Updated 12:28 p.m. Feb. 5 with new hearing times.
It all comes down to the size of a bullet and a bullet hole, measured in fractions of an inch.
Subramanyam Vedam, imprisoned 42 years on a murder rap, will be back in court on Thursday, hoping a ballistics expert will convince a judge to grant him a new trial.
Vedam’s team is counting on the testimony of Ann Ross, a forensic anthropologist at North Carolina State University, to undermine a linchpin of the state’s case – namely that Subu Vedam shot Thomas Kinser with a .25-caliber gun that he allegedly bought prior to Kinser’s disappearance in 1980.
Ross is expected to show that the hole in Kinser’s skull was too small to have been made by a .25-caliber bullet. Since no one saw Subu shoot Kinser, disproving his connection to the supposed murder weapon may not leave the state with much of a case.
Centre County President Judge Jonathan Grine could then order a new trial. At that point, Subu’s team is hoping the state, unable to prove Subu’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, will walk away. And then, so too, will Subu, 62 years old.
I fervently hope that is what happens. Over the past decade, I’ve visited Subu at the state prison in Huntingdon, talked to members of his family and to people who knew him in high school. The range of opinion is narrow – from those who doubt Subu was capable of murder, to those who are entirely certain of his innocence.
I have also heard from a couple of people close to the Kinser family who are irked that the tragedy of Tom’s murder has been lost amid the outpouring of support for Subu. A fair point, and one that Subu’s family has addressed amid their efforts to free him:
“Subu and his family…extend their sincere compassion to all those who loved Tom Kinser, acknowledging that a new hearing undoubtedly causes additional pain as they are asked to revisit their terrible loss. However, Subu’s continued incarceration for a crime he did not commit does not provide justice for Tom Kinser, his family, or his friends, and in fact, prevents the truth of the case from coming to light.”
Throughout the years that I’ve been thinking and writing about Subu’s case, I’ve been less interested in the crime than in the punishment: life in prison, no matter how exemplary his behavior has been since they put him away.
Our prisons are not peaceable kingdoms. Some inmates assault guards (and are assaulted by guards). Some assault each other. Subu has done neither. So why would a person who has not committed a single act of violence during four decades in prison suddenly commit acts of violence after his release from prison – especially if those acts would likely land him right back in the joint?
Statistics on recidivism among older parolees strongly suggest he wouldn’t. In my view, a system that puts people away for life without regard to how he conducts himself and treats others while he’s there is as inhumane as the act of violence Subu was accused of committing.
The politics of the criminal justice system are all about toughness. No one running for office wants to be labeled soft on crime. No one wants to be blamed when a paroled felon commits a new crime.
And so we get travesties. Thirty years ago, New York Times columnist Jim Dwyer wrote about a high school senior in New York who was dating a drug dealer. Both she and her boyfriend were charged and convicted. The boyfriend gave the cops the names of some other dealers. He got five years in prison. The girlfriend didn’t know any other dealers. She got 10 years.
In 2018, St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Tony Messenger wrote about a young woman who shoplifted some nail polish. She was sentenced to 30 days in the county jail and was billed $1,400 for room and board when she got out.
She couldn’t pay it. So back she went. This time she owed $2,160.
Since one can’t very well earn money while in jail, you can see how this becomes a downward spiral from which it would be hard to escape. You can also see how such shenanigans are a nice moneymaker for the county. And, Messenger wrote, it was a common practice in Missouri. The politics of the criminal justice system are also all about money.
In both of these cases we have to ask, is this justice or cruelty?
Judge Grine and the Centre County District Attorney’s office need to ask themselves that question in the matter of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Subramanyam Vedam.
The judge has scheduled two days of hearings: noon-4:30 p.m. Thursday and 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Friday in Courtroom 1 in the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte.
Interest in Subu’s case is high. Expect a full house.
