HOMICIDE DETECTIVE JOHN KIMBALL
BIO
Growing up, my parents, my brother, and I moved around quite a bit, finally settling in
Redding, Connecticut in 1977. After graduating from high school, I attended college and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Journalism in 1984. After that, I spent ten years working in television news, much of the time doing “hard news” crime stories and investigative pieces. This work piqued my interest in police work, specifically investigative work.
In 1993, I began applying for police jobs, much to the surprise and dismay of my wife. I was hired as an entry level police officer in the town of Orange, Connecticut, where I worked for nearly five years. In August 1998, I began a twenty-five-year career with the Connecticut State Police, first as a road trooper, then a Resident State Trooper, before I attained my goal as a Major Crime Detective.
I spent thirteen years as a detective, and then as a Major Crime Sergeant, investigating cases ranging from Homicides, Officer-Involved Shootings, Robberies, Larcenies, Sexual Assaults, and Computer Crimes. I ultimately retired as Chief of Staff for Lieutenant Colonel, Jack Goncalves, in June 2022. After spending 116 days retired, I began working at the Westport Police Department where I am currently the detective for the Street Crimes Unit.
INTERVIEW
LYNN: At what point in your life did you decide to become a cop and what motivated you to do so?
JOHN: I never planned for a career in law enforcement, at least not consciously. A degree in journalism taught me to string words together to express a clear thought, and it encouraged me to hunt down the five W’s: Who, What, When, Where, and Why? It was during my initial years spent in television news that I came to be exposed to crime stories. I found the puzzle-solving aspect of law enforcement very enticing. And the more investigatory stories I worked on, the greater I felt the draw towards law enforcement and detective work.
During this time, my wife administered the Predictive Index – a personality test used in human resources. The results for me repeatedly indicated a career in public service. Our initial response was this had to be an aberration. After much consternation, I began to seriously consider a career change. I began talking with more officers and troopers with whom I came in contact, and I asked them about their work. The more I learned, the greater the appeal. I studied the Arco Law Enforcement Exam Preparation books, and I began to apply to various police agencies, including the Connecticut State Police – my ultimate goal. I finally was hired by the Orange (CT) Police, and I was off and running on my new vocation. I had no idea how much my life was going to change.
LYNN: Was your career path in law enforcement to always be a homicide detective? If so, what was it about becoming a detective that you found compelling?
JOHN: My ultimate objective in police work was always to attain the title of detective. There are many paths a law enforcement career can take. For me, my aim was to solve the mystery, reveal the truth, and to aid the victims in finding answers and (hopefully) justice in some of their darkest hours. I enjoy the psychology of people – the various aspects of the personality, their public and private personas. Figuring out not just what they did, but why they did it, and what they might do next. And of all the mysteries and tragedies, homicides are the greatest challenge. They are the most heinous acts, and they carry the most severe consequences. Therefore, they frequently inspire the most extreme behavior.
As a friend of mine always says, “It doesn’t get any bigger than a body.” Homicide detectives are always immersed in the biggest, most complicated (aka interesting) cases. And their efforts can elicit the most profound results. But you must remember that all work in law enforcement is done for the victims – whether they be alive or deceased. It always traces back to those who were wronged and are suffering as a result. It is noble work to help those in need. And I believe that is the ultimate job of the detective.
LYNN: You are obviously good at your job. What special talent did you feel you bring to the table that has helped you be successful?
JOHN: There are many detectives who are smarter and more educated than I am. If there is one aspect to my personality which has served me well in my career it would be my stubbornness. Dogged determination is another, more police colloquialism. When I worked with the Colonels of the Connecticut State Police, my nickname was “Pitbull.” Persistence and motivation are key in police work.
Every day holds challenges. It is not an easy job. And everyone experiences good and bad days. But the ability to keep on ‘keeping on’ is essential. As in all walks of life, there are those who are quick to acquiesce, to give up and give in, who fail to embrace the muck. Law enforcement can be a dirty, thankless, unyielding job at times. It is only self-motivation, the adherence to what is right, and the ability to remember why you started this job in the first place that will keep you moving forward.
It’s also never a bad idea to employ some “over-thinking.” The ability to look at a problem from someone else's perspective can provide great insight. And, finally, healthy skepticism can come in handy. Expect the worst. Never feel like you are “done” – there is always a way to make a case stronger. It is usually only those who have been through the fire who work hardest not to get burned again.
LYNN: What’s the hardest thing about investigating a murder?
JOHN: While it’s hard to narrow down the single most difficult aspect, one of the most difficult aspects of a murder investigation is the sheer weight of any action I took or failed to take. Especially during the early days, you never knew what small aspect might blossom into a profound facet of a case.
We frequently found ourselves trying to do everything so as not to overlook anything. While you always “Follow the Evidence” – you cannot allow preconceptions or assumptions to dictate your investigation – there does come a time when the trajectory of a case starts coming into focus. But especially at the onset, you cannot allow yourself to pick and choose – you must consider everything.
And what is perceived as “slow progress” is necessary, since any single fact gleaned has the potential to prove important, at which time, the cadence of the investigation will significantly accelerate. Understandably, this information gathering phase in the beginning of a large investigation can prove to be a huge drain on resources. Investigators involved from the onset must keep this in mind and run down all leads to a viable end instead of jumping onto the “Hot Lead” and abandoning their assignment, only to have the hot lead fizzle. Now they have to play catch-up. Crime solving is a team effort, not an individual sport, and detectives need to always remember the mission is to solve the case as a whole.
LYNN: What’s the first thing you do when called out for a murder case?
JOHN: For a detective, information is key. It is your job to gather, organize, and analyze disparate facts to construct an overall, comprehensive view of a series of events.
When first called to a scene, it is paramount that you assemble a complete list of all available facts and circumstances, and that they be accurate. I think of it as if you are an Impressionistic (Pointillism) painter assembling the individual data points and placing them in the correct spot on your canvas. When viewed individually, a single fact (point) may lack meaning or consequence. But when you back away from the canvas and view the work as a whole, an overall picture comes into view. For every dot (data point) added to your work, it improves the resolution or detail of the image.
Your painting must ultimately contain sufficient detail for a jury to view and to understand clearly what the image conveys – what happened and who’s responsible. What you do – or fail to do – in the early stages of an investigation can literally make or break a case. Inaccurate information at the onset can also lead an investigator down the wrong path. By the time the mistake is discovered, valuable time and evidence may be lost. Therefore, at the very beginning of a murder investigation, it is always best to have someone gathering the most updated facts and disseminating them to their team.
LYNN: As a mystery writer and fan of true crime podcasts, I’m intrigued with the narcissists who believe they are not only entitled to whatever they want in life but are willing to kill to get it and then think they won’t get caught because they are smarter than everyone else. You worked on the Jennifer Dulos case in which her husband Fotis was suspected of killing her. He certainly fits into the category of narcissist. What’s it like as a detective to confront a personality like that?
JOHN: I have met two people during my career who exhibited classic psychopathic traits: one was Fotis Dulos, whom I (and many others) believe was responsible for the death and disappearance of his estranged wife, Jennifer Farber Dulos. The other person whom I consider psychopathic is Kyle Navin who plead guilty in 2018 to the murder of both his parents, Jeanette and Jeffrey Navin, after they threatened to cut him out of their wills.
In both cases, money was the motive. While many people experience financial stress, it is a special type of person who kills over this issue. And these were not “crimes of passion” which occurred in the heat of the moment, and which to be clear, are inexcusable acts. Both these murders were premeditated, planned, and executed with cruelty and callousness. It was also our belief that both these crimes were conspiracies, at the very least carried out with the assistance of another person, if not at their behest.
Both these men shared certain personality characteristics: They appeared to the world as charming, intelligent, and engaging. But what they both lacked was true humanity. There was no light in their eyes. And they could only maintain the charade of normalcy for a limited time.
A psychopath cannot prevent their true nature from oozing out the cracks sooner or later. Both of these men were smart enough to have learned what society expected of them. But it was an act, a role they each played. And when their true personalities eventually revealed themselves, it was spooky.
LYNN: Does the personality of a suspected killer make a difference in how you investigate a murder? For instance, does it change anything about the process?
JOHN: It is important that while the PROCESS remains consistent – I was taught, “Do the same thing, the same way, every time.” – there must be an adjustment of nuances based upon the specific suspect.
Every suspect is different insofar as the minutia of their lives. For an investigation, the make-up of the perpetrator usually dictates what type of crime is committed, and how they go about committing it. For instance, suspects will frequently try to conceal their identity by changing their approach to the act, or even by changing their location. Dulos altered a license plate to hide his identity, and he discarded evidence in an area he did not frequent. But Kyle Navin dumped his parents’ bodies on a property in his childhood town, the owner of which was associated with a childhood friend, literally down the street from the Weston Police Department.
Over my career, I have encountered suspects who have varied insofar as:
Intelligence – Their cognitive capability.
Clear-headedness – Were they under the influence of substances when they committed the crime? When they covered up after the crime?
Resources - Money? Willing associates?
Where the suspect’s personality really comes into play is in the manner in which they are interviewed.
LYNN: You investigated the Sandy Hook killings where you knew who the killer was going in. How does knowing who the killer is change the investigation?
JOHN: As my good friend always says, Sandy Hook was never a “Whodunnit?” It was a “Whydunnit?” While this is not meant to demean the victims in any way, it was always clear to investigators who was responsible for the act.
In such a case, the investigation begins to expand out from the center, like ripples in a pond when a stone is cast. Detectives must search for any other person(s) who may have shared involvement. Was there someone else directly involved – physically present yet unknown? Did other people help the actor plan or prepare for their act? Were there persons with foreknowledge – they didn’t directly participate in the planning or execution of the act, but they knew about it?
The investigators will also probe into the life of the shooter in an effort to determine why they did this. Was there anything in the shooter’s past which, if treated differently, could have foreseen or prevented the act? How can we learn from this and avoid a similar tragedy in the future? This is not for purposes of blaming. It is designed for prevention. And it has the potential to bring some solace to the families.
The truth is that we will never be able to answer all the questions of “Why?” But we do the best we can. Knowing the shooter’s identity at the onset also allows for greater focus. Using the pond analogy, the concentric circles move out from a center point whereas in a WHODUNNIT investigation, the movement is inwards towards a center point.
LYNN: Much of detective work is tedious, time consuming, and frankly unpleasant. For instance, your team was forced to sift through city trash bins and spend multiple hours watching surveillance footage in an attempt to find evidence in the Jennifer Dulos case. In that case it paid off when you found items such as blood-stained ponchos, zip ties, and a box cutter in the trash bins. How do you deal with all of that, especially leads or information that may go nowhere?
JOHN: Speaking in generalities, many aspects of detective work could be considered “tedious.” I have worked cases that involve the seizure of hours of surveillance footage and hundreds of pages of documents. These items all require someone to review them, which can take an extraordinary amount of time. This is where the “dogged determination” (aka stubbornness) comes into play. You cannot give up or skip over portions – items must be reviewed in their entirety so they can be accurately and thoroughly presented.
This is where you lose many people who are enamored with the glitz and glamour of detective work. Paperwork is another “burdensome” aspect of police work. The adage—if you don’t write it down, then it didn’t happen—holds very true in detective work. Notes need to be taken, reviewed, transcribed, and memorialized in written reports. People who consider this unnecessary have never spent hours on the witness stand explaining the lack of documentation of some key aspect of a case. Prosecutions are won or lost based on the thoroughness of a detective’s work.
LYNN: You stated that you conducted more than 70 search warrants in the Jennifer Dulos
case, more than any other case you worked on. What made that case so different?
JOHN: All I can say about the Dulos case is that it was the most complex and diverse case I have ever worked. The case was geographically spread out over Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, and other places. And it involved nearly every specialized unit in the Connecticut State Police, as well as other agencies: Hartford Police, Farmington Police, Avon Police, New York State Police, and more. CSP resources involved included the Dive Team, Emergency Services Unit, Canine Unit, all districts of Major Crime, Aviation Unit, Fire and Explosive Investigative Unit, and multiple Troops and Resident Trooper Offices. There were multiple search warrants for electronic devices, phone records, physical persons (“Body Warrants”), locations, and other records. Simply put, the Jennifer Dulos Case was the most complex and demanding case with which I have ever been involved.
LYNN: In the Jennifer Dulos case, her body was never found. How difficult is it to a) prosecute a ‘no body’ case, and b) to deal with it on a personal level?
JOHN: I cannot discuss the Dulos case specifically, but here is what I can say in general:
“No Body Murder Cases” are some of the most difficult cases to prosecute. Not only do you lack the evidence which the body invariably holds, but you must prove that the person is truly deceased. Arrest and prosecution involves demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has occurred, and that a particular person, or persons, are responsible for that crime. Prosecuting a murder without a body is a serious challenge.
As an investigator, you always want to find all the answers. While this is never really possible, in a No Body Murder Case, you are always left wanting. These are truly the cases which haunt you, and to which your mind repeatedly returns. Was there something we missed? What should we have done differently? You can improve your performance on your next case by reviewing your previous one. But some answers will likely remain mysteries.
LYNN: You mentioned that at its core, the Jennifer Dulos case was a case of domestic violence. Can you speak more about domestic violence cases?
JOHN: In Connecticut, “Family Violence” (FV) is defined as an incident resulting in physical harm, bodily injury, or assault, or an act of threatened violence that constitutes fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault between family or household members. (CT Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-38a; 46b-38h)
FV affects people of all ages, races, socio-economic backgrounds, cultures, religions, and sexual orientations and genders. This being said, women are most commonly the victims of FV whose partners deem it necessary to exert power and control over the relationship. FV is at the heart of the majority of Intimate Partner Homicides, including the Jennifer Dulos case.
The Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence reports that one in four women will experience severe sexual, physical, and/or emotional violence from their partner at some point in their lives. Victims/survivors of FV frequently experience a sense of shame and/or embarrassment, and many instances of FV go unreported. Victim/survivors need to know there are resources available and that they are not alone, it is not their fault, and there are avenues to extricate themselves from the situation.
More information is available at the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
LYNN: Writers (like me) tend to romanticize the role of the detective. Can you speak to what it’s really like? What do writers tend to get wrong?
JOHN: Sherlock Holmes is probably the most famous fictional “Consulting Detective.” While I love the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stories, one of the most accurate portrayals of a detective was Agatha Christie’s character, Hercule Poirot, whose most famously recurring line refers to “the little grey cells.” Poirot is extremely cerebral – he is a Thinker. He realizes it is in the mindscape that the case will be solved – similar to Einstein’s “Thought Experiments.” Poirot cognitively collects and organizes the facts. He then formulates theories and runs them through the set of known facts and evidence until he can account for all known data.
For an author to portray a detective sitting in an armchair thinking through a case would not be the most visually stirring depiction. But the mind is where all the connections and conclusions are made.
Detectives interact with the physical world by “running down leads,” conducting interviews, and hopefully, in the end, arresting those responsible. But it is the internal process, the analyzation, the building of connections and relationships, which ultimately solve the case.
For an author, it’s not as much a matter of wrong or right as it is practicality. The story has to be written so it is interesting enough to grip and hold the reader. In practice, much detective work is rote, repetitive, and routine … doing the same thing, the same way, every time. This establishes a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which helps ensure a thorough and comprehensive investigation which adheres to the Rules of Evidence and minimizes bias.
LYNN: What is your favorite thing about being a detective?
JOHN: I would have to say my favorite aspect of being a detective is working through the challenges of solving the puzzle. Things are rarely the same – there are really no “routine” cases. There are a host of case types: robbery, homicide, larceny/fraud, assault, vehicle theft. But each case has its own nuances which make it interesting and differentiates it from other cases of that type. You can use an earlier investigation as a basis – a template – to get things rolling. This also helps maintain the SOP.
And then you then you begin to build upon and improve over your previous work. And this helps you attain your ultimate goal: to solve the mystery of who did it, how they did it, and, perhaps, why they did it.
Ultimately, there will always be unanswered questions. But providing the victims with as many explanations as possible can be very satisfying.
LYNN: What is your least favorite thing about being a detective?
JOHN: My least favorite aspect is related to the earlier question: An investigator will never be able to give ALL the answers. Some things will remain shrouded in mystery. For a successful prosecution, you must be able to give ENOUGH answers to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. But the victims, along with the detectives, will inevitably have some unresolved questions.
As the investigator, people look to you for answers. It is often difficult to come to terms with the fact that for some things, there will be no definitive explanations. There may be theories or beliefs, but nothing proven. It is not a failure on the detective’s part as much as a reality of life that there will always be some quantity of the unknown. Many people, me included, nonetheless find it unsettling.
LYNN: What’s the one case you worked on that has stayed with you the longest?
JOHN: I cannot isolate the single case which has stayed with me the longest. From an INVESTIGATIVE standpoint:
Westport Jewelry Store Murder (2011)
A true WHODUNNIT?
Two victims: one wounded; one murdered, Yekutiel Zeevi.
A stranger, Andrew Levene, with no established association with the victims.
We knew exactly who/where the victims were. We had no idea who had committed the crime.
Navin Double Homicide (2015)
A true WHERE ARE THEY?
We had our strong suspicions (which turned out to be correct) of the person(s) responsible. We had no idea where the victims had been placed.
A son, Kyle Navin, kills both his parents, Jeanette & Jeffrey, over money.
From an aspect of pure TRAGEDY: Sandy Hook Elementary School (2012)
Twenty children and six adults, including his mother, executed by a 20-year-old with severe mental illness.
The Jennifer Dulos Case (2019)
Five children and countless friends lost Jennifer Farber Dulos to her estranged husband, Fotis Dulos, who later committed suicide rather than face justice.
LYNN: What has been the shining star in your career?
John: What I am most grateful for in my career is to have been in the position and had the opportunity to help so many people, to some degree, for this amount of time. I truly believe law enforcement is a calling, a lifestyle, rather than a job. I feel truly blessed to have done something I love as a profession.
LYNN: John, I can't thank you enough. This has been a wonderful interview, and I appreciate your time, skill, and perseverance in doing what you do.
Comments