Sex Offender Guilty of Killing Megan Kanka

NEW YORK —  After brief deliberations, a jury found a twice-convicted sex offender guilty Friday of murdering and raping 7-year-old Megan Kanka--a crime that sparked laws throughout the nation requiring public disclosure when sexual predators move into neighborhoods.

The decision means that Jesse K. Timmendequas, who lured the little girl into his home with the promise of seeing a puppy, then attacked and strangled her, could receive the death penalty from jurors when they enter the penalty phase of the case.

Timmendequas, 36, sat silently and showed no emotion when the six-man, six-woman jury, which had pondered his fate for a little more than four hours, rendered its verdict.

He was also found guilty of kidnapping, four counts of aggravated sexual assault and two counts of felony murder for killing the child while committing other crimes.

Maureen Kanka, Megan’s mother, who attended court each day in Trenton, N.J., gasped when the forewoman of the jury announced “guilty” to the top count of murder. Her eyes filled with tears and she lowered her face into her hands as reading of the verdict continued.

Tears also welled up in the eyes of her husband, Richard.

President Clinton issued a statement saying that members of the Kanka family (they have two other children) “took their pain and helped guide the nation to adopt legislation that is going to protect other children from those who would harm them.”

“We owe the Kanka family not only our sympathy but a debt of gratitude as well,” the president said.

The same jury will return to determine whether Timmendequas will die by lethal injection for the murder on July 9, 1994.

If there is not unanimous agreement on the death sentence, Timmendequas could face 30 years to life in prison for the murder charge.

Prosecutors presented dramatic, emotionally wrenching evidence during the three-week trial--including what police said were confessions by Timmendequas, who sat quietly in court and did not take the witness stand.

At one point, Robert E. O’Dwyer, a detective, choked back tears as he testified that Timmendequas confessed to touching his 7-year-old neighbor, strangling her with a belt, tying a plastic bag over her head, carrying the body out of his house in a toy chest and dumping it in a nearby park.

*

Quoting from what police said were Timmendequas’ own words, O’Dwyer said the defendant choked Megan because “I just didn’t want her to get away” and that the child struggled for five minutes before she collapsed.

Other police officers told the jury that Timmendequas at first denied any knowledge of the crime. Then a roommate--one of two convicted sex offenders he shared the house with--was brought into the area where the questioning was taking place.

Chris Pukenas, a New Jersey State Police detective, testified that as soon as Brian R. Jenin, the roommate, saw Timmendequas, he started speaking.

“ ‘They got you, they got you, they got you,’ ” the detective related Jenin said. “ ‘You’re going to need a friend on the outside, I’ll be that friend.’ ”

Pukenas said at that point, Timmendequas lowered his head then confessed that the body was in the park.

“Is she alive?” the detective said he asked Timmendequas.

“No, she’s dead with a bag over her head,” Pukenas said the defendant told him.

The alleged confessions read to the jury were backed up by extensive physical evidence--blood and hair samples, plus portions of Megan’s clothing that were found in garbage cans outside Timmendequas’ home.

Jurors heard testimony that strands of Timmendequas’ hair were discovered on the shirt Megan was wearing when her body was identified. Hair matching Megan’s was found in the defendant’s bedroom and on a piece of carpet in his house.

A forensic dentist testified that a bite mark that Timmendequas had on his right palm was made by Megan’s lower front teeth.

With tears filling her eyes at times, Maureen Kanka identified stained and bloody fragments of clothing her daughter wore the July night she was killed. She told the jury she never knew sex offenders lived across the street.

She told of her panic when Megan disappeared and how she asked Timmendequas if he knew of her whereabouts.

Kanka said the defendant replied he had seen Megan with a friend.

“That man, the defendant, had been watching that little girl for months,” prosecutor Kathryn Flicker charged. “ . . . Unsuspecting, trusting 7-year-old Megan walked into the defendant’s house. She would never walk out. . . . She would scream. She would run. She would fight. Megan had no chance.

“His killing was so cold and calculating,” the prosecutor said, “that it is chilling to the extreme. This was a killing done without remorse.”

Defense lawyers called no witnesses, instead arguing that police had managed to cajole the confessions from Timmendequas and that portions of the physical evidence against him were flawed.

In her closing argument, public defender Barbara Lependorf argued that it was Megan who asked Timmendequas if she could see the puppy. And she sought to cast suspicion on his two roommates who weren’t charged in the crime.

“There were three men that lived in that house. So Jesse confesses and takes all the weight,” the defense lawyer charged. “I am not standing here and telling you Jesse had nothing to do with this,” the defense lawyer said. “He obviously had guilty knowledge. He knew what went on in that house. He was involved.”

Prosecutors said both of Timmendequas’ companions were shopping during the time Megan was strangled.

After the murder, Maureen Kanka campaigned tirelessly to change the nation’s laws and require public notification when a convicted sex offender moves into a neighborhood.

On May 17, 1996, with members of Megan’s family in the Oval office, Clinton signed a federal law mandating such statutes or risk losing a portion of federal funds.

*

All 50 states require sexually violent predators and people convicted of related crimes against minors to register with local law enforcement authorities where they live. Proponents argue the laws will prove to be important crime deterrents.

Many of the laws are being challenged in the courts both on practical and constitutional grounds of due process.

Critics argue the laws can drive predators underground as well as deprive former prisoners of their civil rights after they have been punished.