Lester Eubanks Escaped Prison While on a Christmas Shopping Furlough in Mansfield Ohio

Lester William Eubanks was born in 1943 in Mansfield, Ohio, a city in north-central Ohio that would later become infamous for his name. Mansfield was a small industrial town known for its factories and working-class families, but like many communities in the mid-20th century, it also had its share of challenges—crime, poverty, and inequality among them.

Details of Eubanks’ early years are limited, but what has been pieced together from law enforcement records and historical accounts reveals a young man who grew up troubled. He was often described as rebellious, impulsive, and prone to making poor decisions. Though he developed artistic skills—particularly in painting—these talents were overshadowed by darker impulses and behavior that would later define his life.

By the early 1960s, Lester had already begun to cross paths with the law. Reports indicate that he had prior charges involving sexual misconduct before his most infamous crime. These early brushes with law enforcement painted the picture of a man with a dangerous pattern of behavior, one who seemed increasingly detached from any sense of moral responsibility.

The Murder of Mary Ellen Deener

On November 14, 1965, tragedy struck Mansfield when 14-year-old Mary Ellen Deener, a bright and well-liked teenager, crossed paths with Eubanks. She had been at a laundromat with her younger sister when she left to get change. On her way, she encountered Eubanks, who was then out on bond for an unrelated sex offense.

Eubanks approached Mary Ellen, and what followed was an act of horrifying brutality. He abducted her, attempted to assault her, and ultimately shot her twice with a handgun. When the shots did not kill her immediately, he brutally bludgeoned her with a brick. The crime shook Mansfield to its core. A close-knit community now faced the murder of a child in cold blood.

The police wasted little time in their investigation. Eubanks was quickly identified as a suspect. Evidence linked him to the crime, and he was arrested the following day. In custody, Eubanks reportedly admitted to some details of the killing, though he wavered and tried to minimize his responsibility.

Trial and Death Sentence

Eubanks stood trial in May 1966 for the murder of Mary Ellen Deener. The evidence against him was overwhelming, and the jury found him guilty of first-degree murder. His crime, particularly brutal because of the victim’s age, left little room for leniency. The court sentenced him to death by the electric chair.

For years, he remained on death row. His time was marked by art projects, as he developed a reputation in prison for painting. This peculiar detail about his artistic side often surprised people, contrasting sharply with the violent crime he had committed.

In 1972, however, the legal landscape changed dramatically. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Furman v. Georgia that existing death penalty statutes were unconstitutional. As a result, Ohio commuted the death sentences of all inmates awaiting execution. Lester Eubanks’ sentence was reduced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The Honor Inmate Program

Once his sentence was commuted, Eubanks was moved into the general prison population. Over time, he became part of the honor inmate program, a system designed to reward good behavior and provide rehabilitation opportunities.

Inmates considered trustworthy were granted privileges such as working outside prison, interacting with the community, or even temporary supervised releases. These programs were built on the belief that responsibility could rehabilitate offenders and prepare them for eventual reintegration into society.

It seems astonishing today that someone convicted of such a brutal crime was considered a candidate for this program, but at the time, correctional policies often erred on the side of optimism about rehabilitation.

December 7, 1973: The Escape

On December 7, 1973, Lester Eubanks and other honor inmates were taken on a supervised Christmas shopping trip to Columbus, Ohio. The trip was meant to allow inmates to buy presents for their families—a privilege rooted in the notion of humanity and reform.

Eubanks was dropped off at the Great Southern Shopping Center in Columbus. He blended in with shoppers, and when the time came to return to the pickup point, he simply did not show up. Without violence, without confrontation, he walked away from custody and into freedom.

When authorities realized he had not returned, panic set in. A convicted child murderer had been allowed to roam free in a shopping district and had vanished. The Ohio prison system immediately came under fire for allowing such an inmate into the honor program. The public was outraged, demanding answers for how such a dangerous man could be trusted outside prison walls.

The Immediate Manhunt

Law enforcement quickly launched a manhunt in both Columbus and Mansfield. Officers tracked down acquaintances, combed through neighborhoods, and searched for any sign of Eubanks. But he had seemingly prepared well for the escape.

Investigators later suspected that Eubanks had help from friends or family, who may have provided him with transportation, shelter, or resources to vanish. Without modern tools like surveillance cameras, credit card tracking, or digital communication intercepts, the 1970s investigators were at a major disadvantage.

Within weeks, the trail went cold.

Life on the Run

Over the decades that followed, authorities received sporadic tips about possible sightings of Eubanks. Evidence suggested he may have lived in Southern California, particularly the Los Angeles area, under the alias Victor Young. He reportedly worked odd jobs, blending into communities and avoiding law enforcement.

Despite these leads, no definitive capture was ever made. Each tip brought hope, but none led to an arrest. Eubanks managed to stay ahead of authorities for decades, becoming one of the longest-standing fugitives in American history.

Renewed National Attention

For years, the case lingered in relative obscurity. But in 2016, the U.S. Marshals Service added Lester Eubanks to its 15 Most Wanted fugitives list. This move brought renewed publicity and a reward of up to $50,000 for information leading to his capture.

In 2020, his story was featured on the Netflix series Unsolved Mysteries, introducing his case to millions of viewers worldwide. This sparked a wave of new tips and public interest, though none brought investigators to his location.

Modern Developments

In 2016, authorities began applying modern forensic science to the case, and in 2025 they announced that they had obtained new DNA evidence connected to Eubanks. While officials have not disclosed details, they indicated it could be significant in narrowing down leads.

Additionally, age-progression images were released, showing what Eubanks might look like in his 80s. These images circulated widely, keeping the fugitive’s face in the public eye.

Public Outrage and Legacy

The escape of Lester Eubanks remains a symbol of systemic failure in the American correctional system. The idea that a convicted murderer of a 14-year-old girl could be allowed to go shopping unsupervised continues to shock the public even decades later.

The case has raised critical questions about balancing rehabilitation with public safety. The honor inmate program, once considered a positive step in corrections, was forever tarnished by this escape.

For the family of Mary Ellen Deener, justice has never been fully served. They continue to live with the knowledge that the man responsible for her death walked away from prison and has lived free for decades.

Conclusion

The prison escape of Lester William Eubanks on December 7, 1973, remains one of the most infamous fugitive stories in American history. His early life in Mansfield, his crimes, his conviction, and his astonishing escape form a narrative that highlights both the brutality of his actions and the failings of the system meant to contain him.

More than fifty years later, he remains at large, a reminder of the consequences of misplaced trust. The case endures as both a mystery and a cautionary tale, one that continues to inspire investigators, journalists, and the public to demand justice and accountability.