A pivotal two-day evidentiary hearing for the man convicted of the 1980 murder of Thomas Kinser near State College wrapped up Friday afternoon in Bellefonte, but a judge’s decision on whether Subramanyam “Subu” Vedam will get a new trial is still months away.
Back in the Centre County Courthouse where he was convicted at a 1983 trial and again at a 1988 retrial, the 63-year-old Vedam listened but did not speak as expert witnesses for his defense team and the prosecution offered conflicting testimony about what kind of bullet may have killed Kinser.
After the hearing, Judge Jonathan Grine gave a timeline for the defense and prosecution to present proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after reviewing the transcript of the proceedings. It will be about three and a half months before Grine has both parties’ arguments, and he gave no indication of when he might issue a decision after that.
Most of Friday’s testimony came from experts for the prosecution, who countered defense witnesses that said the size and shape of the bullet wound in Kinser’s head most likely meant it was caused by a .22-caliber rifle — which would undermine the prosecution’s contention that it came from a .25-caliber gun purchased by Vedam.
The caliber size is at the crux of Vedam’s Post-Conviction Relief Act pursuit of a new chance to prove his case. Vedam was the last known person to see his friend and fellow 19-year-old Kinser alive. Kinser’s body was discovered in September 1981 at Bear Meadows in Harris Township.
Vedam was convicted at both trials after prosecutors said he used a .25 caliber gun to kill Kinser. The murder weapon was never recovered, and Vedam’s conviction was based in part on his purchase of a .25 caliber gun — which he says he bought after Kinser disappeared. Prosecutors contended that a .25-caliber bullet and bullet found among Kinser’s remains matched a bullet casing discovered near where Vedam test-fired a .25 caliber gun when he bought it.
But Vedam’s attorneys say a newly discovered FBI report, turned over to them in early 2024, was suppressed by the Centre County District Attorney’s Office in the 1980s and shows that the bullet hole in Kinser’s skull was too small to have been made by a .25. Had the evidence been available to the defense at the time, they argued, the outcome of his trials might have been different.
“I was very very pleased with how the whole proceeding went,” Vedam attorney Gopal Balachandran said outside the courthouse after the hearing. “I was thrilled that we got a chance to present evidence showing that Subu was innocent. It’s the first time ever he’s had a hearing like this. Obviously, any day that an innocent man is in prison feels like an eternity. So at the same time we presented all this evidence there’s also this feeling that we can’t wait until we get the decision that will ultimately exonerate Subu.
Friday’s hearing began with the conclusion of testimony from forensic anthropologist Ann Ross, a North Carolina State University professor who studies bullet holes.
Ross testified that the hole in Kinser’s skull was smaller than any observed in research to have been created by a .25-caliber bullet. Her analysis concluded that it was most likely caused by a soft lead, or unjacketed, .22-caliber bullet that fragmented to create a keyhole-shaped defect in the bone.
Homicide investigation consultant Robert Tressel also testified that in hundreds of murder investigations and thousands of death investigations, he had never seen a non-fragmented .25-caliber bullet create a hole in a skull as small as that in Kinser’s.
Two prosecution witnesses called to rebut the defense testimony took issue with Ross’ analysis.
FBI forensic anthropologist Angi Christensen said that there is no significant statistical difference in the holes created by a .22 and a .25. Asserting a bullet caliber based on the size of the hole is “not advisable” and is an “unacceptable practice,” in forensic anthropology, she said.
She added that the sample size for studying the size of holes created by .22 and .25 bullets was too small, and a larger pool would have more variation. Christensen also said Ross’ determination that the keyhole defect was likely caused by bullet fragmentation was not supported by research.
Under cross-examination, Christensen said she only assessed Ross’ report for “scientific supportability” and did not review or analyze the evidence, having noted earlier that bureau protocols prohibited her from undertaking such an analysis. She said earlier that she was permitted to write a memorandum on Ross’ analysis because “allowing it to go unchecked would be bad for the science of forensic anthropology.”
Dennis Dirkmaat, a forensic investigator at Mercyhurst University, agreed that the “general consensus” is a bullet caliber can’t be specified from the size of a hole, aside from a general range from small to large.
He also questioned the location on a photo of the wound where Ross took her measurement, saying it did not represent the diameter. He added that he believes the keyhole defect was caused by kinetic force, and that evidence would have remained on the skull if it were caused by fragmentation.
Ballistics expert and former state trooper Todd Neumyer testified that the lack of lead residue on Kinser’s skull meant the bullet was more likely a full metal jacket .25 caliber that did not fragment. Otherwise, he said, lead would have been present on the bone.
Defense attorneys Tasha Nankerville and Michael Wiseman suggested that over the course of the nine months that Kinser’s body was in the wooded area, animal activity and the elements could have wiped away traces of lead.
Dirkmaat said there would have been markings from animals gnawing or clawing at the skull, and Neumyer added that lead is not water soluble.
But on questioning from Nankerville, Neumyer said he does not conduct formal research and was not aware of any studies on the degradation of lead.
Balachandran said after the hearing that despite the testimony from the prosecution’s experts, he believes it was Ross who made the best case.
“We were thrilled to be able to present the case and an expert the caliber of Dr. Ross,” Balachandran said. “I think the quote from the judge was we have the expert who wrote the book on the exact issue we were litigating in court.
“She is clearly the only one that has done research on this… and throughout the course of the testimony, Dr. Christensen and Dr. Dirkmaat didn’t do any of the research. So they couldn’t get attacked because they didn’t do any of the research. I think it was very clear that she was the highest caliber expert… We feel extremely good about how she did and how well she tied in her analysis to what was never turned over to Subu’s lawyers back in 1998.”
The hearing also left Vedam’s family hopeful.
“We’re very grateful to have had the chance to present the case,” Saraswathi Vedam, Subu Vedam’s sister, said outside the courthouse after the hearing. “I think it’s very clear from both days’ proceedings that that the concealed evidence establishes that there could have been a different outcome from the trials. That’s the standard for a Brady violation. Subu’s rights to a fair trial were violated. That’s the main thing we’re focused on now. That’s what everyone should be focused on, because fairness matters.
The two days in Bellefonte, outside of Huntingdon state prison where he has spent most of the past 42 years, brought mixed emotions for Vedam, Balachandran said.
“It’s really tough to come to the place that wrongly convicted you,” Balachandran said. “This is the first time he’s been in this courthouse since 1988, so you can imagine what kind of emotions that is. And you can imagine someone who has been in state prison custody for so many decades, you only leave those walls every now and then. It’s been years, or decades even, since he even left the walls of Huntingdon. All those adjustments are really hard. Then you add on the additional stress of being in court, being in the same courtroom, seeing all of your family and loved ones. So I think it’s a mixture of emotions, both hope and obviously a lot of stress.”
