that, according to the examiner, Hensen believed he was telling the truth.5
The prosecution had stumbled on some last minute new evidence as well, four small spots of blood on the inside left cup of Kim Ancona’s bra. The blood on the inside of the bra contradicted the prosecutions theory that the attacker bit Kim Ancona after her clothes were removed. At Prosecutor Noel Levy’s request the trial, scheduled to begin on January 8, 1996, was rescheduled for the third time, so the prosecution could run DNA tests on the blood sample. The judge set the trial for February 5. On Friday, February 2, Levy requested and was granted another extension, because the lab had not yet returned the results.6
Expecting the trial to begin on Monday, the Lemings had already set out for Arizona.7
The Second Trial: High Hopes
The trip from York County Pennsylvania to Phoenix was over 2000 miles, a hard thirty-hour drive.8 The Lemings were towing their pop-up camper, so they could camp in the back yard of one of Ray’s friends to save money. They had been living in a three-room rented cabin. Their sympathetic landlords had loaned them $41,000. Jim had sold his home in Colorado. Every cent they had between them had gone into their battle to prove Ray’s innocence.9
The Leming had received over $10,000 in donations, much of it in small amounts, from supporters who raised money by whatever means they could—selling baked goods and crocheted dishrags, taking up collections at the their workplace.10
A tiny house next to the Leming’s cabin, also a rental, was vacant and they had fixed it up for Ray, who was eager to return to Pennsylvania. They had talked to him about the little house, and it had become his dream home. He didn’t think he would ever be able to live in Arizona again.11 The Lemings planned to sell the camper after the trial and rent a u-haul trailer to bring back Ray’s few remaining belongings, still in the storage unit. A friend of Ray’s had made arrangements with the family to buy his Corvette, but as confidence mounted that Ray would be proved innocent, he took it upon himself to have the Corvette tuned up and road-ready for Ray to slip behind the wheel.12
The attorneys delivered their opening arguments on Friday February 16. Prosecutor Noel Levy talked almost exclusively about the bite-mark match, saying it was confirmed by “the very unique dentition of Ray Krone.” Chris Plourd countered that “the bite mark doesn’t fit,” and “if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”—echoing a famous line from the O.J. Simpson trial. Plourd stressed that DNA evidence “absolutely excluded” Ray.13
To establish Ray’s alibi, Chris Plourd called Ray’s roommate Steve Junkin who testified that Ray was home the night Kim Ancona was killed. Ray was not included on Plourd’s witness list. Plourd was far savier than Ray’s first attorney Jones. Plourd understood that putting an innocent man on the witness stand merely gave the prosecution an opportunity to try to make him out a liar in cross-examination.14
Unlike at the first trial, the jurors heard testimony from sidewalk cleaner Dale Hensen who said that around 2:00 a.m. on the night of the murder, a man wearing a green fatigue-style jacket drove up in a small green car, went into the bar, and came out twenty or thirty minutes later. Hensen came down from the witness stand to view Ray at close range. He insisted Ray was not that man. Prosecutor Levy tried to discredit Hensen’s testimony, implying that he was lying and that his present account differed from what he had told Detective Gregory immediately following the murder—notably that Gregory’s police report indicated Henson said it was 6:00 a.m. when he saw a man go into the bar. Hensen’s boss testified that by 6:00 a.m. Hensen would have gone on to his next job, supporting Hensen’s account of the time.15
Unlike at the first trial, the jurors heard testimony about the Converse brand footprints in the men’s room surrounding Kim Ancona’s body. The testimony, however, was not entirely exculpatory. The original police report indicated the prints were from shoes size 9 ½ to 10 ½, but police had revised their shoe size estimate to between 10 and 11, suggesting a possible match to Ray whose shoe size was 11 ½.16
As at the first trial, the jurors heard from barmaid Kate Koester and fired bar manager Pat Chipley. Koester again testified that Kim Ancona told her she was expecting ‘Ray’ to show up and ‘help her close,’ and that she and Ray planned to spend the rest of the evening together. Chipley again testified to seeing Kim Ancona and Ray Krone kissing at the Christmas night party. Koester said she couldn’t remember if Ancona had mentioned “Ray’s” last name. Levy attempted to elicit definitive testimony from Koester that Ray Krone was Kim Ancona’s boyfriend, but Judge McDougall interrupted the questioning. “You really don’t know their relationship, do you?” the judge asked Koester, and Koester replied quietly, “No, sir.” 17
Further calling into question Kate Koester’s testimony, the jurors heard from several of Kim Anconca’s close friends. According to their accounts of conversations with Ancona just hours before her death, she hadn’t decided what she was going to do after she got off work and had mentioned to several of them that she might stop by.18 The jurors also heard from bar owner Henry Arredondo and patron Denise Newman who testified that on the Friday night before Kim Ancona was killed she was at the bar with a man who was not Ray Krone and not her boyfriend Paul Clark, establishing for the jurors that there were other men in Kim Ancona’s life.19 Plourd, however, never asked Denise Newman if she knew the man’s name. Newman had been certain of his name when she talked with Detective Gregory on the morning after the murder—four times referring to him as ‘Ray.’ But when Plourd interviewed Denise Newman prior to the trial, she claimed that she couldn’t remember any details. In talking with the Lemings about Newman’s memory loss, Plourd speculated that she had been ‘neutralized’ by the police. With little to go on, Plourd and investigator Pain had never managed to find the other ‘Ray.’20
Plourd was unconcerned, though. He considered the other-Ray issue of minor significance. He had DNA on his side.21
The costly DNA analysis had not entirely yielded the results Chris Plourd had hoped for. Expert witnesses testified that the three suspects identified by the defense—Yazzi, Lomatewana, and Ramirez—were all possible donors of two pubic hairs and one head hair found on Kim Ancona’s body; all three, however, were ultimately excluded by one or more of the DNA tests performed on blood and saliva.22
The centerpiece of Plourd’s defense was the DNA evidence that excluded Ray.
Of prime importance was DQ alpha typing. The test targets a specific allele or genetic marker. Alleles occur in pairs, with a person receiving one marker from the mother and one marker from the father. The two DQ alpha markers a person receives may be the same or different. The typing test strip is numbered to represent the possible variants of the markers. When DNA is applied to the strip, a dot appears next to a number if a variant is present. If, for example, the one dot and four dot light up, the person is type 1,4; if only the two dot lights up, the person is type 2,2. The strip also contains a control dot which indicates the threshold for the reaction has been reached. If the control dot is not lit or faint,
the results are of questionable accuracy.23
The test strip can also reveal the presence of DNA from more than one person. If, for example, the two dot and three dot light up, but the three dot is significantly more pronounced, that indicates the sample is a mixture of two individuals, a 2,3 type and a 3,3 type. That circumstance was the anomaly in the DNA testing done by Dr. Wahl prior to the first trial. The DQ alpha test on the saliva swab from Kim Ancona’s breast showed a 3,4 result, but with the 4 dot markedly more pronounced. In 1992, the significance of the imbalance was not understood. Kim Ancona was type 3,4, and Wahl concluded that only her DNA was indicated in the sample. By 1995, however, geneticists realized the brighter 4 dot meant a mixed sample of types 3,4 and 4,4.24
The 4,4 type is common to Native Americans.25 The blood on the inside waistband and pocket flap of Kim Ancona’s pants tested as DQ alpha type 4,4. Ray was type 3,3. The saliva and blood DNA which excluded Ray and pointed to the three suspects with Native American ancestry were the foundation of much of the pre-trial optimism.26
In addition to the DQ alpha test, numerous other types of DNA and serological testing procedures were used to evaluate the samples. Saliva and other bodily fluids were also found on Ancona’s cheek, vaginal area, and tank top. The jurors listened to days of complex, technical testimony and explanations of test results with their endurance quotient already at the saturation point—the trial had already been underway a month when the DNA testimony began. A reporter for the York Daily Record conceded that much of it was “intensely scientific and hard to understand.”27
Plourd had decided against calling his DNA expert Dr. Edward Blake. DNA evidence was Plourd’s field of expertise, and he was confident that the prosecution’s DNA expert Dr. Moses Schanfield would concur with his assessment of the evidence.28
Plourd’s strategy was to call on Schanfield to interpret the DNA test results for the jurors. Schanfield testified that the saliva from the breast was likely a mixture of Kim Ancona’s DNA and someone with DQ alpha type 4,4. The blood on the inside of Ancona’s pants, also type 4,4, appeared to come from the same person, Schanfield said. He excluded Ray as a possible contributor on all the samples, except one—the spots of blood on the inside of Ancona’s bra, discovered by the prosecution in late December.29
The blood spots were DQ alpha type 3,4, but the three dot was slightly more pronounced, suggesting a possible mixture of Kim Ancona’s DNA—type 3,4—and Ray’s DNA—type 3,3. The test strip control dot, however, was barely visible, indicating the results were of questionable accuracy. Schanfield was cautious in interpreting the results—“it appears to be a mixture of the victim, Ms. Kim Ancona, and Mr. Krone cannot be excluded.” Plourd glossed over Schanfield’s assessment, putting it into statistical perspective for the jurors by explaining that 150,000 people in Phoenix could have contributed the type 3,3 DNA.30
DNA testimony from Schanfield took up the best part of three days, beginning on Wednesday March 13. Friday Prosecutor Noel Levy and Moses Schanfield went to lunch together. Late Friday afternoon, with the day’s session near end and the weekend looming ahead, Levy cross-examined Schanfield about the DNA results from the blood on the bra, and Schanfield abandoned his former caution and offered a scathing interpretation. More than 99% of the population could be excluded, he told the jurors, suggesting that it was 99% certain Ray Krone’s DNA was indicated in the mixed results.31
On Monday, Plourd challenged Schanfield’s conclusion as scientifically unreliable. Arguing that Schanfield’s misleading testimony was possible grounds for a mistrial, Plourd asked Judge McDougall to strike the testimony from the record. As Jim Leming points, out though, “you can’t unring the bell.” The jurors had heard the testimony and had the entire weekend to mull over the implications.32
Judge McDougall granted Plourd’s request. He instructed the jurors to disregard Schanfield’s testimony on the statistical significance of the DNA results from the blood spots on the bra. Then he turned to Ray, and asked if Ray wanted him to declare a mistrial.33
Ray’s answer was a qualified no—“I want the truth. I'll rely on you to keep this trial as fair as possible, your honor.”34
Ray had waited seven long months for his day in court. Every morning the guards woke him at 3:30 a.m. and moved him to the holding rank where he waited with the night’s collection of vagrants and drunks until court commenced at 9:00. The trial had already dragged on for more than a month. He was worried about the emotional wear and tear on his family, not to mention the expense. The prospect of going through the whole ordeal a third time was out of the question. In a few more weeks, it would be over, and he would be on his way back to Pennsylvania. That was what he believed.35
The bite mark testimony was the grand finale. Earlier in the trial, the jurors had seen photographs of the bite mark taken at the crime scene and photographs taken after the autopsy. The after autopsy photographs clearly showed an abrasion that was not apparent in the crime scene photographs. The medical examiner testified that the abrasion was likely a nick made accidentally during the autopsy. Prosecutor Levy countered with testimony from a police criminalist and a police photographer who explained that the abrasion was not apparent in the crime scene photographs due to differences in the lighting and that abrasions become darker and more pronounced with time.36
Prior to the testimony by the dental experts, the jurors also viewed the video that showed a lab technician holding the dental cast against the Kim Ancona’s breast and pinching the breast, attempting to line it up with the bite mark 37
The prosecution’s odontological expert Dr. Rawson gave two hours of testimony elaborating on his credentials. The abrasion not apparent in the crime scene photographs was key to Rawson’s claim that Ray’s teeth matched the bite mark. He attributed the abrasion to one of Ray’s upper teeth, labeled tooth #11. Rawson began his presentation by showing the jurors a series of optical illusion images—a picture that could be an old hag or a young woman depending on how you looked at it, a picture that could be a vase or the silhouettes of two people facing one another—suggesting that if the jurors knew what to look for, as he did, they would be able to see the abrasion from tooth #11 in the pre-autopsy photos. As at the first trial, Rawson insisted there were two bite marks. He had prepared a new video showing the dental cast aligned with the actual excised breast tissue. (The breast tissue disappeared once Rawson had finished with it and was never made available to the defense’s dental experts.) Following the video, Rawson projected more than fifty photographs on a screen and held up enlargements for the jurors to view to demonstrate the alignment. The numbered displays indicated where Ray’s teeth allegedly corresponded with abrasions on the breast. Still, at best, without tooth #11, only three of Ray’s top front teeth lined up with the bite mark and none of his lower teeth matched. A journalist for the York Daily Record reported, “Some of the photos didn't clearly show the correlation Rawson was talking about. In others, it was hard to tell what was in the photo or on the screen at all.” Rawson claimed he could see the abrasion made by tooth #11 in the pre-autopsy photographs, yet when Chris Plourd asked him to mark the location with a pencil, he marked the photograph four millimeters below where the abrasion appeared in the photos taken following the autopsy.38
To minimize travel expense and expert witness fees, Plourd called only three experts to counter Rawson’s testimony, Dr. Sperber, Dr. Campbell, and Dr. Vale all of who resided in the southwest. Sperber and Campbell testified that there was a general match to three of Ray’s top teeth, but that none of his lower teeth lined up with the bite mark. “You can't have the upper teeth matching and the lower teeth not matching,” Sperber insisted. Vale gave a demonstration showing that whether he posited one or two bite marks, Ray’s teeth did not fit either scenario.39
Dr. Vale was Chris Plourd’s final witness. The following day, Friday April 5, Prosecutor Levy called Detective Gregory as a rebuttal witness, and Gregory told the court that he had found the notes he made when he interviewed sidewalk-cleaner Dale Henson. Judge McDougall ordered Gregory to produce the notes. On Monday, Gregory took the witness stand again, notes in hand. Gregory’s notes from the Hensen interview were on a different paper stock from his other interview notes, but they supported Gregory’s claim that Henson had told him it was 6:00 a.m. when he saw a man enter the CBS Lounge, rather than 2:00 a.m. as Hensen had testified.40
The remainder of the day consisted of three more hours of Dr. Rawson displaying photographs of the brutal bite wound.41
On Tuesday April 9 attorneys delivered their closing remarks.
Prosecutor Noel Levy talked for over three hours. Even the defense’s odontological experts saw a “match” to some of Ray Krone’s teeth Prosecutor Levy pointed out, and then proceeded to hammer away at the one piece of DNA evidence that did not conclusively exclude Ray, the spots of blood on Ancona’s bra—“Dr. Schanfield could not exclude…could not exclude Ray Krone…Mr. Krone cannot be excluded…he is not excludable.” Chris Plourd objected, but Judge McDougall allowed Levy to proceed. The testimony stricken from the record was Schanfield’s statistical assessment, not the test results. To account for the fact that the reliability control dot was not illuminated, Levy argued that Ray’s DNA showed a “weak result…a very weak result.” He went on to postulate that since Ray’s type 3,3 DNA was “weak,” “you couldn’t exclude Mr. Krone” from the mixed sample of type 3,4 saliva DNA. But as for the type 4,4 blood from the inside of Ancona’s jeans, it “doesn’t connect to anything,” Levy insisted, echoing his argument earlier on that perhaps Ancona borrowed the jeans from a girlfriend. To obfuscate matters further, Levy presented a lengthy and misleading analysis of the contradictory testimony from police criminalist Scott Piette and defense expert witness Dr. Gary Harmor, who disagreed about whether Kim Ancona was a secretor or a non-secretor, an identifying serological factor critical to the conclusion that some of the fluid samples were a mixture of two individuals.42
Chris Plourd’s closing remarks were for the most part directed at discrediting the prosecution’s witnesses and focused heavily on the original investigation—how county forensic dentist John Piakis had lied at the first trial when he claimed to be board certified and had ignored the advice of Dr. Sperber who told him Ray’s teeth were not a match; how Dr. Rawson originally saw only one bite mark when he first looked at the evidence in 1992. Plourd reminded the jurors that Dr. Rawson had been proven to be wrong in other cases and suggested that he was nothing but a paid henchman—“This is the man that the State went out and bought for you to convict Ray Krone.” Plourd came down especially hard on police criminalist Piette who gave misleading testimony at the first trial about the similarity of Ray’s pubic hairs and ignored DNA and serological evidence which excluded Ray. Piette’s original notes indicated that Ancona was a non-secretor, Plourd stressed, but Piette later altered that opinion. Reminding the jurors that DNA tests showed that the blood on Kim Ancona’s jeans came from a male, Levi quashed prosecutor Levi’s speculation that she may have borrowed the jeans from a girlfriend; and as for Levy’s argument that Ray could not be excluded from mixed samples because his DNA was “weak,” Plourd called it “a fanciful theory presented by the State, that has nothing to do with how this particular testing works.” At the end of his remarks, Plourd returned once again to the beginning: “Justice, ladies and gentleman, has eluded this case since Detective Gregory saw Mr. Krone’s teeth…once Detective Gregory stopped at the grocery store and took these foam impressions, they ignored everything along the way.”43
By the rules of procedure that apply in jury trials, Levy was given the opportunity to rebut Plourd’s closing remarks, but Plourd was given no further opportunity to rebut Levy. Levy came back in full attack mode, weighing in on the secretor versus non-secretor issue. Based on the conclusion that Ancona was a non-secretor, defense witness Dr. Harmor had testified that saliva from her breast, cheek, and vaginal area were mixed samples and that DNA typing excluded Ray Krone from the mix. Levy resolved the issue for the jurors once and for all, declaring that Dr. Harmor’s conclusion about Ancona being a non-secretor is “just wrong. It’s wrong. You are being mislead.” His final words to the jurors were “look at the facts…look at the bite mark evidence and…look at the biological genetic evidence…Ray Krone did it.”44
The extent of Ray Krone’s acquaintance with Kim Anconca and her after work plans for Saturday came down to a hearsay game of he-said/she-said, and both the defense and prosecution had trounced the experts for the other side. Levi’s argument that Ray had “weak” DNA was wholly without merit, but the jurors were not DNA experts and had no way of knowing that. The defense said the prosecution was wrong. The prosecution said the defense was wrong. Who were the jurors to believe?
The jurors began their deliberation Tuesday afternoon. Two days later they were still at it. Late Thursday, they requested a magnifying glass—they were trying to decide whether or not they could see the controversial abrasion in the pre-autopsy photos. When they left the deliberation room, several of the jurors were crying.45
After Ray’s first trial, Kim Ancona’s mother Patricia Gasman had told the judge, “He doesn’t deserve to breath God’s air.” In interviews with the press, she had been out spoken in proclaiming her belief in Ray’s guilt.46 But Kim Ancona’s son Daniel Miller felt differently. Thursday afternoon he and Ray’s mother Carolyn had chatted on a bench outside the courthouse. He told her that he was far from convinced Ray had killed his mother.47
Carolyn and Jim had Ray’s belongings packed and loaded in the U-haul trailer they had rented. Jim Leming was certain beyond the shadow of a doubt that Ray would be found innocent, but Carolyn was worried. It was taking too long. “It’s in God’s hands and God knows the truth,” Ray said, trying to comfort her when they talked on the phone late Thursday night.48
Ray’s sister Amy had driven to Phoenix the third week of March, stayed for two weeks then returned home. She couldn’t take the waiting any longer, and flew back to Phoenix on Friday morning. She got to the courthouse at eleven o’clock and a few minutes later the jury announced that they had reached a verdict. When the jurors filed into the courtroom, several of them were already in tears.49
The court clerk was charged with delivering the verdict. “On the charge of kidnapping, guilty…”50
In that instant, for Ray Krone time stopped—“It was the biggest gut wrenching, heart-stopping, mind-numbing experience in my life. I still had faith that when the truth came out, I’d be free. To hear them say ‘guilty, and then hear my mom and sister let out the most horrible shriek and wail behind me, right there ten feet behind me, and to look over at the jury and they’re wiping tears out of their eyes, and the clerk is trying to read the rest of the verdict and his voice is breaking up. My big bull of an attorney is now hanging on my shoulder, ‘I can’t believe this. This is not—this is not done.’ I look over at the prosecution, and they’re all jumping up and down, and shaking high fives and clapping. I’m like, back up and rewind. This can’t be real. This didn’t happen. It was just too surreal.”51
“…on the charge of first-degree murder: guilty.” Some of the members of Kim Ancona’s family were cheering, but her son Daniel Miller sat quietly shaking his head, his eyes clouded with tears.52
Ray turned and looked at his family and friends. “Don’t worry. It’s all right,” he said, trying to comfort them, “I’ll be okay.”53
The judge cleared the courtroom to give the jurors an opportunity to talk with the attorneys. In discussing how they arrived at a verdict, the jurors conceded that the DNA evidence was just too confusing. They chose to rely on what they could see: the three teeth that matched.54
Ray phoned his family later that night. “The system has a hold on me and won’t let go,” he told them. “Don’t worry about me. I’ve learned how to do time. This is happening to me. I don’t want it to ruin your life too.”55
On Sunday, the family set out on the long drive back to Pennsylvania. They visited Ray one last time at the county jail before they left—as at the Lemings first visit, talking with him over the phone, with Ray handcuffed, chained, and shackled in the tiny booth on the other side of a Plexiglas wall.
Ray had lost hope. He confided to his sister Amy that he thought maybe the family should throw in the towel and get on with their lives.57
In a letter to the National Board of Forensic Medicine, Dr Rawson denied making the remark. Robert Nelson, “About Face,” Phoenix New Times, 21 April 2005.
2) Nelson; Lemings, correspondence, 13 September 1995; Closing Arguments, 118; Leming and Rix, Krone Story, 7 January 1996.
5) Lemings, correspondence, 26 January 1996; Dodd, “Cleaner May Have Seen Killer”; Leming and Rix, Krone Story, 1 July 1996; Krone interview.
13) Scott Dodd, “Both sides focus on bite marks as arguments in Krone trial begin,” York Daily Record, 17 February 1996.
15) Laughlin, “Detective Still Has Original Notes”; Laura Laughin, “Krone's attorney presses investigator on other evidence,” York Daily Record, 29 February 1996; Dodd, “Cleaner May Have Seen Killer”; Leming and Rix, Krone Story, 1 July 1996.
16) Dodd, “Both sides focus on bite marks”; Laughlin, “Roommate offers Krone's alibi”; Closing Arguments, 13.
17) Hemphill, “Krone Linked to Victim”; Closing Arguments, 120-121; Leming and Rix, Krone Story, 1 July 1995.
20) Closing Arguments, 82; Carolyn Leming, e-mail correspondence, 13 August 2006; Leming, “Prostitution.”
22) Scott Dodd, “Second Krone murder trial takes many twists,” York Daily Record, 8 March 1996; Closing Arguments, 28, 132; Leming and Rix, Krone Story, 1 July 1996.
23) Scott Dodd, “DNA doesn't match Krone's Saliva,” York Daily Record, 15 March 1996; Donald E. Riley, “DNA Testing: An Introduction for Non-Scientists,” Scientific Testimony, An Online Journal (University of Washington, revised edition posted April 6, 2005), (retrieved 1 September 2006, http://www.scientific.org).
24) Closing Arguments 86-88; Laura Laughlin, “DNA expert expands earlier testimony,” York Daily Record, 29 March 1996.
26) Closing Arguments 60, 86-88; Lemings, correspondence, 22 June 1995, 29 June 1995, 22 December 1995.
27) Lemings interview; Laughlin, “DNA expert expands earlier testimony”; Closing Arguments, 101; Dodd, “DNA doesn't match”; Scott Dodd, “Defense simplifies scientific evidence,” York Daily Record, 16 March 1996; “DNA TESTS (Ray Krone Trial),” York Daily Record, 14 March 1996.
28) Scott Dodd, “Tearful Krone jurors still without a verdict,” York Daily Record, 12 April 1996; Leming and Rix, Krone Story, 1 July 1996.
32) Scott Dodd, “Expert sees guilt in Krone's teeth,” York Daily Record, 20 March 1996; Lemings interview.
36) Closing Arguments, 47; Lemings and Rix, Krone Story, 1 July 1996; Dodd, “Second Krone murder trial takes many twists.”
38) Dodd, “Defense sacks key witness”; Dodd, “Expert sees guilt in Krone's teeth”; Dodd, “Defense attacks expert's credibility”; Scott Dodd, “Dentist disputes bite-mark analysis,” York Daily Record, 22 March 1996; Lemings interview; Leming and Rix, Krone Story, 1 July 1996.
39) Dodd, “Dentist disputes bite-mark analysis”; Larua Laughlin, “Another expert says marks could not be from Krone,” York Daily Record, 30 March 1996; Laura Laughlin, “Expert: Bite-mark evidence inconclusive at best,” York Daily Record, 4 April 1996.
40) Laughlin, “Detective Still Has Original Notes”; Sunny Hemphill, “Krone jurors receive instructions,” York Daily Record, 9 April 1996; Leming and Rix, Krone Story, 1 July 1996.
46) Scott Dodd, “Finally, jury is set for Krone retrial to begin today,” York Daily Record, 16 February 1996; Scott Dodd, “Allegations of abuse overblown,” York Daily Record, 22 February 1996.
49) Scott Dodd, “‘Legal defense team’ backs up attorney,” York Daily Record, 20 March 1996; Dodd, “Krone found Guilty”; Lemings, correspondence, 29 March 1996.
54) Leming and Rix, Krone Story, 1 July 1996; Dodd, “Krone found Guilty”; Scott Dodd, “Because the bite mark fit, the jury would not acquit,” York Daily Record, 13 April 1996; Krone interview.
This is Page 4. Page: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, of the Ray Krone Story.....