The Ken Gutzeit Case: No Truth or Justice in the American Way

INTRODUCTION

Within the Netflix series, Worst Roommate Ever, the final episode deals with the story of Jamison Bachman and his reign of terror and tragedy. This episode is based on a New York Magazine article from 2018 of the same title. Embedded in this story lies the murder case of Kenneth Gutzeit in 1976. Bachman witnessed this incident as a Tulane University student in New Orleans, while at the Sigma Chi fraternity house, and it supposedly created a catalyst for his destructive behavior.

The Netflix account provides little information on the backstory of the fatal altercation. It simply surmises that Ken Gutzeit instigated the confrontation, and the assailant, Randell Vidrine, walked free without a trial two weeks later based on a self-defense argument.

We are here to set the record straight and provide some clarity and closure on what really transpired 46 years ago in the Big Easy. What you are about to read is based on documented reports and inside information collected from news reports and findings of a private investigator on the case. We have not gained access to any of the original case files located in the District Attorney’s office or courthouse.

Uncovering the truth of this case revolves around the Grand Jury’s “No True Bill” decision not to indict Vidrine. In particular, the fact that key witnesses were not called to testify, and those who did testify were asked few relevant questions. Also, the defendant’s non-corroborated statements to law enforcement are most problematic. In addition, a history of misconduct within the Orleans Parish District Attorneys office is well documented. Finally, the defendant being from a long-standing, influential Louisiana family of the Ville Platte area, Evangeline Parish, may be a factor.

Ken Gutzeit grew up in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania suburb of Elkins Park, a wholesome, family-oriented area in Northeast Philly. This town has a large Jewish community, of which Ken’s family was a member. He attended Cheltenham High School, one of the first integrated school districts, and home to many influential alumni, including Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israel Prime Minister, and Reggie Jackson, baseball Hall of Famer.

When news of Ken’s tragic event hit Philly, it was met with shock and disbelief. Ken was known as a tough but sensitive kid who made friends easily and was a bit rebellious. The word on the street was that justice had gone wrong down south in Louisiana. It seemed like Virgil Tibbs vs. Huey Long.

THE CASE

According to a news article from The Town Talk, Alexandria, Louisiana, February 13, 1976

“Tulane University librarian Randell Vidrine is free today after a grand jury refused to charge him for the stabbing death of a Sigma Chi Fraternity brother. Vidrine, 25, was released from jail Thursday after an Orleans Parish grand jury returned a “no true bill.” Police said a cheese snack sparked the month-old quarrel that led to the January 29 stabbing of 20-year-old Kenneth Gutzeit of Elkins Park, Pa.

Gutzeit had ignored Vidrine’s warning in November about eating the snacks in the library, police said. They said Vidrine summoned campus police to eject the youth.

Police said Gutzeit then took to harassing the librarian when he passed in front of the Fraternity house. On the day of the slaying, Vidrine was carrying a knife, police said. They said Gutzeit tried to pick a fight with the librarian and Vidrine slashed him in the throat, severing the carotid artery.”

THE SPECIFICS

From news article, The Maroon, Loyola University, New Orleans, February 5, 1976

A Tulane library assistant (Vidrine) called the Tulane Security Office on four separate occasions claiming he was being harassed by a fellow student (Gutzeit) whom he is charged with stabbing to death last Thursday (January 29, 1976).

Vidrine and Gutzeit first confronted each other on Nov. 14 (1975) according to Tulane Security records obtained by the MAROON. Gutzeit entered the library eating cheese snacks. Vidrine told Gutzeit he was violating the library’s “No Food or Drink” rule and asked him to leave, the reports said Gutzeit threatened Vidrine.

CALL #1

Reports further showed Vidrine called Security for the first time when Gutzeit again brought cheese snacks into the library three days later (November 17, 1975). Officer J. Stinson answered the call. Records indicated that Vidrine told Stinson he had previously warned Gutzeit about breaking the rule. Vidrine also told Stinson about Gutzeit’s threat the reports said.

Security documents also showed Gutzeit denied having been warned or having threatened Vidrine and that Gutzeit protested loudly, causing a disturbance. Stinson then asked for Gutzeit’s school identification and told him he would have to see the Director of Security to explain his actions.

According to the documents, Gutzeit told Stinson his ID was in his car and that he had no time to see the Director of Security. Stinson then told Gutzeit he was under campus arrest. Then, reports showed, Gutzeit said he would get his card and see the director. While he was being escorted to his car by Stinson and two assisting officers, Gutzeit took off running, the report said. Officer Tapola, one of the assisting security men pursued Gutzeit but did not catch him. Vidrine then supplied Stinson with Gutzeit’s name and social security number from library records.

CALL #2

The Security report further stated that on December 4th (1975) around 9:50 p.m., Vidrine called in a second complaint. Gutzeit had returned to the library again with food, Vidrine said. Gutzeit had invited Vidrine to step outside, saying he “had a surprise for him.”

Reports showed when Corporals Powell and Jefferson arrived at the library, Gutzeit had gone. Security contacted Gutzeit at 12:00 midnight to inform him of an appointment made for him to see the Director of Security the next day. At this time Security reported this information to the Dean of Students.

CALL #3

Vidrine called Security a third time on Dec. 5 (1975) between 5:30 pm. and 6:00 pm. He said he had left the library from the rear because Gutzeit was waiting out front and he feared for his life, according to Cpl. Ortego. Security officers were sent to the library but they could not find Gutzeit.

CALL #4

Vidrine placed the last (4th) call between 2 and 3 am. on or about December 20 (1975), according to Corporal Chuck “Curley” Ortego, the senior security officer on duty at the time. “Vidrine said Gutzeit was beating on his apartment door, drunk and yelling obscenities and telling him to come out because he was going to kick his behind,” Ortego said.

Ortego said he told Vidrine he could not help him because Tulane Security has no jurisdiction off-campus. He told Vidrine to call the New Orleans Police Department.

At press time NOPD could find no record that Vidrine called them.

The MAROON met with Vidrine’s attorney, Paul Tate who said, “This is a case of self defense based on a series of harassing incidents.”

COMMENTARY

Vidrine called Tulane Security on four separate occasions claiming he was being harassed by Gutzeit. On only the first call was there any corroboration or confirmation from Tulane Security that Gutzeit was actually there, and he denied the allegations on this first call.

KEY WITNESSES NOT CALLED TO TESTIFY

From news article, The Maroon, Loyola University, New Orleans, February 19, 1976

A Tulane student whom the grand jury failed to call to testify in its investigation into the fatal stabbing of a fellow fraternity brother told the MAROON he saw the defendant, Randell Vidrine, throw the first blow in the final altercation on January 29 that ended in the death of Kenneth Gutzeit.

Mark Schrader, a Sigma Chi fraternity member, stated that he was nearest to both of the parties during two altercations that day and was most knowledgeable about the events that happened, yet he was never called to testify before the grand jury which delivered a “no true bill” last week in Vidrine’s favor.

Shortly after the first altercation, Schrader said Vidrine returned to the steps of the Sigma Chi house where Gutzeit lived “as though he was looking for trouble — something that a man who was allegedly fearful for his life would never do.”

Schrader said that 15 minutes after the first altercation between Gutzeit and Vidrine, on the day Gutzeit was killed, Gutzeit was eating dinner at the fraternity house at 918 Broadway when some fraternity brothers informed him that Vidrine was at the steps outside the house. Schrader said that Gutzeit then came down the steps open-handed and asked Vidrine, “You want something from me?” Schrader said that immediately after Gutzeit asked the question, Vidrine struck Gutzeit in the neck with what appeared to be his fist. When Gutzeit began to bleed profusely from the neck, Schrader said he and other witnesses nearby realized that Vidrine must have stabbed him with the blow.

Other witnesses interviewed by the MAROON corroborated Schrader’s account of the fatal blow. Two of the witnesses who appeared before the grand jury in the Vidrine murder case revealed their acute concern about having been asked only a couple of questions about the case. According to one witness, “Only one question asked was really directed towards the fatal incident itself.”

Schrader, who was just a few feet behind Gutzeit when he was stabbed. said, “it appeared that the pocket knife was already opened and had been concealed in the pocket of the Windbreaker Vidrine was wearing when he approached the fraternity house.”

Schrader also reported Vidrine held the pocket knife in his hand as he calmly walked away from the bleeding Gutzeit and eventually Vidrine threw the knife on top of a shed on the corner of Freret and Broadway as the New Orleans Police Department arrived on the scene.

Schrader said he can’t figure out why Vidrine came up Broadway on Sigma Chi’s side of the street because Vidrine was going to work at the library and coming up Broadway toward Tulane University from the direction of his apartment near St. Charles Avenue and it would be out of his way to cross the street and come by the Sigma Chi house. He said Vidrine could have used Berthe Street in his route to the Tulane Library — it is more direct and certainly a shorter route.

When Mark Schrader was asked why he did not come forward with his account earlier, he replied that he and other fraternity members “were advised by a judge that we should not reveal our evidence until the trial. After all, the grand jury is not judging innocence or guilt, only examining the evidence to see if the case warrants going to trial.” “We were all mortified when Vidrine was set free!” said one fraternity member.

WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED ASKED FEW RELEVANT QUESTIONS

As a follow up to the previous article regarding lack of meaningful questions asked of those testifying before the Grand Jury, our investigator received a recent statement from Steven Dehmlow, a Sigma Chi Fraternity member at the time.

“I still have a vivid and clear memory of Vidrine’s one blow to Ken’s neck. I was one of the fraternity brothers who did testify before the grand jury. I still remember that the few questions asked of me were focused on Ken’s behavior and none about the event I saw in front of the fraternity house.

Vidrine was standing facing the house as Ken walked up to him. As soon as Ken was within striking distance, Vidrine swung what looked like a punch to the side of Ken’s head. After the blow, Ken lunged towards Vidrine as blood start pulsing out of his neck in an ungodly volume and we all stared in horror. Vidrine pushed Ken aside, turned and calmly walked away.

Vidrine called Ken out of the house that evening and, clearly to me, intended to kill him. He had a small knife hidden in his hand as Ken approached. Vidrine struck Ken with the knife in the single most lethal way possible. I think most people, instinctively reacting in a knife fight, would stab towards the chest or gut of the person they were attacking as we have seen on TV countless times. Vidrine, catching Ken completely off guard, precisely struck Ken’s neck severing the carotid artery in a single blow.

So not only did he deliberately walk in front of the fraternity house to create a confrontation with Ken, he already had a knife in his hand and then he deliberately stabbed Ken where the wound from even such a small weapon would almost assuredly be fatal. I don’t think it was by chance Vidrine stabbed Ken as he did. It still appears to me that he carefully thought out the attack.

More than 40 years have passed and I don’t think anything done now can right what went wrong in New Orleans way back then but justice was not served.”

ACTION

Now that the case specifics have been outlined, what is the basis for this case to move forward and possibly be re-opened. We consulted with a prominent Pennsylvania criminal defense attorney, who after looking at the facts, explained the issue of prosecutorial misconduct. This stance led to a wealth of findings and disinformation inherent within the Orleans Parish DA’s office over the past 50 years.

Also of legal importance is the statute of limitations. Vidrine was booked on Murder One that has an infinite time period for case reexamination. At the Grand Jury hearing, the charges were lessened to Manslaughter, having a six-year window to retrial. Of course, the lessening of the charges could be viewed as part of the misconduct case.

According to a recent report by The Innocence Project New Orleans, “During Harry Connick’s tenure, Orleans Parish District Attorney’s office regularly suppressed crucial evidence in cases, costing taxpayers millions of dollars, sending innocent men to prison, and exacerbating the crime problem in New Orleans.”

Although this information collected is after the fact of the Ken Gutzeit case, it does support the misconduct findings that took place in New Orleans during 1976. In addition, numerous scholarly articles expand on this position of prosecutor wrongdoing. This subject matter has even reached the Supreme Court (see notes).

The final piece of this case’s puzzle revolves around the defendant Vidrine’s long-standing, (225 year old) influential family history in Louisiana, in particular, the towns of Ville Platte and nearby Mamou in Evangeline Parish.

According to The Vidrine Family website; vidrinefamily.com

“All with the name of Vidrine in America today descend from the two sons of Jean-Baptiste Lapaise de Védrines. They are: Jean Baptiste Pierre Vidrine and Etienne Vidrine, dit Lapaise.

Once Jean-Baptiste Lapaise de Védrines died in 1788 at the Opelousas Post (Washington, LA), his two sons remained living there for about eight years. The oldest son, Jean Baptiste Pierre Vidrine homesteaded land to the west in the Prairie known as the Quartier dit Baton Rouge (which would later be named Ville Platte) some time before 1796, although he retained his land at the Opelousas Post.

In October of 1803, he sold his land at the Opelousas Post and filed a land claim at the Quartier dit Baton Rouge (Ville Platte) in February of 1806. His brother Etienne Vidrine soon followed after him, settling on land in September of 1796 next to his brother at the Quartier dit Baton Rouge (Ville Platte), which he bought from his father in law, Noel Soileau. He filed a land claim in June of 1807. This move of both sons established the new base of the Vidrine Family and their children in that area.”

Of later interest is the Ville Platte resident, Arthur Vidrine (1896–1955), a Tulane graduate and Rhodes Scholar, who was the personal physician of Louisiana Governor Huey Long.

CONCLUSIONS

Looking at the sum total of the evidence presented within this case points to a premeditated act worthy of cross-examination in a courtroom. Witnesses who saw the incident most closely at the point of contact would provide the most accurate information. Corroboration of the assailant’s prior complaints of harassment needs closer examination.

If we take this case into the courtroom, the question of the assailant’s motives and actions come into consideration. Was it anti-Semitism? A personality disorder? Did he commit the crime because he thought he could get away with it given his family influence, while registering formal complaints with school law enforcement to back up his actions?

The case of Kenneth Gutzeit raises the following questions. Why were first-hand witnesses closest to the scene of the crime not called to testify? Why were those who testified asked few relevant questions about what they actually saw? Where is the proof that Ken Gutzeit was actually present at the so-called harassing incidents the assailant called in to law enforcement? What is the history of corruption within the Orleans Parish and Louisiana legal system? And finally, based on these questions, did Ken Gutzeit deserve at least a fair jury trial?

So what have we learned from the Ken Gutzeit story? Firstly, from a broad perspective, it can be argued that the Grand Jury system is outdated and should be abolished in America. The only countries in the world that still utilize this medieval court of determining justice are the United States and Liberia. This one-sided system is ripe for corruption as the prosecuting DA has a rubber stamp and gets an indictment (or lack thereof as in this case) 99% of the time. There is no cross-examination and the proceedings are private and normally sealed.

In America, you are entitled to a fair trial as per our Constitution. The Preliminary Hearing method is preferable to the Grand Jury proceedings in determining if there is enough evidence to move the case to trial. It allows for discourse and debate from both sides. In addition, the idea of employing professional jurors needs further consideration. Given the apathy surrounding jury duty and attorney manipulation during the voir dire selection process, points to training and compensating skilled jurors.

The fact that Ken Gutzeit didn’t even get a jury trial is beyond reason. Anyone can look at the facts of this case, and see there are many contradictory and unanswered claims open to further examination and debate. We still live in a hotbed society filled with prejudice and discrimination, whether it be racial, social, or legal. Why these attitudes and behaviors exist is a complex question best examined by sociologists, psychologists, and theologians.

In America, as a citizen, it is your responsibility to know the law. This subject matter is rarely taught in secondary schools, so many people are unaware of America’s diverse legal structure with its rules and procedures. Perhaps, “Introduction to Law” should be a required class in every American high school. This goes beyond some of the current course work offered in the areas of government and civics.

Informing the citizenry of the legal framework inherent in our democracy, will go a long way in creating a healthy debate and awareness among young minds, likely lessening the crime rate dramatically and instilling a sense of fairness.

NOTES: References relating to Prosecutorial Misconduct

“Prosecutorial Oversight: A National Dialogue in the Wake of Connick v. Thompson”; Innocence Project, New York, March 29, 2016

“IPNO Study on the Orleans’ DA’s Office”; Innocence Project, New Orleans

“New Orleans Prosecutorial Disclosure in Practice After Connick v. Thompson”; Yaroshefsky, Ellen, Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Vol. 25: №913, 2012

“Panel on Prosecutorial Immunity: Deconstructing Connick v. Thompson”; Ciolino, Dane; Clements, Gary; Gershman, Bennett L.; Gershowitz, Adam M.; Ridolfi, Kathleen; Wiseman, Samuel R; Singer, Stephen, Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law, vol 13, 2012

“The Myth of Prosecutorial Accountability after Connick v. Thompson: Why Existing Professional Responsibility Measures Cannot Protect Against Prosecutorial Misconduct”; Keenan, David; Cooper, Deborah Jane; Lebowitz, David; Lerer, Tamar, The Yale Law Review, Vol. 121, 2011

“An Epidemic of Prosecutorial Misconduct”; Center for Prosecutor Integrity, Rockville MD, 2013

“Comment: Brady v. Maryland and the Prosecutor’s Duty to Disclose”; Bass, Victor, University of Chicago Law Review, №112, 1972

“The Power of the Attorney General to Supercede a District Attorney: Substance, Procedure & Ethics”; Yeager, Charles J; Hargrave, Lee, Louisiana Law Review, Vol. 51; №4, 1991

SUPREME COURT CASES

Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

Kyles v. Whitley 514 U.S. 419 (1995)

Connick v. Thompson 563 U.S. 51 (2011)

Smith v. Cain 565 U.S. 73 (2012)