# 6 Unsolved Mysteries That Have Forensic Scientists Completely Stumped | 196

An episode of [Lazy Chill True Crime](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/1815534472), 28 Mar 2026, 1 h 08 min.

Audio: https://traffic.megaphone.fm/APO9601125068.mp3

Join me for 6 unsolved mysteries that have scientists completely stumped Episode 196 of the true crime podcast btw. 👇 Youtube links: Lazy Chill History Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@LazyChillHistory Lazy Chill Zone Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@LazyChillZone 👇 Support My Work: 🛍️ Merch: https://lazy-chill-zone-shop.fourthwall.com ❤️ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lazychillzone 👇Social Media Links: https://www.instagram.com/lazychillzone/ 👇 Podcast links: ⚡History Video Podcast on Spotify⚡: https://open.spotify.com/show/7km5pLWpYWEj1mrPpEfRUr?si=0FHYnZf-Qs2FY1GyLevfig ⚡True Crime Podcast on Spotify⚡: https://open.spotify.com/show/0klIz08pAr7wR4we0Ia4sk?si=68qZxCeAQkysXzMZrHE0Iw 🍏 True Crime Podcast on Apple 🍎: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lazy-chill-true-crime/id1815534472 unsolved mysteries, true crime, cold cases, unsolved mysteries, missing persons, murder investigation, forensic evidence, serial killers, crime scene analysis, dark history, criminal psychology, real life horror, police investigations, DNA breakthroughs, forensic genealogy, crime documentaries, criminal profiling, mysterious disappearances, solved cases, justice system, law enforcement stories, cold case files, creepy mysteries, true crime storytelling, crime reconstruction, chilling cases, investigative reporting, modern forensics, victim advocacy, unidentified remains, crime scene forensics, disturbing cases, true crime analysis, hidden clues, infamous crimes, real crime stories, forensic evidence, heists, art theft

## Transcript

[0:00] Nanette Krentel prophetically told her family someone was
[0:03] going to burn her house down with her inside it.
[0:06] A few months later, a cyclist saw smoke rising from the trees
[0:10] in rural Lacombe, LA, and called 911.
[0:15] When firefighters pulled what was left of Nanette from the
[0:18] smoldering wreckage of her home, she'd already been dead for
[0:22] hours. Not from the fire, but from a
[0:25] bullet to the head. 9 surveillance cameras had been
[0:29] watching the property and 30 weapons were stored in the
[0:32] house. Her husband was even the local
[0:35] Fire Chief and none of it saved her.
[0:38] That was July 14th, 2017 and as of today, nobody has been
[0:45] charged with this shocking crime.
[0:49] Nanette Krentel was 49 years old and had been married to Steve
[0:53] Krentel for over 2 decades. They live together on a
[0:56] sprawling, wooded 100 acre property in Lacombe, a quiet
[1:00] community tucked into St. Tammany Parish on Louisiana's
[1:03] North Shore. Steve served as the Acting Chief
[1:07] of Saint Tammany Fire Protection District 12A, prominent local
[1:11] position that gave the family deep roots in the community.
[1:15] By most accounts, the family lived a relatively ordinary life
[1:18] in an area where people tend to know each other's business.
[1:22] But beneath that surface, things weren't as stable as they
[1:25] looked. Steve later admitted to having
[1:29] had an affair with a younger colleague during the marriage.
[1:32] Nanette's father, Dan Watson, would later tell investigators
[1:36] that his daughter had been considering leaving Steve before
[1:40] her death. Still, none of that fully
[1:43] explains what happened on that Friday afternoon in the middle
[1:46] of July when someone put a gun to Nanette's head and then tried
[1:51] to erase every trace of the crime.
[1:55] Phone records show that Nanette's last known activity on
[1:58] July 14th, 2017, was a call she placed to a local Kmart about a
[2:03] prescription refill at roughly 10:00 in the morning.
[2:07] Her final outgoing call to another person came about an
[2:11] hour before the 911 call. At approximately 2:30 that
[2:16] afternoon. A person riding their bike
[2:18] through the area spotted smoke billowing from the Crental
[2:21] property and rode home to report it.
[2:24] First responders arrived to find the house engulfed, and when
[2:28] they made entry into the master bedroom, they discovered a body
[2:32] lying face up on the floor. The burns were so severe that
[2:36] identification wasn't immediately possible, though DNA
[2:40] testing would later confirm it was Nanette.
[2:43] Also found near the body were two handguns, with nearly three
[2:47] dozen additional firearms scattered throughout the ruins.
[2:51] Investigators from the Louisiana State Fire Marshall's office
[2:55] quickly determined that the fire had been intentionally set.
[2:59] Accelerant had been poured in multiple locations throughout
[3:02] the living room and master bedroom, and in what would
[3:05] become one of the cases most damning details, the accelerant
[3:09] had been specifically applied to the digital video recorder in
[3:13] the living room. This was the hub that stored all
[3:16] the footage from the 9 surveillance cameras covering
[3:19] the property. The recorder was so badly
[3:22] damaged that even FBI specialists couldn't recover any
[3:25] video from it, despite having some of the world's leading
[3:29] experts in the field work on it. Whoever did this knew exactly
[3:33] what they were doing, and they knew exactly what to destroy to
[3:36] cover their tracks. In the immediate aftermath, the
[3:41] Saint Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office appeared to treat the
[3:44] death as if she'd done it herself. 2 weapons found near
[3:48] Nanette's body seemed to support that theory, and the crime scene
[3:52] investigation was reportedly discontinued in the early
[3:55] stages. But five days later, ballistic
[3:58] testing proved that neither weapon found near her had been
[4:01] fired. The scene was cordoned off again
[4:04] and the investigation shifted tremendously.
[4:08] On September 14th, 2017, exactly 2 months after her death, the
[4:15] Saint Tammany Parish Coroner officially ruled Nanette's death
[4:19] a slaying. His reasoning was direct and
[4:22] difficult to dispute. There was no soot in her airway,
[4:26] not even at a microscopic level. That absence made a powerful
[4:31] case that Nanette was already dead before the fire ever
[4:34] started. Unfortunately, Ballistics
[4:37] testing couldn't provide such cut and dried clues, both due to
[4:41] the physics of the bullet and the fire itself.
[4:44] The bullet had entered her temple, and it hadn't exited her
[4:48] skull, instead lodging in soft tissue.
[4:53] The intense heat of the fire complicated ballistic analysis
[4:56] significantly, and investigators eventually determined that it
[5:00] was likely, though not certainly, from a 40 caliber
[5:03] handgun. However, this analysis was
[5:06] informed by the fact that Nanette typically carried one of
[5:09] these in her purse, suggesting the attacker may have turned her
[5:13] own weapon against her. Unfortunately, this was educated
[5:17] guesswork, and ultimately the forensic team couldn't
[5:20] definitively determine whose gun it actually was.
[5:25] In homicide cases, the spouse is always the first person
[5:29] investigators look at, and Steve Krentel was no exception.
[5:33] He had motive on paper, the admitted affair, a marriage that
[5:38] might have been ending, and the fact that he held a position of
[5:41] trust and respect in the community.
[5:44] But here's the thing. Despite this apparent motive,
[5:48] there was absolutely nothing whatsoever to link him to the
[5:51] crime. Steve completely cooperated with
[5:54] the investigation from the start.
[5:57] He submitted to a polygraph test and passed, and he had an alibi.
[6:02] He was at the fire station at the time of the incident.
[6:05] He was publicly ruled out as a person of interest in the case.
[6:09] Steve would later resign from his position as Fire Chief amid
[6:13] separate revelations about inappropriate relationships with
[6:16] multiple staff members. His personal life was messy,
[6:21] without question, but that didn't make him guilty.
[6:25] Far from it. If Steve Krentel was the obvious
[6:29] suspect, his brother Brian was the one Nanette herself had been
[6:33] afraid of. In the months and years before
[6:35] her death, Nanette sent a stream of emails to her father in Iowa,
[6:40] warning him about the danger she believed Brian posed.
[6:44] Brian Krentel had a lengthy criminal record and a history of
[6:48] volatile behavior. According to family members,
[6:51] he'd made explicit threats against Nanette, including a
[6:55] threat to burn the home down with her inside.
[6:58] In fact, Nanette had learned to shoot specifically because she
[7:01] was afraid of Brian. She'd pushed for the
[7:04] installation of the 9 surveillance cameras around the
[7:07] property. She'd also been counting on a
[7:10] geofence, an electronic monitoring boundary that was
[7:14] supposed to alert Brian's probation officer if he came
[7:18] within 1000 feet of the Krentel home.
[7:21] But here's where the story takes its darkest turn.
[7:24] After Nanette's death, Steve recorded a conversation with
[7:28] Brian's probation officer. The probation officer admitted
[7:32] to him, apparently off the record, that the tracking
[7:36] function on Brian's ankle monitor wasn't working that day.
[7:40] The one safeguard Nanette was relying on to keep her
[7:43] brother-in-law away from her home had never been active at
[7:46] the material time. Now, with all this, you're
[7:50] probably expecting me to say that there's just simply not
[7:53] enough evidence to charge Brian. But that's where yet another
[7:57] twist comes in. Despite all of this, Brian was
[8:01] officially cleared, and for very good reason.
[8:05] Surveillance evidence from Brian's parents house placed him
[8:08] with his parents about 15 miles away on the date and time
[8:13] Nanette died. The Saint Tammany Parish
[8:16] Sheriff's Office has never publicly named him as a person
[8:19] of interest or a suspect. If the case itself is
[8:24] disturbing, the investigation that followed has been nearly as
[8:28] troubling. Nanette's family grew
[8:31] increasingly vocal about what they saw as a lack of urgency
[8:34] and transparency from the Sheriff's Office.
[8:37] And they weren't the only ones who noticed.
[8:40] In 2019, a man named Jerry Rogers, federal investigator
[8:46] with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
[8:49] and a former employee of the Sheriff's Office, was arrested.
[8:54] His crime, according to law enforcement, was sending a
[8:57] series of anonymous emails to Nanette's sister, Kim Watson, in
[9:02] which he criticized the lead detective on the case.
[9:05] Rogers had created an e-mail address specifically for the
[9:08] purpose of contacting people close to the case.
[9:12] The arrest itself became a scandal, and a federal judge
[9:16] later ruled that Rogers had been illegally arrested, finding that
[9:20] the sheriff's deputies had violated his civil rights.
[9:24] The Louisiana attorney general declined to prosecute.
[9:28] Court filings revealed that an FBI agent had requested a
[9:31] criminal probe into the Sheriff's Office over what was
[9:35] described as a possible police conspiracy related to the case.
[9:40] Now, it's important to note here that this quote, UN quote police
[9:42] conspiracy is simply alleged and has never been confirmed as a
[9:47] fact. But the allegation was made by
[9:49] federal law enforcement. That said nothing came of it.
[9:53] So take that allegation with a grain of salt, since it may
[9:57] simply be an unproven allegation without any meaningful evidence
[10:01] to back it up. The Sheriff's Office ultimately
[10:04] settled Rogers federal civil rights lawsuit for an
[10:07] undisclosed amount. Sheriff Smith, for his part,
[10:12] pushed back on the criticism, suggesting at various points
[10:15] that the case had been weaponized for political
[10:18] reasons. But for Nanette's family, none
[10:21] of the political noise changed the central, agonizing reality.
[10:26] The person who ended the life of their loved one was still free.
[10:31] The FBI was eventually given access to the full case file and
[10:35] has been re analyzing evidence and information gathered during
[10:38] the investigation. As of right now, all we know is
[10:42] that someone for some reason walked onto that 100 acre
[10:46] property in broad daylight and shot an innocent woman in the
[10:50] head. The perpetrator then doused her
[10:53] home in accelerant, destroyed the one device that might have
[10:57] captured them on camera, and set the whole thing ablaze.
[11:02] Then, just like that, they walked away, and nearly a decade
[11:07] later, they're still walking free.
[11:11] In the end, Nanette Krentel predicted exactly how she would
[11:14] die, which in retrospect may simply be a bizarre coincidence
[11:19] because the person she feared couldn't have done the crime.
[11:24] In my analysis, the early handling of Nanette Krentel's
[11:28] death appears to have shaped the entire trajectory of the
[11:31] investigation, potentially with irreversible consequences.
[11:36] When authorities initially approached the scene under the
[11:39] assumption that she had caused her own death, the urgency and
[11:42] rigor typically applied may not have been fully activated.
[11:47] Critical steps such as preserving the scene,
[11:51] documenting evidence thoroughly, and immediately pursuing
[11:54] forensic leads could have been delayed or de prioritized.
[11:59] In cases involving fire, where evidence is already fragile and
[12:03] easily destroyed, even small lapses and procedure can have
[12:07] outsized effects. The destruction of the
[12:10] surveillance system only compounded this vulnerability,
[12:14] eliminating what may have been the most direct path to
[12:17] identifying a suspect. If key evidence was overlooked
[12:21] or compromised in those first crucial hours, it will likely
[12:25] never be recovered if it could have been recovered regardless.
[12:30] As a result, the case risks remaining permanently
[12:32] unresolved, perhaps not for lack of effort, but because the
[12:36] foundation of the investigation was weakened at the very
[12:39] beginning. Hey everyone, it's Jimmy here.
[12:45] Jumping in as usual to remind you to hit the subscribe button
[12:48] and the notification bell if you're enjoying my content.
[12:51] Now, with that said, we've got a lot of unsolved mysteries to get
[12:55] through, so let's get back to business.
[13:01] On the morning of February 28th, 2019, Alicia Griffin picked up
[13:06] her phone, spoke with her husband, Martin Haupt, and told
[13:09] him she'd be heading to her doctor's appointment.
[13:12] It was a mundane promise, the kind you make 100 times and
[13:16] never think twice about. But she never made it to that
[13:20] appointment. Within 72 hours, Alicia would
[13:24] travel hundreds of miles South from Sacramento to the Mexican
[13:28] border. She abandoned her father's car
[13:31] in Tijuana with her purse and identification still inside, and
[13:36] vanished from the face of the earth.
[13:39] What happened in those three days is a question law
[13:43] enforcement has been trying to answer for years, and the few
[13:46] clues that do exist only make the whole thing more disturbing.
[13:52] Alicia was 46 years old, living in Sacramento, CA at the time of
[13:57] her disappearance. She'd been diagnosed with
[14:00] bipolar disorder type One in her mid 20s, a condition she'd
[14:04] managed for over 2 decades, and by all accounts, she was in a
[14:09] hopeful period of her life. She'd recently married Martin
[14:13] Haupt, a man who was in the process of relocating from
[14:17] Switzerland to Sacramento to build their life together.
[14:22] The future seemed like it was opening up for her, not closing
[14:25] down. But there was a complicating
[14:27] factor. In the weeks before she
[14:30] disappeared, Alicia had undergone a change in her
[14:34] medication, an adjustment to the prescription she relied on to
[14:38] manage her mental health. Those close to her have noted
[14:42] that she'd had previous episodes where she'd wander away from
[14:45] home without warning. It was a known pattern, a
[14:49] feature of her illness that the people around her had learned to
[14:52] watch for. But this time, that pattern
[14:56] would become devastatingly relevant in ways no one could
[15:00] have anticipated. After missing her doctor's
[15:03] appointment on the morning of February 28th, Alicia didn't
[15:07] just stay home or go somewhere local.
[15:10] She got in her father's car and began driving South, apparently
[15:14] in the grip of a mental health crisis.
[15:17] Over the next two days, she covered the distance from
[15:20] Sacramento all the way down to the Mexican border, a journey of
[15:24] roughly 500 miles. During this time, the people in
[15:29] her life began receiving unsettling signals.
[15:33] Friends and family reported cryptic text messages from
[15:36] Alicia's phone, the kind that didn't sound quite right, along
[15:40] with unusual charges appearing on her credit cards.
[15:44] Something was clearly wrong. But the most alarming moment
[15:48] came from a phone call placed from a hotel near Los Angeles
[15:51] International Airport. During that call, someone close
[15:55] to Alicia could hear a man's voice in the background, a voice
[15:59] that didn't belong to anyone they recognized.
[16:02] He had apparently instructed Alicia to go to a bank machine
[16:06] and withdraw money, a disturbing incident that suggests she was
[16:10] under the control of someone who was taking advantage of her.
[16:14] Who that man was has never been publicly identified, and his
[16:19] role in the events that followed remains one of the cases most
[16:22] troubling unknowns. On March 1st, Alicia was spotted
[16:28] near the airport in Inglewood, CA, and by the next day, March
[16:33] 2nd, she'd crossed the border into Mexico.
[16:37] Her dad's vehicle was found abandoned at a car wash in
[16:40] Tijuana, and inside it were her purse and her identification
[16:44] documents. A witness at the car wash later
[16:47] told investigators that they'd seen Alicia there and that she'd
[16:51] been acting erratically. This account lined up with the
[16:55] theory that she was in the middle of a severe mental health
[16:57] episode, but it also deepened the mystery.
[17:02] Why Tijuana? Was she following some internal
[17:05] logic that only made sense to her in that state?
[17:08] Or was she being LED there by someone else?
[17:12] The Sacramento Police Department took the lead on the case, and
[17:16] Martin Haupt was investigated as a person of interest, which is
[17:20] standard practice when a spouse goes missing.
[17:22] He was cleared by authorities and has been cooperating with
[17:25] the investigation ever since. The focus then shifted to
[17:30] tracing Alicia's movements in Mexico, and there's some
[17:34] conflict on what was actually found.
[17:37] There's an unconfirmed report that a Mexican detective managed
[17:40] to identify Alicia on surveillance footage from a
[17:43] store located a few miles from the car wash where her vehicle
[17:46] was found. However, I wasn't able to
[17:49] independently verify this and the footage is nowhere to be
[17:52] found online. Not even a still frame.
[17:55] Nothing. That said, it may be true, and
[17:59] perhaps it's available in some Spanish language source that I
[18:02] don't have access to. Alicia's family, unwilling to
[18:07] accept the silence, hired a private investigator to continue
[18:11] digging where official resources might fall short.
[18:14] That effort, unfortunately, didn't turn up any new leads
[18:18] either. The case sits in a painful
[18:21] limbo. There's no evidence that Alicia
[18:24] is dead, but there's no evidence she's alive.
[18:28] She's listed as a missing person with both the California
[18:31] Department of Justice and the National Missing and
[18:34] Unidentified Person System. The Sacramento Police
[18:38] Department's Missing Persons Unit continues to work the case,
[18:42] but publicly available updates have been scarce for years.
[18:46] There are a few ways to read the evidence, and none of them are
[18:49] comforting. The 1st and perhaps most
[18:52] straightforward theory is that Alicia was in the throes of a
[18:55] bipolar episode potentially triggered or worsened by her
[19:00] medication change. During this time, she made a
[19:04] series of irrational decisions that led her across the border
[19:08] and into a dangerous situation. Tijuana can be an unforgiving
[19:13] city for anyone, and it's an especially dangerous place for a
[19:17] woman in the middle of a psychiatric crisis.
[19:21] In this scenario, Alicia may have met with foul play after
[19:25] arriving in Mexico, taken advantage of by someone who
[19:28] recognized her vulnerability. The second theory, and the one
[19:33] that haunts her family the most, centers on the mysterious man
[19:37] heard during the hotel phone call near the airport.
[19:41] If someone was directing Alicia to withdraw money, that suggests
[19:45] exploitation at a minimum, and something far darker at worst.
[19:50] Was she being manipulated by someone who recognized her
[19:53] compromised mental state? Was she trafficked?
[19:58] The presence of an unidentified man giving her financial
[20:01] instructions is the kind of detail that turns a missing
[20:05] person's case into something that feels more genuinely
[20:10] sinister. The fact that this individual
[20:13] has never been identified publicly only adds to the
[20:17] unease. 1/3 possibility less discussed but worth noting, is
[20:23] that Alicia is still alive somewhere, either unable or
[20:27] unwilling to make contact. People experiencing severe
[20:31] psychiatric episodes have in rare cases established entirely
[20:36] new routines and unfamiliar places, sometimes not
[20:39] resurfacing for months or even years.
[20:43] Without her identification, she could be living anonymously,
[20:47] possibly unaware of the search being conducted on her behalf.
[20:51] It's the most hopeful scenario, but with each passing year, it
[20:56] becomes harder to sustain. It's possible that she feels a
[21:00] deep sense of embarrassment or shame about the actions she took
[21:04] during the time she was experiencing A psychiatric
[21:07] episode. If that's the case, I would just
[21:11] hope she comes to the realization that this was a
[21:13] medical episode and not something to be ashamed of.
[21:18] But that said, given the amount of time she's been missing now,
[21:22] this is sadly looking like a much less likely possibility.
[21:28] Alicia Griffin's case sits at the intersection of mental
[21:30] health, possible criminal exploitation, and the particular
[21:34] dangers that come with crossing an international border while in
[21:37] crisis. Her story doesn't have the
[21:40] massive dramatic twists that tend to generate extensive media
[21:44] coverage, which may be part of the problem.
[21:48] Cases like hers can slip through the cracks of public attention,
[21:52] remembered primarily by the people who loved her and the
[21:55] investigators who haven't given up.
[21:58] Her case is still open with the Sacramento Police Department,
[22:02] and neither her family or investigators are willing to
[22:04] give up on Alicia, $70,000 in jewelry, $4000 in cash, both
[22:15] still on the bodies. Whatever happened in that
[22:18] driveway on the morning of March 16th, 1988, it wasn't a robbery,
[22:24] it was an execution. Methodical, coordinated,
[22:28] efficient, and deeply, unmistakably personal.
[22:33] And the man most people believe ordered it wouldn't see the
[22:36] inside of a courtroom for nearly two decades.
[22:40] To understand why Mickey Thompson's death sent shock
[22:43] waves through the motorsport world, you have to understand
[22:46] who he was, and who he was defies easy summary.
[22:52] Born Marian Thompson on December 7th, 1928 in Alhambra, CA,
[22:59] Mickey was the kind of person who looked at a junkyard and saw
[23:02] a land speed record. By 14, he'd bought his first
[23:06] car, a 1927 Chevy, for $7.50. Before he was old enough to
[23:13] legally drive, he was racing home built machines on the dry
[23:16] lake beds of Southern California.
[23:19] By his early 20s, Thompson was working as a journalist at the
[23:23] Los Angeles Times while pouring every spare hour into hot
[23:27] rodding. In 1955, he designed and
[23:31] introduced what became known as the Slingshot Dragster, a
[23:35] configuration that placed the driver behind the rear axle and
[23:39] fundamentally changed the sport. But the achievement that made
[23:43] Mickey Thompson a household name came on September 9th, 1960 at
[23:48] Utah's Bonneville Salt Flats. Behind the wheel of Challenger
[23:53] 1A remarkable 4 engine machine he'd built largely from salvage
[23:57] parts, Thompson hit a one way speed of 406.60 mph.
[24:03] He became the first person to break the 400 mile per hour
[24:06] barrier, and he'd surpassed a mark that had stood since 1947.
[24:12] There was just one problem. Official speed records require 2
[24:16] consecutive runs in opposite directions.
[24:20] A mechanical failure on the return pass meant the record was
[24:23] never formally certified, but it didn't matter.
[24:27] In the eyes of the racing world, Mickey Thompson was the fastest
[24:31] man in America. Over the following decades,
[24:34] Thompson accumulated an almost absurd range of accomplishments,
[24:38] and he set 295 speed records at Bonneville alone.
[24:42] He entered cars at the Indianapolis 500.
[24:46] He participated in over 10,000 races across his career, winning
[24:50] numerous championships. In 1971, Thompson married Trudy
[24:57] Feller, a former secretary at Hot Rod Magazine.
[25:00] The wedding was pure Mickey. He chartered 3 jets to carry 250
[25:05] guests from Long Beach to Las Vegas.
[25:08] Trudy wasn't just along for the ride though.
[25:11] She became Mickey's full business partner and together
[25:14] they formed the Mickey Thompson Entertainment Group, known as Mt
[25:18] e.g. The venture effectively took
[25:21] indoor motocross and off road racing out of the Backcountry
[25:24] and into major metropolitan stadiums and arenas.
[25:28] MTEG staged crowd pleasing events at venues like the
[25:31] Anaheim Stadium and the 80,000 seat Pontiac Silverdome.
[25:36] By the mid 1980s it was one of the hottest promotions in
[25:40] motorsport entertainment and it was this successful venture that
[25:45] would ultimately bring Mickey Thompson into the orbit of the
[25:48] man who D arranged his death. On April 1st, 1984, Mickey
[25:54] Thompson signed a stock transfer agreement with a motorsport
[25:57] promoter named Michael Goodwin. The deal combined their business
[26:01] interests with profits and losses split 7030 in Goodwin's
[26:05] favor. The 1st events under the
[26:08] partnership shows at the Hoosier Dome in Indianapolis and the
[26:12] Silverdome in Michigan lost money, which isn't unusual for
[26:17] new ventures. But what happened next set the
[26:21] tone for everything that followed.
[26:23] Goodwin came to Thompson asking for $60,000 to cover bills from
[26:27] the Indiana event. Thompson paid.
[26:31] Then Goodwin asked for another 17,000 from Michigan and
[26:35] Thompson paid that too. Multiple witnesses would later
[26:39] testify that Goodwin, for his part, didn't contribute his
[26:43] share of anything. By October of 1984, Thompson had
[26:48] had enough, and he took the matter to court.
[26:52] The judge dissolved the partnership and returned control
[26:54] of MTEG to Thompson. But the legal battle was far
[26:58] from over. In May of 1986, a California
[27:03] court ruled that Michael Goodwin had stolen more than $500,000
[27:07] from the partnership and awarded Thompson $514,000 in damages.
[27:13] This is a figure that would eventually grow to nearly
[27:16] $1,000,000 with interest and penalties.
[27:19] Goodwin, for his part, refused to pay.
[27:22] He didn't just refuse once. He refused repeatedly,
[27:26] defiantly, and with increasing hostility.
[27:30] What emerged during the eventual trial painted a picture that's
[27:34] hard to dismiss as coincidence. Roughly 15 different people
[27:39] would testify that they'd heard Goodwin talk openly about
[27:42] wanting Mickey Thompson dead, according to witness testimony.
[27:47] He'd said he'd rather see Thompson in the ground than pay
[27:50] him a dime. He reportedly told at least two
[27:53] people the specific cost he believed it would take to have
[27:56] Thompson eliminated. These weren't whispered
[27:59] confessions shared in private, either.
[28:02] He was very open about it. They were repeated, almost
[28:06] casual declarations made openly over a period of approximately 2
[28:10] years leading up to March of 1988.
[28:15] It was still early on a Wednesday morning around 6:00
[28:19] when Mickey and Trudy Thompson stepped out of their home in the
[28:22] gated community of Bradbury. This is a quiet community
[28:27] nestled in the San Gabriel Valley foothills east of Los
[28:31] Angeles, and definitely not the sort of place where violence
[28:34] often occurs. They were headed to their
[28:38] offices at Anaheim Stadium, the same commute they made most
[28:42] days. Mickey opened the garage door
[28:45] for Trudy to pull out in her vehicle, then walked toward his
[28:48] own car. 2 hooded gunmen were waiting.
[28:52] They shot Mickey first, wounding him, then dragged him out into
[28:56] the driveway. One of the attackers went after
[29:00] Trudy as she attempted to back out in the couple's van.
[29:03] Then, with Trudy gone, the second gunman walked back up the
[29:07] driveway to where the first was standing over Mickey and shot
[29:11] him fatally in the head. The assailants fled the scene on
[29:15] bicycles they'd ridden to the residence.
[29:18] A neighbor who heard the commotion reported seeing two
[29:21] men in their 20s, approximately 6 feet tall, pedaling away from
[29:25] the property. Investigators arriving at the
[29:28] scene found the Thompsons bodies with all their valuables
[29:32] untouched. A stun gun that didn't belong to
[29:35] the victims was recovered nearby.
[29:38] Robbery was immediately ruled out.
[29:41] Whoever did this came with a single purpose and a single
[29:44] purpose only. From the very beginning,
[29:48] investigators looked hard at Michael Goodwin.
[29:51] The financial motive was obvious, the threats were well
[29:54] documented, and Goodwin's behavior in the months
[29:57] surrounding the slayings raised serious red flags.
[30:02] Two months before the Thompsons were eliminated, Goodwin and his
[30:05] wife had purchased $275,000 worth of gold coins.
[30:10] They'd also wired approximately $400,000 to banks on Grand Turk
[30:15] Island in the Caribbean. Five months after the Thompsons
[30:19] deaths, the Goodwins left the United States on their yacht and
[30:23] didn't return for more than two years.
[30:26] But suspicion isn't evidence, and for years the case stalled.
[30:31] The two gunmen were never identified and in fact never
[30:35] were. There was no physical evidence
[30:38] tying Goodwin directly to the crime scene, and no weapon was
[30:42] ever recovered. The investigation ground forward
[30:46] in fits and starts, with Los Angeles County Sheriff's
[30:49] Detective Mark Lilienfeld leading the charge in 1998.
[30:54] Lilienfeld sought to have Goodwin charged, but the effort
[30:58] stalled, potentially held back by Goodwin's wealth and
[31:02] political connections. He eventually took his case to
[31:06] the Orange County District Attorney's Office, which secured
[31:10] an indictment against Goodwin in 2001 following a raid on
[31:14] Goodwin's home. Even then, the road to trial was
[31:18] long, and it wasn't until late 2006 that Michael Goodwin
[31:22] finally sat in a courtroom to answer for what happened in that
[31:25] Bradbury driveway. The prosecution's case was
[31:30] entirely circumstantial, and they acknowledged as much.
[31:35] There was no genetic evidence, no fingerprints, and no one was
[31:39] arguing that Goodwin was the triggerman.
[31:42] What they had instead was a mountain of testimony, 15
[31:46] witnesses who'd heard Goodwin threatened to have Thompson
[31:49] eliminated. They also had financial records
[31:52] showing suspicious asset movement and evidence that
[31:55] Goodwin had been spotted in the Thompson's neighborhood with
[31:58] binoculars. These were damning facts for the
[32:01] man who owed Mickey Thompson nearly $1,000,000 and swore he'd
[32:05] sooner see him dead than follow the court order.
[32:09] On January 4th, 2007, after nearly 19 years of
[32:14] investigation, a jury found Michael Frank Goodwin guilty.
[32:18] In March of that year, he was sentenced to two consecutive
[32:22] life terms without the possibility of parole.
[32:26] Goodwin appealed, and in 2015, the California Second District
[32:31] Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, describing the body
[32:35] of circumstantial evidence as overwhelming.
[32:40] The two men who actually pulled the triggers on that Wednesday
[32:42] morning in 1988 have never been identified and never faced any
[32:47] consequences for what they did. Despite the conviction of the
[32:51] man believed to have ordered the hit, the operational details of
[32:55] the crime remain an unsolved mystery.
[33:00] Perhaps the most unsettling thing is how these shooters were
[33:02] recruited. But whatever the case, Goodwin
[33:05] never talked. Personally, I think this may
[33:08] indicate that the hit men were retained through an organized
[33:11] criminal syndicate. Otherwise, I can see no other
[33:15] reason why Goodwin wouldn't have flipped on them, especially
[33:18] after his appeals ran out. There's also the matter of the
[33:22] stun gun found at the scene. It didn't belong to the
[33:25] Thompsons, and its presence has never been fully explained.
[33:30] It's entirely possible that Goodwin hadn't actually ordered
[33:33] a hit, but rather an abduction of the couple.
[33:38] He seems like a rather sick individual, so perhaps he wanted
[33:42] to finish the job himself rather than have the couple shot in
[33:46] their driveway. After all, this is a guy who
[33:50] owned a yacht and could have taken them out into
[33:53] international waters where they're dumped.
[33:55] Bodies would almost certainly never have been found.
[33:59] But that's just completely speculative on my part, though I
[34:02] do think it's actually quite plausible.
[34:11] Claudia Lawrence was a 35 year old chef from York, England who
[34:15] vanished in 2009. Born on February 27th, 1974 in
[34:20] the town of Malton, she grew up in North Yorkshire and later
[34:25] settled in the Heworth area of York.
[34:28] She worked as a cook at the University of York and was
[34:31] considered reliable and hard working.
[34:34] Claudia lived alone in a home in Heworth and was close to her
[34:37] family. Her father Peter was a lawyer
[34:42] and her mother Joan had been a local mayor.
[34:46] She was sociable and independent, often spending
[34:49] evenings at a local pub with friends.
[34:52] Claudia had never married and had no children, but she
[34:55] maintained what has euphemistically been called a
[34:58] quote UN quote active social life.
[35:02] She had a series of romantic relationships, including some
[35:06] with men who were married or involved with others.
[35:09] She was discreet about these liaisons, a fact that would
[35:12] later draw significant media attention.
[35:14] After she disappeared on March 18th, 2009, Claudia followed her
[35:21] usual routine. She worked an early shift and
[35:25] was captured on CCTV heading home around 3:00 PM that
[35:30] evening. She spoke with both of her
[35:32] parents by phone and sounded cheerful and normal.
[35:36] She even made plans for the upcoming Mother's Day with her
[35:38] mom and she said she was going to bed early because of her next
[35:42] day's early shift. Also, just a quick programming
[35:47] note, Mother's Day in the UK falls on the 4th Sunday of Lent
[35:51] rather than in May. Her car was in the garage for
[35:55] repairs, so she would be walking to work.
[35:59] Claudia sent her last known text at 8:23 PM and received a reply
[36:04] at 9:12 PM. After that, no one heard from
[36:08] her again. But there's significant evidence
[36:10] that she would attempt to get to work the following morning.
[36:13] But I'll come back to that. When Claudia didn't show up for
[36:18] her 6:00 AM shift on March 19th, her colleagues became alarmed.
[36:23] She wasn't the type to miss work without warning.
[36:26] Later that day, she also failed to meet a friend at their local
[36:30] pub as planned, and calls to her phone went unanswered.
[36:34] By the next day, her family's concern had turned to panic.
[36:37] After her friends raised the alarm that afternoon, her father
[36:42] went to her house to check on her, accompanied by a family
[36:45] friend with a spare key inside. Everything was in place and
[36:49] there were no signs of a struggle.
[36:51] The bed was neatly made and a few dishes were in the sink,
[36:55] suggesting she had eaten before heading out.
[36:58] Crucially, her handbag containing her wallet, bank
[37:02] cards and passport was left behind.
[37:06] However, her cell phone was missing, as was the blue and
[37:10] Gray backpack that held her chef's uniform.
[37:13] It appeared she had left for work as usual early on March
[37:16] 19th but never arrived. Peter Lawrence contacted North
[37:20] Yorkshire Police to report his daughter missing and a full
[37:23] investigation began. Initially, the police saw no
[37:29] immediate evidence of foul play and treated Claudia's
[37:32] disappearance as a routine missing person case.
[37:35] They considered the possibility that she might have left on her
[37:38] own, but her friends and family insisted she would never vanish
[37:42] without telling anyone. As days passed with no sign of
[37:46] her, the voluntary disappearance idea became less likely.
[37:51] Officers searched along her walking route for any clues of
[37:54] an accident or abduction and found nothing.
[37:58] In the first weeks, hundreds of police personnel and volunteers
[38:01] scoured the area, making door to door inquiries and combing the
[38:06] area extensively, but no trace of Claudia turned up.
[38:11] There was also no activity on her bank accounts after she went
[38:14] missing. By late April 2009, about 5
[38:18] weeks after she vanished, the case was reclassified as a
[38:21] suspected slaying inquiry, reflecting the growing fear that
[38:25] Claudia had been harmed by someone.
[38:29] Detectives explored various scenarios in the early stages.
[38:33] They looked into whether a stranger might have attacked
[38:36] Claudia during her pre dawn walk, but no evidence supported
[38:39] the theory of a random assailant.
[38:42] Some tips about suspicious people in the area LED nowhere,
[38:45] and checks on known offenders in the region revealed no
[38:48] connection with those leads. Exhausted, investigators turned
[38:53] their focus to people in Claudia's life.
[38:58] The case drew nationwide attention almost immediately,
[39:01] given her ties to Cyprus and that the last text she received
[39:05] was from a friend there. Officers travelled there to
[39:08] interview friends she had met on holiday.
[39:11] However, they found no evidence that Claudia had left the
[39:14] country or that anyone overseas was involved.
[39:19] Back in York, detectives interviewed dozens of people who
[39:23] knew Claudia and dug into the details of her personal life.
[39:29] They learned she had been involved in multiple
[39:31] relationships, some of which weren't publicly known to her
[39:35] friends and family. Police theorized that someone
[39:38] close to her, perhaps a lover, ex partner, or the angry partner
[39:44] of someone she knew, might have had a personal motive to harm
[39:48] her. They compiled a timeline of her
[39:51] recent social contacts and activities.
[39:55] Some individuals were hesitant to fully cooperate, possibly out
[39:59] of fear or a desire to keep certain matters private.
[40:04] In 2013, new forensic techniques were applied to the case.
[40:09] And these developments led to a series of arrests in 2014 and
[40:13] 2015. In May 2014, a 59 year old local
[40:19] man was arrested on suspicion of Claudia's slaying.
[40:23] He was a former work colleague who lived near Claudia's home
[40:26] and had occasionally given her a lift.
[40:30] Police searched his properties but ultimately found no evidence
[40:33] to charge him, and he was released.
[40:36] Over the next year, several other men in their 50s were
[40:39] arrested, including a pub landlord and a few of the men
[40:43] who socialized with Claudia. Some were held on suspicion of
[40:47] the slaying and others for allegedly hiding information.
[40:52] Each arrest led to extensive searches and interviews.
[40:55] However, as with the first suspect, nothing definitive
[40:59] could be pinned on any of them. By 2017, a total of nine people
[41:04] had been arrested over the course of the inquiry.
[41:07] Yet no one was charged and Claudia was still missing.
[41:13] The theory most favored by police is that Claudia was slain
[41:17] by someone she knew. The narrow window of time during
[41:21] her routine walk and the lack of any signs of struggle or robbery
[41:25] suggests she likely encountered a familiar person.
[41:29] Most victims know their perpetrator, which also supports
[41:33] this line of thinking. Under this scenario, the perp
[41:36] may have approached her in a non threatening way, perhaps
[41:39] offering a ride or engaging in conversation.
[41:43] This could explain why no one reported witnessing anything
[41:46] unusual on the morning in question.
[41:48] After all, people are seen getting in and out of vehicles
[41:52] all the time, and the only way that sort of event would stick
[41:55] out is if there was something truly bizarre or unusual about
[41:59] the interaction. Others speculate that she was
[42:04] slain by someone she had an affair with or by the spouse of
[42:08] one of these individuals. In the former case, it's been
[42:12] speculated that the individual may have viewed Claudia as a
[42:15] liability and eliminated her. In the latter case, some have
[42:20] alternatively speculated that the slaying may have been a
[42:23] professional job and that Claudia may have been brought to
[42:27] a site where she was finished off.
[42:32] Another possibility is that Claudia fell victim to an
[42:35] unknown attacker in a random crime.
[42:39] Investigators considered the scenario of a stranger
[42:42] abduction, but they found little evidence for it.
[42:45] Speculation about known serial offenders was explored due to
[42:50] some coincidental similarities, but no connection was ever
[42:54] established. Likewise, the idea that Claudia
[42:57] chose to disappear on her own has been firmly rejected by both
[43:01] police and her family. She left behind all her
[43:05] important belongings and had made plans for the near future.
[43:11] It's now been more than 15 years since Claudia vanished, and if
[43:15] she's alive, she'd be in her early 50s.
[43:18] That said, investigators firmly believe that she isn't alive and
[43:23] that she was likely slain on the day she vanished.
[43:27] For now, the disappearance of Claudia Lawrence continues to
[43:31] remain one of Britain's most haunting unsolved mysteries.
[43:35] A worried father arrived at his daughter's apartment in Minot,
[43:38] ND 1 June afternoon in 2007, concerned after days of
[43:43] unanswered calls. Finding 18 year old Anita
[43:47] Knutson's car outside but no response at the door, he
[43:51] enlisted the building managers help to get inside.
[43:55] Through Anita's bedroom window, her father saw a horrifying
[43:59] scene. Anita lay lifeless on her bed.
[44:03] He immediately called 911, summoning police to the gruesome
[44:07] scene. In that moment, a family's world
[44:11] shattered and in time, a horrific and shocking secret
[44:15] would crack this case wide open. Or at least that's what
[44:19] investigators wanted to believe. Anita was a bright and hard
[44:25] working college freshman at Minot State University pursuing
[44:29] a degree in elementary education.
[44:31] Anita had been adopted as an infant by Gordon and Sharon
[44:35] Knutson and grew up in a loving family.
[44:39] She graduated from Velva High School in 2006 and was known for
[44:43] her kindness and strong work ethic, juggling her studies with
[44:47] part time jobs at a clothing store and a hotel.
[44:51] Friends and family described Anita as joyful, caring and
[44:55] always ready to help others. On June 4th, 2007, after Anita
[45:02] failed to answer her phone for two days and even missed a work
[45:06] shift which was unlike her, her father drove to her off campus
[45:10] apartment to check on her. He found the front door locked
[45:13] and no sign of movement inside. A maintenance worker then
[45:17] pointed out that the screen from Anita's bedroom window was lying
[45:20] on the ground with a slit cut through it.
[45:23] Looking through the window, Anita's father saw a nightmare.
[45:28] His daughter was lying face down on her bed in a pool of blood.
[45:34] Police rushed to the scene and soon confirmed that Anita had
[45:37] been stabbed to death, later determined to be two fatal knife
[45:41] wounds to her chest. A robe had been draped over her
[45:47] body and while the bedroom was bloody, nothing seemed to be
[45:50] stolen or ransacked in the apartment.
[45:53] Investigators suspected the sliced window screen was a ploy
[45:56] to mislead them since the apartment door was still locked
[46:00] and the evidence didn't line up with a typical break in.
[46:04] The brutal slaying of a well liked young woman in a small
[46:07] city like Minot left family and friends in utter shock.
[46:12] Investigators later estimated that Anita had been killed over
[46:15] the weekend, likely late on June 2nd or early June 3rd, 2007.
[46:23] Despite A thorough investigation, police initially
[46:26] had few leads to go on. They interviewed Anita's
[46:29] friends, Co workers and neighbors, trying to piece
[46:33] together her final days. Naturally, attention turned to
[46:38] Anita's roommate at the time, Nicole Thomas, now known as
[46:43] Nicole Rice. But Nicole told investigators
[46:46] she had been out of town visiting family.
[46:49] According to investigators, her alibi had some inconsistencies,
[46:54] yet in 2007, there wasn't enough evidence to tie her or anyone
[46:59] else to the crime further. Yet she was a quiet female
[47:03] roommate, not the usual sort of person who commits this sort of
[47:07] act against a young woman who is ostensibly home alone.
[47:12] Detectives also explored other possibilities, for example, a
[47:16] maintenance man who worked at the apartment complex and even a
[47:20] report of an unknown man seen running near the building.
[47:24] But none of these leads panned out.
[47:26] Forensic evidence didn't clinch the case either.
[47:30] The knife found at the scene contained DNA from multiple
[47:33] people, which meant no definitive match to a suspect
[47:36] could be made. With no arrests and no prime
[47:39] suspect, the investigation stalled.
[47:43] As months turned into years, Anita's case went cold.
[47:49] The notion that a predator was still roaming free haunted the
[47:52] community, leaving residents fearful while the family's pleas
[47:56] for justice continued unabated. Still, Anita's loved ones
[48:01] refused to let her memory fade. They pressed authorities for
[48:05] answers and kept the case in the public eye, hoping that someday
[48:08] there would be a breakthrough. Pink ribbons were tied around
[48:12] trees and mine it and a billboard with Anita's photo
[48:15] went up, somber reminders of the young woman whose killer
[48:19] remained at large. In 2022, nearly 15 years after
[48:26] Anita's death, an unexpected break finally came.
[48:30] On March 16th, 2022, Minot Police stunned the community by
[48:35] announcing the arrest of 34 year old Nicole Rice, Anita's former
[48:39] roommate, for the brutal attack. She was taken into custody at
[48:44] her job on the Minot Air Force Base.
[48:47] At a press conference that day, Minot's police chief confidently
[48:51] announced that they finally had the person responsible for
[48:54] Anita's slaying in custody. Authorities credited a
[48:58] collaboration with the Oxygen Network's Cold Justice true
[49:01] crime TV series for helping crack the long cold case.
[49:08] In 2019, the Minot police had assigned new detectives to re
[49:13] examine the evidence and with fresh eyes, they enlisted Cold
[49:16] Justice to spread word of the case.
[49:19] New investigators had re examined every detail of the
[49:22] case and with this renewed effort, they found reasons to
[49:26] focus on Nicole. They noted alleged significant
[49:30] inconsistencies in Nicole's alibi and uncovered witnesses
[49:34] who reported that Nicole had made suspicious comments about
[49:37] the event in the past. After the Cold Justice episodes
[49:42] about Anita's case aired in late 2022, new tips, including those
[49:48] alleged confessions, flowed into investigators, bolstering the
[49:53] case against Nicole. These developments gave police
[49:57] probable cause to charge Nicole. At last.
[50:00] In the face of the accusations, Nicole maintained her innocence
[50:04] and pleaded not guilty to the charges.
[50:09] In March 2025, Nicole Rice finally went on trial for the
[50:14] slaying of Anita Knutson, a case that had haunted the community
[50:18] for nearly 18 years at that point.
[50:21] The trial took place in Grand Forks to help try to ensure an
[50:25] impartial jury. Over 7 days in court, more than
[50:29] 20 witnesses testified as prosecutors and defense
[50:32] attorneys presented very different narratives of what
[50:35] happened. Prosecutors laid out a theory
[50:40] that the crime stemmed from a toxic roommate relationship that
[50:44] spiraled out of control. They argued that Nicole and
[50:47] Anita had a history of petty conflicts, including
[50:50] disagreements over things like alarm clocks, Internet usage,
[50:54] and household chores. They claimed that on the night
[50:57] of the slaying, A heated argument between them turned
[51:00] violent. According to the prosecution,
[51:03] Nicole stabbed Anita in a fit of rage and then tried to cover her
[51:07] tracks by staging the scene to look like an intruder was
[51:10] responsible. Investigators pointed out how
[51:14] nothing was actually stolen from the apartment and forensic tests
[51:18] showed the blood on the fallen window screen came from Anita
[51:21] herself. This was a sign that the screen
[51:24] was cut after she was attacked, rather than by an outside
[51:27] intruder, supporting the theory that the break in was staged.
[51:33] One officer testified that when Nicole was first contacted about
[51:37] Anita's death, she oddly mentioned that her iPod was
[51:40] missing. He found this extremely odd that
[51:43] she was so concerned about a missing iPod when someone had
[51:46] allegedly just broken into her home and slain her roommate.
[51:51] This cop later reflected that it seemed like an attempt to
[51:53] support the burglary story and deflect suspicion.
[51:58] And this is really a damned if you do, damned if you don't
[52:00] situation. If you don't report what
[52:03] happened, you're withholding potentially material evidence.
[52:06] And if you do report it, that's apparently suspicious.
[52:12] The prosecution's most startling evidence came from two people
[52:15] who said that Nicole had effectively confessed years
[52:18] earlier. A former friend of Nicole's
[52:20] testified that at a party in 2008, Nicole got drunk and
[52:25] tearfully blurted out that she had argued with Anita and that
[52:29] she then quote, did it. Similarly, an ex-boyfriend of
[52:33] Nicole's recounted another occasion where a heavily
[52:36] intoxicated Nicole allegedly said she had eliminated Anna.
[52:43] Both witnesses claimed they thought they had told police
[52:45] about these admissions back in 2008, though no official record
[52:50] of those reports was found. These alleged drunken
[52:53] confessions, combined with the circumstantial evidence of
[52:57] motive and a staged crime scene form the crux of the case
[53:00] against Nicole Rice. And that's the broad overview of
[53:06] the evidence as it was presented to the jury.
[53:09] By way of reminder, the prosecution has to prove the
[53:12] accused to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
[53:17] The defense, however, contended that the state's case was built
[53:20] on speculation and unreliable memories.
[53:24] Nicole's attorney pointed out that there was no physical
[53:27] evidence linking her to the attack.
[53:30] Investigators had not produced any DNA, fingerprints or
[53:34] forensic proof placing Nicole in Anita's bedroom at the time of
[53:38] the crime. The entire accusation, the
[53:41] defense argued, rested on circumstantial details and
[53:45] hearsay. They cast doubt on the
[53:48] confession stories, noting that they emerged only after ATV Show
[53:52] reignited interest in the case. Notably, they said that it was
[53:57] suspicious that both witnesses, quote UN quote, remembered these
[54:00] confessions so many years later. Defense lawyers suggested that
[54:06] the Cold Justice television show had inadvertently created a
[54:10] frenzy around the case. They suggested that this caused
[54:14] the confessions to be remembered, perhaps falsely,
[54:18] possibly causing them to 0 in on Nicole without considering other
[54:22] suspects. They reminded jurors that early
[54:26] in the investigation, others had been persons of interest, yet
[54:30] those leads were never fully resolved or even completely
[54:33] investigated. In fact, the defense called a
[54:36] retired FBI agent as an expert witness to walk the jury through
[54:40] numerous unresolved clues and potential suspects that police
[54:44] had overlooked. This reinforced the idea that
[54:47] someone else could have been the perpetrator.
[54:50] With no direct proof against Nicole and so many unanswered
[54:53] questions, the defense urged the jury to find her not guilty.
[55:00] After about a week of testimony, the jury deliberated for roughly
[55:03] 5 1/2 hours before reaching a decision.
[55:07] On March 26th, 2025, the verdict was announced.
[55:13] Nicole Rice was found not guilty of the slaying of Anita Knutson.
[55:18] Upon hearing the jury's decision, Nicole broke down in
[55:21] tears, covering her face as her lawyers and family embraced her
[55:26] in relief and joy. On the other side of the
[55:29] courtroom, Anita's family sat in stunned silence.
[55:34] They had waited nearly 18 years for this moment, but the outcome
[55:38] was not what they'd hoped. Anita's sister later remarked
[55:42] that a not guilty verdict is not the same as innocence.
[55:46] While this is technically a true statement, Nicole Rice's name
[55:50] is, for all intents and purposes, completely cleared.
[55:55] At any rate, the Knutson family left the courthouse heartbroken,
[55:59] feeling that justice had not been served for law enforcement.
[56:05] The trials outcome meant that the question of who ended the
[56:08] life of Anita Knutson remained unresolved.
[56:13] With Rice acquitted and unable to be tried again due to double
[56:17] jeopardy protections, the case has essentially returned to
[56:21] square one. No other suspects have been
[56:24] charged, and authorities didn't immediately indicate any plans
[56:29] to continue investigating the case in the wake of Nicole's
[56:32] acquittal. Unfortunately, given the passage
[56:37] of time and the intensive focus on the wrong person, it seems
[56:41] unlikely this tragic slaying will ever be solved.
[56:44] That said, I hope the Knutson family is able to continue to
[56:48] pressure investigators to solve this case and get justice for
[56:51] Anita once and for all. In 1996, seventeen year old
[57:00] Sharif Cousin became the youngest person ever sent to
[57:03] Louisiana's death row after being convicted of a shocking
[57:07] slaying in New Orleans. The case centered on the fatal
[57:10] shooting of 25 year old Michael Girardi, who was slain by a shot
[57:14] to the face while on a first date in the French Quarter.
[57:18] It was a crime that stunned the city and set off a shocking
[57:22] legal saga that took years to fully resolve, leaving Cousin
[57:26] the victim of the legal system itself.
[57:31] Sharif Cousin was a teenager from New Orleans who had begun
[57:34] running into trouble by his mid teens.
[57:37] By 16, he had fallen in with a friend named James Rowell, who
[57:42] led him into a series of petty robberies.
[57:45] Michael Girardi, by contrast, was a 25 year old from nearby
[57:49] Slidell who worked as a seafood plant manager and still lived
[57:54] with his parents. On March 2nd, 1995, Girardi went
[57:59] into New Orleans with 37 year old Connie Babin for dinner at
[58:03] Port of Call, a popular French Quarter restaurant.
[58:07] This was their very first date, and Girardi apparently had high
[58:11] expectations. Girardi even brought along a
[58:14] single red rose for Babin that evening, a romantic gesture that
[58:19] would soon be overshadowed by a night of violence.
[58:24] After leaving the restaurant around 10 that evening, Girardi
[58:27] and Babin walked toward his parked pickup truck on a dimly
[58:30] lit St. As they made their way down
[58:33] Esplanade Ave. Babin noticed three young men
[58:36] approaching and felt a wave of unease.
[58:39] She tugged on Girardi's arm in warning, but he misunderstood
[58:44] and thought she was simply cold. Before they could change course,
[58:48] one of the teens later alleged to be cousin, came within a few
[58:53] feet of them. Babin would later recall seeing
[58:56] a glint of gold in the youth's teeth and noticing him bend down
[59:00] as if adjusting his boot just moments before the situation
[59:03] turned deadly. Girardi sensed the danger at the
[59:08] last second and shouted for Babin to run.
[59:11] As she fled a short distance, a gunshot suddenly rang out.
[59:15] When Babin glanced back, she saw the young assailant shoot
[59:19] Michael Girardi point blank in the face.
[59:24] Girardi collapsed to the ground, mortally wounded, and the
[59:27] attackers grabbed his wallet and then fled into the night.
[59:31] Babin rushed back into the restaurant to call 911, then
[59:35] returned to hold Girardi's hand as he lay dying on the sidewalk.
[59:39] In her initial statement to police, a shaken Babin admitted
[59:43] it was very dark and she wasn't wearing her glasses or contacts.
[59:48] She claimed she hadn't gotten a good look at the gunman and
[59:50] doubted she could identify him. For several weeks, the case
[59:56] remained unsolved. Then on March 28th, 1995, New
[1:00:02] Orleans police received a tip that pointed to a suspect. 16
[1:00:06] year old Sharif cousin was named by his friend James Rowell.
[1:00:10] Who had been arrested for other robberies and was seeking a deal
[1:00:14] to reduce his charges. Acting on Raul's information,
[1:00:18] detectives brought Cousin in and placed him in a lineup.
[1:00:23] Despite her earlier uncertainty, Connie Babin identified Cousin
[1:00:27] as the shooter when she saw him in the lineup.
[1:00:30] Investigators already knew Cousin as a member of a teen
[1:00:33] robbery crew plaguing the area. In fact, later in 1995, Cousin
[1:00:39] pleaded guilty to two separate armed robbery charges and
[1:00:43] received a 20 year prison term for those crimes.
[1:00:46] Now, however, he faced an even more serious charge.
[1:00:51] And unlike the robberies, he actually didn't do this.
[1:00:54] One Sharif Cousins trial in January 1996 relied heavily on
[1:01:01] witness testimony since there was no physical evidence linking
[1:01:05] him to the crime. Prosecutors argued that Cousin
[1:01:08] had even bragged about the shooting to a friend.
[1:01:12] Connie Babin took the stand and despite her prior doubts,
[1:01:16] emphatically identified Cousin as the perpetrator and even said
[1:01:20] she would never forget his face. After that night, the
[1:01:25] prosecution also called James Rowell, expecting him to back up
[1:01:29] their claims. But in a dramatic turn, Rowell
[1:01:33] recanted his story on the stand. He testified that he had never
[1:01:37] actually heard Cousin admit to the shooting.
[1:01:40] Instead, he claimed he only accused Cousin because police
[1:01:43] and prosecutors pressured him to lie in exchange for leniency on
[1:01:47] his own pending charges. He even revealed that the
[1:01:50] prosecutor had promised him a lighter 15 year sentence if he
[1:01:53] pinned the crime on Cousin. This reversal caught prosecutors
[1:01:58] off guard and undercut the state's case significantly.
[1:02:04] Apart from Babin, the only other people who had ever identified
[1:02:07] Cousin were two bystanders who tentatively picked his photo
[1:02:11] from a line up weeks after the crime.
[1:02:14] However, even those ID's were far from certain.
[1:02:17] Ultimately, the case against Cousin rested almost entirely on
[1:02:21] Babin's courtroom identification, as nothing else
[1:02:24] concretely tied him to the scene.
[1:02:28] The defense countered with a strong alibi.
[1:02:31] Multiple witnesses testified that Cousin was actually playing
[1:02:34] in a youth basketball game at a community gym at the exact time
[1:02:38] of the attack. In an absolutely bonkers twist,
[1:02:42] this was an alibi that was actually backed up by a
[1:02:45] videotape of that game going down that night.
[1:02:48] Further yet, one coach even stated that he drove Cousin home
[1:02:52] after the game, dropping him off roughly 20 minutes after it
[1:02:56] ended. This was around the same time
[1:02:59] Girardi was actively being slain across town, which would require
[1:03:04] an act of speed unfathomable unless the kid got there by
[1:03:08] chopper. And I might shock you here, but
[1:03:11] Cousin didn't grow up in the lap of luxury and couldn't just call
[1:03:15] his Butler to arrange a helicopter ride to commit crimes
[1:03:18] on the other side of town. Prosecutors tried to cast doubt
[1:03:24] on this evidence, and at one point suggested the video's
[1:03:27] timestamp might have been wrong. Importantly, it looks as though
[1:03:31] they didn't actually lead any expert evidence on this, which
[1:03:34] seems to be a somewhat improper suggestion for the prosecution
[1:03:38] to make. After all, the prosecution has
[1:03:42] functionally infinite resources to obtain experts and can bring
[1:03:46] the full weight of the state down on someone.
[1:03:49] In my view, the prosecution should at least go out and get
[1:03:52] some expert evidence if they're going to claim the timestamp was
[1:03:55] wrong. After all, they're theoretically
[1:03:59] there to ensure justice is done, not to ensure a conviction, But
[1:04:04] more on the duties of the prosecution in a moment.
[1:04:09] Further, they argued that the coach may have not been
[1:04:11] remembering the day correctly and may have been influenced by
[1:04:15] the incorrect video timestamp. Despite the airtight alibi and
[1:04:21] the glaring inconsistencies in the state's case, the jury was
[1:04:25] surprisingly swayed by the prosecution.
[1:04:29] On January 26th, 1996, they found Sharif Cousin guilty of
[1:04:34] first degree slaying and a few months later he was condemned at
[1:04:38] just 17 years old. Not long after the trial,
[1:04:44] Cousins attorneys uncovered proof that the prosecution had
[1:04:47] withheld crucial evidence. An anonymous source leaked a
[1:04:51] police report from the night of the slaying revealing that
[1:04:54] Connie Babin told officers she didn't get a good look.
[1:04:59] The report indicated she probably couldn't identify him
[1:05:02] due to the darkness and her missing glasses, and likely
[1:05:05] would never be able to do so because of these factors.
[1:05:11] This information directly contradicted her confident trial
[1:05:14] testimony, yet the defense had never been told about it.
[1:05:18] Notably, the prosecution has a duty to disclose all evidence to
[1:05:22] the defense, including evidence that could exonerate the
[1:05:25] accused. This is because, theoretically,
[1:05:29] the state is acting in the interests of justice, and these
[1:05:32] interests don't always line up with the idea of securing a
[1:05:36] conviction. Armed with this new evidence,
[1:05:41] the defense filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that
[1:05:44] prosecutors had violated their duty by suppressing exculpatory
[1:05:47] evidence. The trial judge, however, denied
[1:05:50] the motion, forcing Cousins team to appeal to a higher court.
[1:05:55] In April 1998, the Louisiana Supreme Court agreed that Cousin
[1:06:01] had not received a fair trial. The court unanimously overturned
[1:06:05] his conviction and ordered a new trial.
[1:06:10] In their ruling, the justices cited the prosecution's failure
[1:06:13] to disclose Babin's initial statement, along with other
[1:06:16] misconduct. It also emerged that the lead
[1:06:20] detective had fabricated a claim about having additional
[1:06:24] eyewitnesses in order to obtain the warrant for Cousin's arrest.
[1:06:29] With his conviction vacated, Cousin was removed from death
[1:06:32] row and awaited a possible retrial in jail.
[1:06:38] By this time, the weaknesses in the case were plain to see, and
[1:06:42] public pressure was mounting. Prominent activists had taken up
[1:06:46] Cousin's cause and were urging officials to drop the charges.
[1:06:51] Facing a retrial with virtually no credible evidence, New
[1:06:55] Orleans Parish District Attorney Harry Connick Senior decided to
[1:07:00] dismiss the case. And yes, in case you're
[1:07:03] wondering, that name isn't a coincidence.
[1:07:06] That's the famous singer's dad. On January 8th, 1999, all
[1:07:13] charges against Sharif Cousin were officially dropped as the
[1:07:17] DA acknowledged there was insufficient evidence to
[1:07:20] prosecute him again. After nearly four years of
[1:07:23] proclaiming his innocence, Cousin was finally cleared of
[1:07:27] the slaying. Although exonerated of the
[1:07:31] capital charge, Cousin remained in prison a bit longer because
[1:07:35] of the unrelated robbery convictions.
[1:07:38] He was finally paroled in 2005, having spent about 10 years
[1:07:43] behind bars in total. Once released, Sharif Cousin
[1:07:49] turned his life around and committed himself to advocacy
[1:07:52] work. He became active in
[1:07:54] organizations that support the wrongfully convicted and at risk
[1:07:57] youth, using his own story to educate others.
[1:08:02] Sharif remains dedicated to preventing similar injustices
[1:08:05] from happening to anyone else. Unfortunately, though, the
[1:08:10] slaying of Michael Girardi continues to go unpunished until
[1:08:13] this day and will almost certainly never be resolved
[1:08:17] given the conduct of the investigators.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.