Frederick P. Balester wanted his family’s optical company sold and a multi-million-dollar offer was on the table.
His cousin, Jonathan J. Balester, 56, didn’t want to sell. As majority partner and company president, he blocked the deal for years.
So, Frederick Balester, 54 at the time, went to his cousin’s Kingston Twp. home in late May 2011 on the day before a vote on another offer. After jolting him with a stun gun, he stabbed his cousin in the back numerous times, state police charged Monday.
With his cousin out of the way, the company was sold and Frederick Balester benefitted from the sale, according to an arrest affidavit.
Police charged Balester, 69, of Hanover Twp. with criminal homicide.
Balester was arraigned by Magisterial District Judge Brian Tupper, who denied him bail. He was jailed in the Luzerne County prison.
Jonathan Balester opposed sale overtures
Investigators learned early on about the proposed sale to Essilor, another leading eyeglass lens manufacturer, according to the affidavit.
Essilor first offered to buy Balester Optical in 2008 for $4.9 million.
“All shareholders signed a letter of intent to accept that offer, with the sole exception of the victim,” investigators wrote in the affidavit.
Essilor made offers in 2009 and 2010.
Each time, Jonathan Balester remained the lone holdout.
“As a result, those sales could not happen,” the troopers wrote.
In 2011, Essilor made another offer and the shareholders scheduled another meeting for the afternoon of May 26.
Jonathan Balester never showed for the meeting. Family members told police that was “highly unusual since ... he had not missed a single meeting in 30 years,” the affidavit says.
Police: Cousin 'did not get along with the victim'
Police gathered evidence that pointed to Frederick Balester almost from the start, according to the affidavit.
Witnesses told police Frederick Balester favored selling the company and was angry because his cousin didn’t want to sell. Police found emails that confirmed he “did not get along with the victim.” The affidavit does not detail the emails, but it does say Frederick Balester used an email, nojon750@aol.com, that police think is a direct reference to his cousin.
During the shareholders meeting, Matthew Balester, participating by phone, expressed concern his brother, Jonathan, didn’t show.
“According to him, he spoke to the victim the night prior and he (Jonathan) was upbeat and fully intending to be at the meeting,” investigators wrote.
When the meeting ended, Matthew called Frederick’s wife, Nancy, told her he was concerned about his brother and “asked that someone go to his house to check on him.”
Nancy Balester called Patrick Balester, who was having dinner with Frederick, his brother, and two sisters, Dorothy Holde and Susan Donnora, at a Hanover Twp. restaurant. She asked someone to check on Jonathan.
Patrick agreed and the four siblings headed for Jonathan’s home with Frederick following in his car.
His siblings told police Frederick offered a reason for following.
“I haven’t been there in a long time,” he said.
On the way, they got separated and agreed to meet at a Kingston Twp. convenience store.
They called Matthew Balester for directions to Jonathan’s home. They parked near the home but couldn’t immediately find it.
“It was dark and raining and they were having trouble locating it,” the affidavit says.
At no time did Frederick tell them he was there the night before.
He did tell police about his visit during his interview right after the killing.
Focus on physical evidence
On May 31, 2011, police searched Frederick Balester’s trash. They found a receipt for a rechargeable stun gun and an empty box for the gun.
A month later, a state police crime lab issued a report identifying a substance on three latex gloves at the crime scene as blood.
More than two months later, DNA tests showed the blood belonged to the victim, but police sought an analysis of “additional swabs taken from the gloves.”
A lab found a swab taken inside one glove showed a mixture of DNA.
“The report concluded that the mixture originated from three people, the victim, (the) defendant (Frederick) and another individual,” the affidavit says.
The other individual is not identified in the affidavit.
On Nov. 30, 2011, they searched Frederick Balester’s home, where they found a stun gun.
The same day, they re-interviewed Patrick Balester, who told them about a conversation with his brother Frederick the night before the shareholders meeting.
Frederick asked hypothetically what would happen if Jonathan didn’t show up for the meeting, according to the affidavit.
Patrick said that wouldn’t happen because Jonathan hadn’t missed a meeting in 30 years.
Frederick persisted and asked his brother to “humor” him. He also asked his brother if the board would raise his salary because he worked for the company.
Patrick said Jonathan would oppose the salary hike.
In October 2012, Essilor announced it bought Balester Optical for an undisclosed amount.
Besides his role in the optical company, Jonathan Balester owned ABBA Advertising Products, which sold T-shirts, coffee mugs and other promotional products.
Reviewing evidence in 2022
In December 2022, investigators met to review evidence gathered so far.
While studying autopsy photographs, they noticed two 0.3-centimeter lesions from a stun gun on Jonathan’s back, according to the affidavit.
The distance between the lesions was 0.8 centimeters, the same as the distance between electrodes on the stun gun found in Frederick Balester’s home.
“The two lesions are compatible with the traumatic injury one would expect to observe if assaulted with the (police-) photographed stun gun,” forensic pathologist Gary Ross told police.
Unclear why Frederick Balester not charged earlier
The affidavit doesn’t explain why Frederick Balester wasn’t charged until now.
Luzerne County District Attorney Sam Sanguedolce said reassembling “some old facts” and reviewing “all the pieces” of evidence gathered in the last 15 years took “some considerable time.”
“So that the prosecutor in the case, who is Deputy (District Attorney) Dan Zola, and I were both comfortable with making the arrest, (and) that we could use these facts to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Sanguedolce said.
Sanguedolce declined to identify the other person whose DNA was found in one of the gloves but said he does not expect further arrests.
“I think ... from the very beginning, we assumed that the motive was going to be financial, the sale of Balester Optical (was) obviously a big, big issue (and) that Jonathan, the victim, consistently foiled the sale,” Sanguedolce said. “But then you know the difference between being a suspect and being able to prove the suspect is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is ... a mile wide sometimes. So we had to make sure that we had all our T's crossed and I's dotted.”
He also credited state police investigators.
“I think the state police did a phenomenal job keeping that case on the forefront after all these years,” he said. “And although publicly, it may have looked like the case had gone inactive, the truth is, it was revisited with regularity. They pursued what they considered to be the motive for the crime and then put the facts together that led us to the today's arrest.”
In October, state police offered a $5,000 reward for information that led to the arrest of Balester’s killer.
“No leads were developed in relation to any rewards,” Sanguedolce said.
