Latest / The Path Went Chilly / Cherita Thomas Pt. Two

Transcript

Cherita Thomas Pt. Two · The Path Went Chilly

0:29
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Path Went Chile for part two
0:32
Speaker 1: of our series about the disappearance of Charita Thomas. Robin,
0:36
Speaker 1: do you want to catch everyone up and what we
0:37
Speaker 1: talked about in our previous episode.
0:40
Speaker 2: Well, Cheria Thomas was an African American woman who lived
0:43
Speaker 2: in Michigan. She went out to a baseball game with
0:46
Speaker 2: her best friend, Patricia Bates, and they spent some time
0:48
Speaker 2: hanging out at a tavern. But because she left her
0:50
Speaker 2: four year old daughter with a babysitter, she needed to
0:53
Speaker 2: go back home and pick her up, and because Patricia
0:55
Speaker 2: wanted to stay later in the tavern, she pretty much
0:58
Speaker 2: told Chria, you can borrow my car off on my
1:00
Speaker 2: own ride home, and then treeda headed back to Sable Township, Michigan,
1:05
Speaker 2: but she never picked up her daughter. She never arrived home,
1:08
Speaker 2: and the abandoned car would eventually be discovered and it
1:11
Speaker 2: turned out that it's a radiator had overheated. She already
1:14
Speaker 2: got some assistance from some teenage boys, but it sounds
1:18
Speaker 2: like the car broke down again and needed to get
1:20
Speaker 2: more help. Witnesses last star climbing into a blue pickup
1:24
Speaker 2: truck being driven by a white male, but that was
1:27
Speaker 2: the last time she was confirmed to be alive. It
1:29
Speaker 2: turned out that the prime suspect was a man named
1:32
Speaker 2: Jimmy Allen Nelson, who happened to be the brother in
1:35
Speaker 2: law of the babysitter who was watching over Treeda's child,
1:38
Speaker 2: but also known for having racist attitudes and saying some
1:42
Speaker 2: not so flattering things about persons of color, And because
1:46
Speaker 2: Treeda was African America, he looked like a compelling suspect,
1:49
Speaker 2: but they can never find any evidence. They couldn't find
1:52
Speaker 2: Treeda's body. But as the years went on, Jimmy told
1:56
Speaker 2: so many different stories and conflicted himself so many different
1:59
Speaker 2: times times that they started to become suspicious and think
2:02
Speaker 2: that he may have been responsible. That, for instance, he's
2:05
Speaker 2: conveniently got rid of the blue pickup truck he'd been
2:08
Speaker 2: driving shortly after Treeda went missing. And twenty five years later,
2:12
Speaker 2: they finally decided we have a very compelling, circumstantial case
2:16
Speaker 2: against him, so they charged him with Tarita's murder and
2:19
Speaker 2: were hoping to take him to trial even though they
2:21
Speaker 2: did not have the victim's body. And that's where we
2:24
Speaker 2: pretty much left off. We haven't finished this whole story
2:26
Speaker 2: yet so, Jules, why don't you tell us about the
2:29
Speaker 2: next part.
2:30
Speaker 1: So in October of two thousand and five, a preliminary
2:33
Speaker 1: examination would be held in front of Iosco County Circuit
2:37
Speaker 1: Court Judge Richard E. Noble in order to determine if
2:41
Speaker 1: Jimmy Allen Nelson should stand trial for murder. A total
2:45
Speaker 1: of fifteen witnesses were called upon to testify about the
2:48
Speaker 1: conflicting statements and inconsistencies from Jimmy's interviews, but his defense
2:53
Speaker 1: attorney argued that these were simply a result of a
2:56
Speaker 1: bad memory which had been caused by years of alcohol abuse.
3:00
Speaker 1: Since Jimmy had been interviewed several times by many different
3:04
Speaker 1: investigators over a twenty one year period, his defense team
3:08
Speaker 1: believed he was very suggestible, and since he did not
3:11
Speaker 1: have a clear memory of what happened at the time
3:13
Speaker 1: Sarita went missing, Jimmy was simply repeating what other people
3:17
Speaker 1: had told him over the years, which is what caused
3:19
Speaker 1: the inconsistencies in his stories. While Judge Noble ultimately believed
3:24
Speaker 1: that there was not enough evidence to conclusively prove that
3:28
Speaker 1: Jimmy killed Scharita, so the second degree murder charge was dismissed,
3:32
Speaker 1: as well as nine of the perjury charges against him.
3:36
Speaker 1: In spite of this, Jimmy would still have to stand
3:38
Speaker 1: trial for the remaining counts of perjury as well as
3:41
Speaker 1: the obstruction of justice charge, and if convicted on all counts,
3:45
Speaker 1: he could potentially face a maximum sentence of twenty years
3:49
Speaker 1: in prison. The trial took place in October of two
3:53
Speaker 1: thousand and six, and in the end, the judge found
3:56
Speaker 1: Jimmy guilty on five counts of perjury and one count
3:59
Speaker 1: of a instruction of justice, though they acquitted him of
4:03
Speaker 1: the eight remaining perjury charges. Jimmy received a sentence of
4:07
Speaker 1: two years, but since he had already been incarcerated for
4:10
Speaker 1: nearly two years while awaiting trial, Jimmy was given credit
4:13
Speaker 1: for time serve and released less than one month after
4:16
Speaker 1: the guilty verdict. In the meantime, a lot of legal
4:20
Speaker 1: wrangling had been taking place, as the Iosco County Prosecuting
4:24
Speaker 1: Attorney's office appealed Judge Noble's ruling that there was insufficient
4:29
Speaker 1: evidence to charge jimmy with murder. The Michigan Court of
4:33
Speaker 1: Appeals agreed with their argument and sent the case back
4:36
Speaker 1: to Iosco County Circuit court. This time it would be
4:40
Speaker 1: heard in front of a different circuit court judge, and
4:42
Speaker 1: in April two thousand and nine, he ruled that the
4:45
Speaker 1: evidence against Jimmy was sufficient enough to stand trial for
4:49
Speaker 1: second degree murder. The defense requested a bench trial, meaning
4:53
Speaker 1: that the case would be heard in front of the
4:55
Speaker 1: Iosco County Circuit Judge William F. Miles rather than a Jerry.
5:01
Speaker 3: What's so interesting here is correct me if I'm wrong.
5:04
Speaker 3: But Jimmy has so many circumstantial things that put him
5:08
Speaker 3: at the scene, things like the three teenagers who said
5:11
Speaker 3: a man driving a truck similar to his was seen
5:14
Speaker 3: at the scene, and knowing that she had seen him
5:16
Speaker 3: later or earlier that evening. There is a connection, right,
5:20
Speaker 3: Robin and jewels, But it's not necessarily concrete evidence that
5:24
Speaker 3: he's actually guilty of this crime.
5:27
Speaker 2: Pretty much. Yeah, Like he was driving a blue pickup
5:29
Speaker 2: truck during this time period, which he conveniently stopped using
5:32
Speaker 2: after fre you To went missing. And even though a
5:35
Speaker 2: number of witnesses said that they saw a tree to
5:37
Speaker 2: get into a blue pickup truck trating driven by a
5:40
Speaker 2: white man, none of them were able to conclusively identify
5:42
Speaker 2: the driver as Jimmy, But of course it just seems
5:45
Speaker 2: like a few too many coincidences. And we talked in
5:48
Speaker 2: our last episode that even though Jimmy was known for
5:51
Speaker 2: making racist remarks, it's not clear if Treed would have
5:54
Speaker 2: known that. So perhaps she didn't know that side of
5:56
Speaker 2: Jimmy and would have felt comfortable enough getting into a
5:58
Speaker 2: truck with them if she needed help. So Jimmy's trial
6:02
Speaker 2: began in October of twenty ten, and the rent of
6:05
Speaker 2: the prosecution's case against him would be his own conflicting
6:08
Speaker 2: statements during interviews, as well as the testimony from the
6:11
Speaker 2: two eye witnesses who saw Sharita climb into a blue
6:14
Speaker 2: pickup truck resembling Jimmy's truck right before she vanished. The
6:18
Speaker 2: trial only lasted two days, but Judge Miles ultimately believed
6:22
Speaker 2: that the evidence was strong enough for a conviction, so
6:24
Speaker 2: he found Nelson guilty of second degree murder and gave
6:27
Speaker 2: him a sentence of twenty five to fifty years in prison.
6:31
Speaker 2: But of course the story would not end there. Jimmy's
6:34
Speaker 2: defense team appealed his conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals,
6:37
Speaker 2: and in August of twenty twelve, a three judge panel
6:41
Speaker 2: ruled to overturn it. They believed that the evidence was
6:44
Speaker 2: insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jimmy had
6:47
Speaker 2: murdered Tree to Thomas, stating that quote unquote, speculation is
6:51
Speaker 2: not a sufficient basis upon which to convict an accused
6:54
Speaker 2: under our system of justice. Well over the next year
6:58
Speaker 2: and a half there would be a lot more legal wrangling,
7:00
Speaker 2: as the Michigan Supreme Court would eventually issued an order
7:03
Speaker 2: reversing the Court of Appeals' decision and remainding the case
7:07
Speaker 2: back to them for quote unquote consideration of the defendant's
7:11
Speaker 2: remaining issues. While the legal wrangling continued, Jimmy was released
7:15
Speaker 2: on bond, but on February twenty fourth, twenty fourteen, the
7:19
Speaker 2: Court of Appeals once again ruled to vacate his conviction,
7:22
Speaker 2: but this time they did so at the surprising request
7:25
Speaker 2: of Lasco County Prosecutor Nicol Palumbo, who decided to dismiss
7:30
Speaker 2: the murder charge against Jimmy two weeks later. This decision
7:33
Speaker 2: was made on the basis of newly discovered evidence, and
7:36
Speaker 2: here's an exact word for word quote from the Court
7:39
Speaker 2: of Appeals ruling. Quote to protect the confidential nature of
7:42
Speaker 2: this evidence, we note only that the evidence implicates another
7:46
Speaker 2: person as the perpetrator of Thomas's death end quote. So yes,
7:51
Speaker 2: Apparently new evidence was found to indicate that someone else
7:54
Speaker 2: besides Jimmy Allen Nelson was responsible for murdering Charta, but
7:58
Speaker 2: specific details of this evidence, as well as the identity
8:02
Speaker 2: of this alternate suspect, have remained sealed from the public
8:05
Speaker 2: for the past decade. Jimmy became a free man before
8:09
Speaker 2: he died of heart failure in December of twenty twenty
8:12
Speaker 2: at the age of seventy. At the time of this recording,
8:15
Speaker 2: no one else has ever been charged with the role
8:17
Speaker 2: in Treat's disappearance, and she continues to remain a missing person.
8:22
Speaker 2: So I guess you could say the path went chilly. Yeah.
8:26
Speaker 3: Absolutely. What's really interesting here is that if you just
8:29
Speaker 3: gave me the information, I would say, look, it's pretty
8:32
Speaker 3: evident that Jimmy probably did it. But then you have
8:36
Speaker 3: all of these things that start to fall apart. Right,
8:38
Speaker 3: he's convicted, but is he convicted fairly beyond a reasonable doubt?
8:42
Speaker 3: And what is insane is that later they're going to
8:46
Speaker 3: not only release him, but his actual sentence is vacated
8:50
Speaker 3: and the charge is vacated, and so once the conviction
8:54
Speaker 3: is vacated, they're saying, we don't believe he did it.
8:57
Speaker 3: And then they say their sufficient evidence to show someone
8:59
Speaker 3: else's did and we still don't know who that is,
9:02
Speaker 3: but they're saying, we have sufficient evidence someone else killed her.
9:07
Speaker 3: And so even though Jimmy's released, even though they're saying
9:11
Speaker 3: Jimmy didn't do it and we don't have Tarita's body,
9:14
Speaker 3: they're pretty convinced that they know the individual who killed
9:17
Speaker 3: her and their confidence she is no longer here.
9:20
Speaker 2: And the thing that's really surprising it is that it
9:22
Speaker 2: was the prosecutor who made that decision, like they were deciding,
9:25
Speaker 2: are we going to try to take him to trial again,
9:28
Speaker 2: and then just completely out of the blue, he says,
9:30
Speaker 2: we have new information that points to another suspect. And
9:33
Speaker 2: we've done enough wrongful conviction cases on this podcast that
9:36
Speaker 2: we know that it's often very hard for prosecutors to
9:39
Speaker 2: admit that they got the wrong person and put an
9:41
Speaker 2: innocent person in prison. So for him to do a
9:44
Speaker 2: one eighty just like that is pretty strong indicator. I
9:47
Speaker 2: think that the evidence against this other suspect must be
9:50
Speaker 2: pretty convincing, and I can only assume this person is
9:53
Speaker 2: probably still alive and that they just didn't want to
9:56
Speaker 2: release any information to the public, not to jeopardize the case.
10:00
Speaker 2: The same time, it's been over a decade, and it's
10:02
Speaker 2: frustrating that we don't have any more information about who
10:05
Speaker 2: this person is and why they implicated him now than
10:09
Speaker 2: they did over ten years ago.
10:11
Speaker 1: It's wild to me that they would have enough information
10:16
Speaker 1: that Nicol Colombo would go and say, look, you know, basically,
10:19
Speaker 1: we've got the wrong guy. We've got enough evidence against
10:22
Speaker 1: somebody else, and we still don't know who that person is.
10:26
Speaker 1: It's not like it's somewhere like Australia or different countries
10:30
Speaker 1: where they will shield those who are accused from being
10:35
Speaker 1: their names being printed in the press to protect them
10:38
Speaker 1: until they've actually been convicted. That isn't the case in
10:43
Speaker 1: the US. So I'm really unsure as to why, after
10:46
Speaker 1: all of these years, you can be, on the one hand,
10:49
Speaker 1: so sure that he didn't do it, but on the
10:51
Speaker 1: other you haven't filed charges against anybody else and we
10:55
Speaker 1: still don't know who that person is.
10:57
Speaker 2: Yeah, this what's crazy to me that they said it's
10:59
Speaker 2: so convinced saying that they're willing to dismiss the charges
11:01
Speaker 2: against Jimmy, but it's obviously not strong enough since it's
11:04
Speaker 2: been a decade and they still haven't filed charges against
11:07
Speaker 2: anyone else. Now, this is a crazy case which contains
11:12
Speaker 2: so many bizarre twists and turns that it practically became
11:15
Speaker 2: a circus at times. But the tragic element is that
11:17
Speaker 2: the victim, Treta Thomas, has almost been overlooked. There really
11:21
Speaker 2: isn't a whole lot of information out there about Treta
11:24
Speaker 2: as a person other than the fact that she had
11:26
Speaker 2: a fiance and young daughter. Given that Treata was only
11:30
Speaker 2: twenty years old and had a daughter who was four,
11:32
Speaker 2: she obviously had her at a very young age, but
11:35
Speaker 2: not much is known about her background. I know that
11:38
Speaker 2: her fiance, William Merritt, went on to raise her daughter
11:41
Speaker 2: after she went missing, but it's still not even one
11:43
Speaker 2: hundred percent clear to me if William was the biological father,
11:47
Speaker 2: And the only photograph I can find if Treta online
11:50
Speaker 2: is a very small, blurry one. And it always saddens
11:53
Speaker 2: me when I research older missing persons cases and there's
11:56
Speaker 2: so few available pictures of the victim. As the years
11:59
Speaker 2: went on, it seems like the story became more about
12:02
Speaker 2: Treeda's alleged killer, Jimmy Allen Nelson, and whether or not
12:05
Speaker 2: he was actually guilty of the crime. Now, truthfully, under
12:09
Speaker 2: normal circumstances, I would be inclined to believe that Jimmy
12:12
Speaker 2: was responsible for Treda's disappearance, as his constantly changing stories
12:17
Speaker 2: are a huge red flag. But at the same time,
12:20
Speaker 2: I can't really dispute the numerous decisions which have been
12:23
Speaker 2: made to dismiss or overturn murder charges against him because
12:26
Speaker 2: technically there is no direct evidence that a crime was
12:29
Speaker 2: even committed. Quite frankly, I am a bit surprised that
12:33
Speaker 2: Jimmy was even convicted of second degree murder after his
12:36
Speaker 2: defense team requested a bench trial rather than a jury trial.
12:40
Speaker 2: On one hand, asking for a bench trial could be
12:42
Speaker 2: a huge risk because if the judge comes back with
12:45
Speaker 2: a guilty verdict, it can be a major uphill battle
12:48
Speaker 2: getting an appeals court to undermine a judge's decision by
12:51
Speaker 2: overturning the conviction. But on the other hand, if a
12:54
Speaker 2: prosecution's case is not all that strong, then a bench
12:57
Speaker 2: trial might be the best option. While a jury can
13:00
Speaker 2: sometimes let their emotions and got feelings influence their verdict
13:04
Speaker 2: and prompt them to convict just because someone looks guilty
13:07
Speaker 2: or unlikable, a judge is going to weigh the facts
13:10
Speaker 2: and the evidence and look at everything objectively. It appears
13:14
Speaker 2: that even without a body or any physical evidence, Judge
13:17
Speaker 2: William F. Miles still believed that the case against Jimmy
13:20
Speaker 2: was strong enough to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
13:23
Speaker 2: But obviously the Court of Appeals disagreed. But of course,
13:27
Speaker 2: the revelation that newly discovered evidence apparently now points towards
13:31
Speaker 2: another person being responsible has wrote everything for a loop.
13:36
Speaker 2: Like I mentioned earlier, even if I did not believe
13:38
Speaker 2: the evidence against Jimmy was strong enough to convict him
13:41
Speaker 2: for murder, I still would have leaned towards him being guilty,
13:44
Speaker 2: where not for that statement about the newly discovered evidence. Unfortunately,
13:48
Speaker 2: since this evidence has been sealed from the public, there's
13:51
Speaker 2: not much I can really say about it. But it
13:53
Speaker 2: was apparently compelling enough that even the Iasco County prosecutor
13:58
Speaker 2: requested that the Court of Appeals vake k Jimmy's conviction,
14:01
Speaker 2: which is pretty out of the ordinary. Whenever a conviction
14:04
Speaker 2: is overturned, the state will often fight tooth and nail
14:07
Speaker 2: to keep up the facade that the defendant is still
14:10
Speaker 2: guilty unless there's some very conclusive exculpatory evidence such as
14:14
Speaker 2: DNA testing. Here, it sounds like new evidence pointing to
14:18
Speaker 2: another individual was strong enough to convince the prosecutor that
14:21
Speaker 2: Jimmy was innocent, But at the same time, it has
14:24
Speaker 2: not led to this other non named suspect being charged
14:27
Speaker 2: with a crime.
14:28
Speaker 3: This is really interesting because when you do look at
14:31
Speaker 3: Charita's case, it's tragic. Like you said, Robin, not only
14:35
Speaker 3: do we not really have a strong history of who
14:37
Speaker 3: she was and her legacy, but what we know of
14:41
Speaker 3: that night is that she was making all the decisions
14:43
Speaker 3: to do the right thing. She was trying very hard
14:46
Speaker 3: to secure transportation to get home, to get her daughter,
14:49
Speaker 3: to make sure she was home in time to see
14:51
Speaker 3: her fiance. So she really was building this life. Even
14:54
Speaker 3: though she had been out with her friend. She said, look,
14:57
Speaker 3: I don't have the ability to be out late tonight.
15:00
Speaker 3: I need to get home to my family. And somewhere
15:02
Speaker 3: in that mix up she here it alludes to she
15:06
Speaker 3: lost her life and so when you look at Jimmy,
15:09
Speaker 3: and if Jimmy was presented to you at trial, I
15:12
Speaker 3: can imagine where a jury says, you have this man
15:15
Speaker 3: who many people have gotten on the stand and testified
15:17
Speaker 3: is incredibly racist. You have a young lady who is
15:21
Speaker 3: already being racially harassed that evening and mistreated, and so
15:26
Speaker 3: it all lines up, like you said, to point to Jimmy.
15:30
Speaker 3: And I don't think the jury even needed at the
15:33
Speaker 3: time any kind of strong forensic evidence because it just
15:35
Speaker 3: wasn't expected like it is today. And so to have that,
15:41
Speaker 3: I very much understand why they convicted him. And then,
15:44
Speaker 3: like you said, the evidence had to be so compelling
15:47
Speaker 3: that they do have sealed now against somebody else that
15:51
Speaker 3: even the prosecutor said, we made a mistake. There's evidence
15:55
Speaker 3: that shows we messed up, and we know from previous
15:58
Speaker 3: cases like the Folk four is one of my favorites,
16:01
Speaker 3: where DNA after DNA after DNA tests shows that these
16:05
Speaker 3: men who were convicted did not do it. And eventually
16:08
Speaker 3: Amann says, I did it by myself, right, the DNA
16:11
Speaker 3: matches me. I did it by myself. And these four
16:13
Speaker 3: men were still held in prison for years and years
16:17
Speaker 3: because they just kept changing the story to fit the
16:19
Speaker 3: evidence that emerged. So for them to say he's completely innocent,
16:24
Speaker 3: that's what this evidence shows us. Gosh, I would give
16:27
Speaker 3: anything to know what that is. And I want to
16:28
Speaker 3: know who is responsible for Sharita not being there to
16:31
Speaker 3: raise her baby girl.
16:33
Speaker 2: Since you just mentioned the Norfolk four, I want to
16:35
Speaker 2: mention that I'm currently reading a book now from John
16:38
Speaker 2: Grisham about wrongquel conviction cases, and he had a chapter
16:41
Speaker 2: on that one, and it was just ridiculous how they
16:43
Speaker 2: kept arresting people and the DNA was not matching, so
16:46
Speaker 2: they kept going out and arresting more people, thinking, Okay,
16:49
Speaker 2: all these people were involved in the crime, and until
16:51
Speaker 2: we find someone who matches the DNA, we're just going
16:53
Speaker 2: to keep throwing people in jail. It's one of the
16:55
Speaker 2: worst investigations I've ever seen.
16:58
Speaker 3: I was amazing. They're like, well, you must have done
16:59
Speaker 3: it with him, Well, you must have done it with him.
17:01
Speaker 3: Point to anyone in this yearbook, and we'll go after him.
17:04
Speaker 3: You know, Oh, name somebody who was in your ship
17:08
Speaker 3: with you. Perfect, we're going to arrest him too. And
17:10
Speaker 3: they all kept confessing, so just it just ended up
17:15
Speaker 3: as a nightmare. That's a very interesting one if people
17:17
Speaker 3: have not heard of it.
17:18
Speaker 1: However, let's start at the very beginning. Even if Jimmy
17:22
Speaker 1: Allen Nelson was actually innocent of this crime, it doesn't
17:26
Speaker 1: sound like he was a particularly nice man, as numerous
17:30
Speaker 1: witnesses reported him exhibiting racist behavior, which is why it
17:34
Speaker 1: was compelling to believe that Shreda's disappearance might have been
17:38
Speaker 1: a hate crime. In fact, even if Jimmy himself wasn't responsible,
17:43
Speaker 1: it's possible that racism still could have been the primary
17:46
Speaker 1: motive for what happened to her. After all, she was
17:49
Speaker 1: an African American woman living in a predominantly white community.
17:54
Speaker 1: And even though this might not have any connection to
17:56
Speaker 1: her disappearance at all, I think it's important to talk
17:59
Speaker 1: about the uncomfortable incident when Sharita and Patricia Bates went
18:03
Speaker 1: to grab something to eat at the Mikado tavern. As
18:07
Speaker 1: you'll recall, Patricia claimed that the patrons kept staring at
18:10
Speaker 1: them and were making them feel uncomfortable, and when they left,
18:14
Speaker 1: the bartender told them not to come back. It's not
18:17
Speaker 1: clear why everyone in the bar acted that way, but
18:20
Speaker 1: I'm willing to infer that perhaps they were not too
18:22
Speaker 1: happy about having a black woman inside their establishment, and
18:26
Speaker 1: since Patricia was white and one of the patrons harassed
18:29
Speaker 1: the to women for going into the ladies room together,
18:32
Speaker 1: they may have had an issue with their interracial friendship.
18:35
Speaker 1: In spite of this, Charita and Patricia returned to the
18:38
Speaker 1: tavern later that night, but that might have been because
18:41
Speaker 1: Patricia's friend and their entire softball team was with them,
18:44
Speaker 1: so they felt safer. But I get the impression that
18:47
Speaker 1: Sharita was uncomfortable to be back there, which might have
18:51
Speaker 1: inspired her decision to borrow Patricia's car and drive home
18:54
Speaker 1: by herself. If that's the case, then this adds an
18:57
Speaker 1: extra element of tragedy to the story, because if Sharita
19:01
Speaker 1: and Patricia had driven home together, things might have turned
19:04
Speaker 1: out differently. Not that I'm blaming Patricia for what happened,
19:07
Speaker 1: but the incident at the tavern does shed some light
19:10
Speaker 1: on why Sharita decided to leave on her own.
19:12
Speaker 3: Oh, it absolutely does, and I think it adds to
19:15
Speaker 3: the whole weight of this case and why Jimmy actually
19:17
Speaker 3: looks like a really good candidate here for a suspect.
19:20
Speaker 3: Because Charita and her friend were experiencing that harassment you
19:24
Speaker 3: just mentioned, and there's this idea that because of the
19:27
Speaker 3: color of her skin, she had already been mistreated all night.
19:31
Speaker 3: And it still seems like she held her head up
19:32
Speaker 3: and said, it is what it is, let's just go
19:35
Speaker 3: I want to go home, I want to be with
19:36
Speaker 3: my daughter, I want to be with my fiance. And
19:39
Speaker 3: had they stuck together, had other decisions been made, It's
19:43
Speaker 3: no one's fault, right, but had other decisions been made,
19:46
Speaker 3: would someone have attacked two women versus the you know,
19:50
Speaker 3: the convenience of someone being an easier target when they're alone.
19:54
Speaker 2: Anyway, it seems pretty obvious that after Patricia's matador broke
19:58
Speaker 2: down on Sunset Street and i'll say Township Scharita was
20:01
Speaker 2: subsequently abducted and murdered by the unidentified man driving the
20:05
Speaker 2: blue Ford pickup truck. But the unanswered question is whether
20:09
Speaker 2: or not this man was Jimmy Allen Nelson. We do
20:12
Speaker 2: know that Jimmy also lived on Sunset Street during that
20:14
Speaker 2: time period, so he definitely would have had the opportunity
20:17
Speaker 2: if he was in the area that night. However, it's
20:20
Speaker 2: worth noting that when the mattador previously broke down in Oscata.
20:23
Speaker 2: The teenage boys who stopped to tape up the radiator
20:26
Speaker 2: claimed they saw a man drive by in a blue
20:28
Speaker 2: pickup truck and give them an obscene gesture. So could
20:32
Speaker 2: this have been the same driver who picked up Treeda. Well,
20:35
Speaker 2: Oscota is about four miles from Osable township, so if
20:39
Speaker 2: the drivers set their sights on Tchorida at that moment,
20:42
Speaker 2: they would have had to follow her until the mattador
20:44
Speaker 2: broke down again on Sunset Street. I know that Jimmy
20:47
Speaker 2: told many different conflicting stories about his whereabouts that night,
20:51
Speaker 2: but one recurring detail is that he often placed himself
20:54
Speaker 2: at the Hilltop Bar, so he very well could have
20:56
Speaker 2: been in Oscata when Treeda first experienced car trouble. We
21:00
Speaker 2: have at least two eye witnesses who saw Trieda with
21:03
Speaker 2: the white male and the pickup truck on Sunset Street,
21:06
Speaker 2: and one of them said it looked like the man
21:07
Speaker 2: and woman knew each other, which is why you could
21:10
Speaker 2: infer he was Jimmy Now. One of the constantly changing
21:13
Speaker 2: stories Jimmy shared while being interviewed by law enforcement is
21:17
Speaker 2: that he was drinking at the Hilltop Bar when Treeda
21:19
Speaker 2: showed up to inform him about her car trouble, so
21:22
Speaker 2: he drove her to the stalled vehicle. However, the timeline
21:26
Speaker 2: really doesn't match up. According to one of the eyewitnesses
21:29
Speaker 2: from Sunset Street, trieda walked away from the Matador and
21:33
Speaker 2: returned a short time later in the pickup truck. While
21:36
Speaker 2: it's unclear how much exact time passed, we just mentioned
21:39
Speaker 2: that Oskota is about four miles away from Osable Township
21:43
Speaker 2: and there's no way tree to walk that entire distance
21:46
Speaker 2: to the Hilltop bar. Whoever the driver of the pickup
21:49
Speaker 2: truck was, it's clear they were already in Osable Township
21:52
Speaker 2: near Sunset Street when the Matador broke down.
21:56
Speaker 3: And what's the chances that this poor girl has this
21:58
Speaker 3: car breakdown, right, She's trying to borrow a car, she's
22:01
Speaker 3: trying to get help, she's trying to get home because
22:03
Speaker 3: she got a ride to the bar. And then in
22:06
Speaker 3: this moment, it's like, how opportunistic was this criminal? Because
22:11
Speaker 3: Jimmy makes sense if he had seen her at the
22:13
Speaker 3: bar and maybe followed her or something, But is this
22:15
Speaker 3: just some completely random person that would have pulled over
22:19
Speaker 3: to quote help her while there's already people on site
22:22
Speaker 3: helping her. It seems so brazen and so bizarre as
22:27
Speaker 3: far as behavior goes like I almost think it would
22:29
Speaker 3: have to be someone who knew her that could tell
22:32
Speaker 3: the three teenage boys you don't need to be here.
22:35
Speaker 1: We rant Maura Murray all the time. But it reminds
22:39
Speaker 1: me of that in the sense of there was other
22:41
Speaker 1: people around to witness things, and who saw a vehicle
22:46
Speaker 1: and she just disappears. Sarita's gone, same with Maura, and
22:51
Speaker 1: so was it an opportunistic predator that just came upon
22:55
Speaker 1: her at that exact moment.
22:57
Speaker 2: And I guess another possibility is if someone saw a bar,
23:00
Speaker 2: maybe they decided to sabotage the radiator and thought to themselves,
23:04
Speaker 2: I'm in a follower and when the car breaks down,
23:06
Speaker 2: I'm going to pull over and give her assistance and
23:09
Speaker 2: then take advantage of the situation. And maybe they weren't
23:12
Speaker 2: planning the first time around that when she pulled over,
23:14
Speaker 2: the three boys came to help her, so she didn't
23:17
Speaker 2: need this other person's assistance, but he continued to follow
23:20
Speaker 2: her and then got lucky the second time when she
23:22
Speaker 2: climbed into his truck.
23:24
Speaker 1: But wasn't it Patricia's car?
23:26
Speaker 2: It was? Yeah, So who knows, Like, I guess, there's
23:29
Speaker 2: no way, like a person at the bar could have
23:31
Speaker 2: anticipated that she would be driving home alone. But who knows.
23:34
Speaker 2: Maybe it's a thing where he didn't really care like
23:36
Speaker 2: who it was. He just thinks, well, it's being driven
23:39
Speaker 2: by a woman, and I'm just going to sabotage it
23:41
Speaker 2: and take advantage of the situation when they drive home
23:43
Speaker 2: and just treat his bad luck it was her while
23:46
Speaker 2: Patricians stayed behind.
23:49
Speaker 1: Now, the reason Jimmy first popped up on the radar
23:52
Speaker 1: as a potential suspect was because another woman went to
23:55
Speaker 1: the police and accused him of sexually molesting her. We've
23:59
Speaker 1: been unable to find how that particular episode turned out,
24:02
Speaker 1: but I'm guessing Jimmy was never charged. The main reason
24:06
Speaker 1: investigators stopped focusing on Jimmy as a suspect for a
24:09
Speaker 1: while was because they started looking into Grant Godard, who
24:13
Speaker 1: was already a federal fugitive and wanted murderer at the time.
24:18
Speaker 1: They were compelling reasons to suspect Godard as he could
24:21
Speaker 1: be placed in the area around the time Scharita went missing.
24:24
Speaker 1: He drove a blue pickup truck which was later found
24:27
Speaker 1: stripped and abandoned, and he apparently bore a closer resemblance
24:31
Speaker 1: to the unidentified pickup truck driver than Jimmy did. In
24:35
Speaker 1: the end, the FBI ultimately eliminated Gadard as a suspect
24:39
Speaker 1: because he had an alibi, But unfortunately, there are no
24:42
Speaker 1: specific details about this alibi, only that it was apparently
24:46
Speaker 1: strong enough to rule him out. Ordinarily, I would probably
24:50
Speaker 1: have just taken their word for it and believe Godard
24:53
Speaker 1: was not involved, but the fact that this newly discovered
24:56
Speaker 1: evidence pointed towards another person besides Jimmy has made me
25:00
Speaker 1: do a double take. Could investigators have missed something about
25:04
Speaker 1: Gadard the first time around and now believe he's the
25:07
Speaker 1: most likely perpetrator. Well, there are many good reasons to
25:10
Speaker 1: withhold the name of this individual from the public, But
25:13
Speaker 1: Gadard is a convicted felon and was already named as
25:16
Speaker 1: a potential suspect in the past, So I'm inclined to
25:19
Speaker 1: believe that this person is someone whose name has never
25:22
Speaker 1: been mentioned before.
25:24
Speaker 3: Okay, so here's the thing. Remember, he's ruled out at
25:28
Speaker 3: the original investigation, where they say, oh, no, he had
25:31
Speaker 3: an alibi, But alibis change over time. So is it
25:35
Speaker 3: the fact that when you reinvestigate a cold case, often
25:38
Speaker 3: the first thing you're doing is you're lining up names
25:41
Speaker 3: that are associated with the file, and then you're going
25:43
Speaker 3: back through and reassessing these potential suspects. Did they find
25:47
Speaker 3: Godard's information. Did they reinterview people or re talk to people,
25:52
Speaker 3: or run some kind of new evidence and find out
25:55
Speaker 3: that the once verified alibi no longer holds up.
26:00
Speaker 2: That is possible because I have seen other cases where
26:03
Speaker 2: this has happened. There was once a case featured on
26:06
Speaker 2: Disappeared many years ago about the murder of a teenage
26:09
Speaker 2: girl named Kara Kopetski, and they said on the episode
26:12
Speaker 2: that even though she was having troubles with her boyfriend,
26:14
Speaker 2: he was ruled out because he had an alibi that day.
26:16
Speaker 2: But then many years later they realized, oh, we wrote
26:19
Speaker 2: down the wrong date. He did not have an alibi
26:21
Speaker 2: after all, And this boyfriend actually went on to kill
26:24
Speaker 2: another girl and wound up getting indicted for Kara's murder
26:27
Speaker 2: as well. So that is an example of a case
26:29
Speaker 2: where someone who was ruled out as a suspect because
26:32
Speaker 2: of a faulty alibi turned out to be the killer.
26:35
Speaker 2: But so that's why I think it's possible that this
26:38
Speaker 2: new person who was implicated in twenty fourteen could be Grankadard.
26:42
Speaker 2: But remember he was implicated in a burglary slash murder
26:46
Speaker 2: that took place a couple months after Treata's disappearance. So
26:50
Speaker 2: it's not one of those things where you don't want
26:52
Speaker 2: to smear an innocent person by falsely naming them as
26:55
Speaker 2: a suspect. Because this guy's already a career criminal. So
26:58
Speaker 2: I have to wonder if God was the guy that
27:01
Speaker 2: the evidence is pointing towards in this case, it does
27:04
Speaker 2: seem odd that they would not publicly name him. Of course,
27:07
Speaker 2: the other big complication in this case were the fraudulent
27:10
Speaker 2: practices of Sandra Anderson, who attempted to plant human remains
27:14
Speaker 2: at Jimmy's deer hunting camp for her cadaver sniffing dog
27:17
Speaker 2: Eagle to find, and unfortunately, for a day or two,
27:21
Speaker 2: she gave the investigators and Treeda's loved ones the false
27:24
Speaker 2: hope that her remains had finally been found. I would
27:27
Speaker 2: love to go on a lengthy rant against Sandra Anderson,
27:30
Speaker 2: but I don't want to get two sidetracked from the story. However,
27:34
Speaker 2: it should be mentioned that Anderson was discovered to have
27:36
Speaker 2: planted human bones during search efforts in a number of
27:39
Speaker 2: different cases. So I wouldn't say she did it here
27:42
Speaker 2: because she had a personal attachment to Tcharita's case and
27:45
Speaker 2: wanted to frame Jimmy Allen Nelson. Anderson just did it
27:49
Speaker 2: because she was likely a very disturbed person who loved
27:51
Speaker 2: the attention, and Charita's case just happened to be the
27:54
Speaker 2: first time she got caught in the act. But man,
27:57
Speaker 2: imagine how the things might have played out if Anderson
27:59
Speaker 2: had not been caught. If this had led to Jimmy
28:02
Speaker 2: being arrested, the investigation might have been damaged beyond all repair.
28:07
Speaker 2: Even if DNA testing came back and revealed that the
28:10
Speaker 2: bones found that the deer hunting camp did not belong
28:13
Speaker 2: to Shreeda, they still had to belong to someone. So
28:16
Speaker 2: Jimmy may had been suspected of being a serial killer
28:19
Speaker 2: who buried his victim's remains all over his property. During
28:23
Speaker 2: the Unsolved Mystery segment they produced about Anderson, they had
28:26
Speaker 2: a section devoted to a victim named Tracy Islam, who
28:29
Speaker 2: was murdered by her husband, doctor Azizel Islam. During a
28:33
Speaker 2: search of the doctor's basement, Eagle used his skills to
28:36
Speaker 2: pick up the victims scent, which gave the police probable
28:39
Speaker 2: cause to obtain a search warrant. To dig up her basement.
28:43
Speaker 2: They found traces of the victim's blood, which led to
28:45
Speaker 2: doctor Islam being arrested and convicted of his wife's murder. Well,
28:50
Speaker 2: even though Islam was definitely guilty of the crime, his
28:53
Speaker 2: defense team used the new revelations about Anderson a grounds
28:56
Speaker 2: to file an appeal and alleged that Anderson planted the
28:59
Speaker 2: blod in his basement in order to frame them. Since
29:03
Speaker 2: there was other corroborating evidence against Islam, the conviction was upheld.
29:07
Speaker 2: But this just demonstrated how every case that Anderson worked
29:10
Speaker 2: on wound up being tainted and had to be re examined.
29:14
Speaker 2: So it's a good thing they caught Anderson planting the
29:16
Speaker 2: remains at the deer hunting camp, because otherwise her actions
29:20
Speaker 2: could have tainted the investigation so badly that it rendered
29:24
Speaker 2: Treati's case unsolvable.
29:26
Speaker 3: This is insane because when you think about forensic science
29:29
Speaker 3: and you hear a lot of times the term junk
29:32
Speaker 3: science being thrown around. It's often because it's subjective, But
29:36
Speaker 3: you usually have scientists who believe in their craft and
29:39
Speaker 3: they're trying to do an actual service to the criminal
29:42
Speaker 3: justice system. They truly stand behind my ability to read
29:46
Speaker 3: a fingerprint, or to analyze blood splatter, or to look
29:49
Speaker 3: at fire burn patterns, and so they're operating in good faith.
29:55
Speaker 3: But to think of people in our justice system that
29:58
Speaker 3: would choose to act in a malicious, self serving way,
30:03
Speaker 3: like prosecutors, are police hiding evidence and knowingly doing that
30:09
Speaker 3: withholding evidence when they know it frees somebody or it
30:12
Speaker 3: clears their name. When you think about the idea that
30:15
Speaker 3: this person said, hey, they trust me. I'm responsible for
30:20
Speaker 3: helping families not only look for people, but to recover
30:24
Speaker 3: deceased remains of loved ones, right and serve the victim's family,
30:29
Speaker 3: help law enforcement, and she chose to plant evidence for
30:33
Speaker 3: her fame. There's something very, very sick for somebody like that.
30:38
Speaker 1: All that being said, it's possible that this case might
30:42
Speaker 1: be unsolvable anyway, regardless of whether or not Jimmy actually
30:46
Speaker 1: did it. The false lead involving Gregrdard may have had
30:50
Speaker 1: a negative impact on the investigation because the authorities didn't
30:54
Speaker 1: put their focus back onto Jimmy until over a decade
30:57
Speaker 1: had passed after Sharita origin and went missing. The fact
31:02
Speaker 1: that Jimmy changed his story so many times while being
31:04
Speaker 1: interviewed by law enforcement might seem pretty damning on the surface,
31:09
Speaker 1: but you cannot forget that most of these interviews took
31:12
Speaker 1: place years after the fact, when his memory was not fresh.
31:16
Speaker 1: By his own admission, he was a heavy drinker who
31:18
Speaker 1: had serious issues with substance use disorder, and during his trials,
31:23
Speaker 1: his defense team argued that these issues made it very
31:26
Speaker 1: difficult for him to accurately recall anything from two decades earlier.
31:31
Speaker 1: They maintained that Jimmy was very suggestible and that he
31:34
Speaker 1: may have admitted to doing things that he didn't actually
31:36
Speaker 1: do because other people told him that he'd done them.
31:40
Speaker 1: Whether he shared stories which were proven to be false,
31:42
Speaker 1: such as him dropping Charita off at a restaurant hours
31:46
Speaker 1: after it would have been closed, he may have genuinely
31:48
Speaker 1: thought that these events took place, when in actuality, he
31:51
Speaker 1: has no memory at all of anything that happened on
31:54
Speaker 1: August third, nineteen eighty. The defense did have a valid argument,
31:59
Speaker 1: as Investie sometimes manipulated Jimmy into saying things which weren't true.
32:04
Speaker 1: For instance, at one point, the FBI told Jimmy that
32:07
Speaker 1: his fingerprints had been found in the abandoned Matador, which
32:11
Speaker 1: caused him to doubt his own story and dream up
32:13
Speaker 1: an explanation for it, which, in actuality, his fingerprints were
32:17
Speaker 1: not found at all.
32:18
Speaker 3: Oh man, how I wish my husband could be on
32:20
Speaker 3: this podcast right now, because, like my students, when I
32:24
Speaker 3: first started talking to him about criminal cases and that
32:28
Speaker 3: I'm a criminologist and we were talking, I said, you know,
32:30
Speaker 3: one of the neatest cases that I teach is or courses,
32:34
Speaker 3: I teach his wrongful convictions. And I was talking about him,
32:37
Speaker 3: and he said, yeah, but nobody would falsely confess to
32:39
Speaker 3: something they didn't do, Like you could never make me
32:41
Speaker 3: say something right. Oh my gosh, if he could tell
32:45
Speaker 3: you now. He's terrified that if something happens to me,
32:48
Speaker 3: he'll be called into a police department, because he said,
32:51
Speaker 3: I think I would tell them anything they convinced me
32:53
Speaker 3: to say, because the tactics they use are designed to
32:58
Speaker 3: elicit a confession from a guilty person, but they don't
33:02
Speaker 3: distinguish the tactics they use when they're not one hundred
33:05
Speaker 3: percent sure the person's guilty. So when you look at
33:08
Speaker 3: things like police are legally allowed to lie to you
33:11
Speaker 3: like they did here and tell Jimmy, look, your fingerprints
33:14
Speaker 3: are there. So if you say you've never been in
33:16
Speaker 3: that car, or you've never been to that location, we
33:21
Speaker 3: have your fingerprints, we have whatever else kind of evidence there.
33:25
Speaker 3: You were there, We know you were. It does start
33:28
Speaker 3: to make you feel crazy. There's cases where fathers have
33:31
Speaker 3: admitted to sexually abusing and killing their own children. Good
33:36
Speaker 3: men who sit there in a room where you would
33:39
Speaker 3: never think that a parent would admit to something like
33:43
Speaker 3: that that they didn't do, and when they go back
33:45
Speaker 3: and investigate, it is so pitiful the experience that person
33:50
Speaker 3: was under and the dress they were under when they
33:52
Speaker 3: truly started questioning their own sanity. But also you've got
33:56
Speaker 3: to remember other people will say whatever the police are
33:58
Speaker 3: feeding them just to try to out of the physical
34:01
Speaker 3: location of the interview and the interrogation, and their hope
34:05
Speaker 3: is that I can prove myself innocent later by just
34:08
Speaker 3: getting myself.
34:09
Speaker 2: Out of this room.
34:11
Speaker 3: And both of those incidents are often tied to these
34:16
Speaker 3: these cases that are later overturned or questionable or go
34:21
Speaker 3: under the radar for years, where someone innocent is sitting
34:23
Speaker 3: in prison. So yes, yes, rebel, you would probably falsely confess,
34:28
Speaker 3: but in the right circumstances.
34:31
Speaker 2: And this is a unique variation on that because we
34:33
Speaker 2: see so many wrongful convictions that are brought upon by
34:36
Speaker 2: false confessions. And Jimmy never actually confessed, but I guess
34:40
Speaker 2: the police like interrogated him so much and told him
34:42
Speaker 2: so of many lies that he started telling conflicting stories
34:45
Speaker 2: which made everyone assume that he was lying, when in
34:48
Speaker 2: actuality he may have just been confused and had a
34:51
Speaker 2: bad memory. And the police pretty much came to the conclusion,
34:54
Speaker 2: will he's got so many conflicting stories, he has to
34:57
Speaker 2: be lying because he did it, and they actually thought
34:59
Speaker 2: that was a strong enough case to bring him to
35:01
Speaker 2: trial and get him convicted. And it's all because he
35:05
Speaker 2: was manipulated, because regardless of whether you believe he's innocent
35:08
Speaker 2: or guilty, he did tell some stories that are obviously false,
35:12
Speaker 2: like Shreida Like has claimed that when Treeda's car broke down,
35:16
Speaker 2: she walked four miles to the tavern, and he gave
35:19
Speaker 2: her a ride in his pickup truck back to her
35:21
Speaker 2: broken car, and then he drove her to a nearby
35:23
Speaker 2: restaurant for help, which are obviously stories that are not true.
35:26
Speaker 2: But maybe he's thinking in his mind, well, it's happened
35:30
Speaker 2: so long ago, maybe this is what happened on that night,
35:32
Speaker 2: and I just don't remember it properly. So he's just
35:35
Speaker 2: pretty much telling the police what they want to hear,
35:37
Speaker 2: just giving them these false stories in order to answer
35:40
Speaker 2: their questions because they're accusing him of lying.
35:43
Speaker 1: And the question becomes like both things could be true.
35:47
Speaker 1: Jimmy Allen Nelson could have a memory which is incredibly
35:51
Speaker 1: impaired by alcohol and might not have a clear memory
35:54
Speaker 1: of that night, and he also might be highly suggestible
35:57
Speaker 1: and he may not accurately be able to recall, and
36:01
Speaker 1: the officers may influence the way in which he answers questions.
36:05
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that just because he can't accurately
36:09
Speaker 1: remember that he wasn't there or wasn't responsible, Because if
36:12
Speaker 1: he can't remember what he did do what he didn't do,
36:16
Speaker 1: he can't remember what he did do either. So it's
36:19
Speaker 1: really complex when you got somebody who is asked about
36:22
Speaker 1: this so much later because they were so focused on
36:24
Speaker 1: Godard and his memory has been marred by many years
36:28
Speaker 1: of drinking.
36:29
Speaker 2: And when you.
36:30
Speaker 1: Ask anybody about a specific night that many years later,
36:34
Speaker 1: it can be really difficult to recall. And then when
36:36
Speaker 1: you add in all of these things like alcohol and
36:40
Speaker 1: Jimmy being suggestible, it gets really convoluted and confusing.
36:46
Speaker 2: We also cannot forget that in addition to the second
36:49
Speaker 2: degree murder charge, Jimmy was also charged with twenty two
36:52
Speaker 2: counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice.
36:56
Speaker 2: This adds additional confusion to the case because nine of
36:59
Speaker 2: these perjury counts were dismissed by a circuit court judge
37:02
Speaker 2: before Jimmy even went on trial. When the trial finally happened,
37:06
Speaker 2: the jury found Jimmy guilty of obstruction of justice and
37:09
Speaker 2: five of the perjury counts, but they acquitted him on
37:11
Speaker 2: the remaining eight perjury charges. Unfortunately, we're not prevated the
37:16
Speaker 2: specific details of each of these perjury counts, so I
37:19
Speaker 2: have no idea what compelled the jury to reach this verdict,
37:22
Speaker 2: but the impression seems to be that they thought the
37:24
Speaker 2: prosecution had proven Jimmy was lying about some things but
37:28
Speaker 2: not others. But how do you make the distinction between
37:31
Speaker 2: a person who's deliberately lying or simply misremembering things because
37:35
Speaker 2: of a faulty memory.
37:36
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly when you think about this. The faulty memory
37:39
Speaker 3: here is what ends up getting him in trouble is
37:42
Speaker 3: that they bring what about fifteen people forward to say
37:45
Speaker 3: they can actually like challenge his stories, and they can
37:49
Speaker 3: bring about points where he quote lied. But when you
37:53
Speaker 3: can't say he deliberately lied, or he did so with
37:56
Speaker 3: malice or to protect himself, it's very, very difficult to
38:00
Speaker 3: to untangle all that.
38:02
Speaker 1: I mean, it would be one thing if there were
38:04
Speaker 1: other corroborating evidence against Jimmy besides his conflicting statements and
38:08
Speaker 1: testimony from other eyewitnesses who claimed that he lied. But
38:12
Speaker 1: this was pretty much the crux of the entire case
38:15
Speaker 1: against him at his murder trial. When you have a
38:18
Speaker 1: hard enough time getting a conviction on most of the
38:20
Speaker 1: perjury charges against him, how do you prove beyond a
38:23
Speaker 1: reasonable doubt that he killed someone? There was no body,
38:27
Speaker 1: no physical evidence, and while there were eyewitnesses who saw
38:30
Speaker 1: Sharita climbing into a blue pickup truck with a white male,
38:34
Speaker 1: It does not sound like they were able to positively
38:36
Speaker 1: identify the guy as Jimmy, And even if Jimmy was
38:40
Speaker 1: the white male who picked up Scharita, that does not
38:42
Speaker 1: prove that he killed her. I guess There's also the
38:45
Speaker 1: matter of whether or not Sharita would have willingly climbed
38:48
Speaker 1: inside a truck with Jimmy to begin with, the first
38:51
Speaker 1: time the Matador broke down that night, the three teenagers
38:55
Speaker 1: who pulled over to help Sharita claim that she refused
38:58
Speaker 1: their offer to give her a ride, which is why
39:01
Speaker 1: they attempted to tape up the radiator instead. So if
39:04
Speaker 1: she didn't want to accept or ride with them, why
39:07
Speaker 1: did she accept a ride with the pickup truck driver.
39:10
Speaker 1: After all, she was only two blocks away from Anna
39:13
Speaker 1: Bouchard's house, so she could have just walked the rest
39:15
Speaker 1: of the way there to call for help. Since she
39:18
Speaker 1: ran into Jimmy at the Hilltop Bar earlier that day,
39:21
Speaker 1: Scharita obviously knew him personally since he was Anna's brother
39:24
Speaker 1: in law, so that might explain why she was willing
39:27
Speaker 1: to hitch a ride with him. On the other hand,
39:30
Speaker 1: Jimmy did have a reputation for being a racist. But
39:33
Speaker 1: perhaps Scharita had never seen that side of him and
39:35
Speaker 1: did not know about this at the time. But if
39:38
Speaker 1: Jimmy wanted to commit a hate crime, luring an African
39:41
Speaker 1: American woman to climb into his truck would give him
39:44
Speaker 1: a perfect opportunity.
39:46
Speaker 3: Yeah, and here's the reality. You think about what she
39:49
Speaker 3: had been through that night already, how desperately she was
39:52
Speaker 3: wanting to get home, She had been harassed, she had
39:55
Speaker 3: been made to feel uncomfortable, she was running out of
39:58
Speaker 3: time and didn't have transportation, and in her car that
40:00
Speaker 3: she borrows breaks down. Do you think that in her
40:04
Speaker 3: head it's possible that these three strangers were even though
40:08
Speaker 3: they were kind and helpful, they were strangers. And then
40:12
Speaker 3: someone pulls up, whether she quote likes them or not,
40:16
Speaker 3: that someone that she's familiar with. Could familiarity have outweighed
40:20
Speaker 3: the stranger danger in her gut and said, at least
40:23
Speaker 3: I know him. I've been through way worse. I just
40:27
Speaker 3: need a ride. Do you think that could have been
40:29
Speaker 3: the case here?
40:30
Speaker 2: I think so. Like if Jimmy had been the killer,
40:33
Speaker 2: then it would make total sense that she would hitch
40:35
Speaker 2: a ride for him, even if she didn't didn't know
40:37
Speaker 2: him that well, because she's going to see Jimmy's sister
40:41
Speaker 2: in law, annew Bouchard in order to pick up her daughter.
40:43
Speaker 2: So she's probably thinking to herselfs this guy's gonna drive
40:46
Speaker 2: me to somebody knows he's not going to harm me
40:48
Speaker 2: during that two block drive that we need to take,
40:51
Speaker 2: So she may have felt comfortable enough to climb into
40:53
Speaker 2: a truck with them. But now that it's looking like
40:56
Speaker 2: Jimmy was not the person who did this, it does
40:59
Speaker 2: make me wonder was this completely different man in a
41:01
Speaker 2: pickup truck whom she knew and felt comfortable with? And
41:05
Speaker 2: That's what I'd be curious to know. Was there anyone
41:07
Speaker 2: else in Treeda's personal life that she knew back then
41:09
Speaker 2: who drove a truck matching that description, And maybe, as possible,
41:13
Speaker 2: there was, But because they were so focused on Jimmy
41:16
Speaker 2: and so focused on Granca Dard, this other suspect just
41:19
Speaker 2: slipped through their fingers until twenty fourteen. So once again,
41:24
Speaker 2: on the surface, all signs would seem to point to
41:26
Speaker 2: Jimmy being the most likely perpetrator, Yet they apparently found
41:30
Speaker 2: new evidence pointing to someone else. So who could this
41:33
Speaker 2: person be well. During the original investigation, police apparently looked
41:38
Speaker 2: into a sex offender living in the area who also
41:40
Speaker 2: drove a blue pickup truck, but there's no further information
41:43
Speaker 2: available about him. It is possible that Treeda was simply
41:46
Speaker 2: in the wrong place at the wrong time and accepted
41:49
Speaker 2: awride from a random predator. Also, one of the eyewitnesses
41:53
Speaker 2: thought they might have seen an additional person inside the
41:56
Speaker 2: truck when Tchareda was picked up, so I guess it's
41:58
Speaker 2: possible that two people might have been involved. I'm sure
42:02
Speaker 2: the authorities have their reasons for keeping the identity of
42:05
Speaker 2: the alternate suspect and the evidence against them sealed, but
42:08
Speaker 2: the murder charge against Jimmy was officially dismissed in twenty fourteen,
42:12
Speaker 2: and as far as I can tell, there hasn't been
42:15
Speaker 2: any movement on this case at all during the past
42:17
Speaker 2: twelve years. Unless some additional information comes out about the
42:21
Speaker 2: alternate suspect, this case might be destined to remain an
42:24
Speaker 2: unsolved mystery. It's possible the suspect might already be dead
42:28
Speaker 2: by now or incarcerated for another crime, but the evidence
42:31
Speaker 2: against them isn't strong enough to publicly reveal their name.
42:35
Speaker 2: Whatever the case, it's a major tragedy because not only
42:38
Speaker 2: have Treedah's family not received any justice, but they have
42:41
Speaker 2: still never recovered her body. So if you happen to
42:44
Speaker 2: have any information on the unsolved disappearance of Tree to Thomas,
42:48
Speaker 2: please contact the appropriate authorities. Jules Ashley any final thoughts
42:53
Speaker 2: in this case.
42:55
Speaker 3: This one breaks my heart because we know very little
42:58
Speaker 3: about the life of We know that she was a
43:02
Speaker 3: mom and that her daughter was a huge priority for her.
43:07
Speaker 3: We also know that she was engaged and she was
43:10
Speaker 3: making big plans for a future. She was excited about
43:12
Speaker 3: her future, and that she was loved. People cared about her,
43:15
Speaker 3: people found her to be just a good human being.
43:18
Speaker 3: And it's a typical night for somebody. I can't imagine
43:22
Speaker 3: being in a situation where you're out with a friend,
43:26
Speaker 3: you get it your you find yourself where you're very
43:28
Speaker 3: uncomfortable and you're being mistreated because of just who you are.
43:34
Speaker 3: And she literally feels this fear that she needs to leave.
43:37
Speaker 3: I need to get home. I'm running out of time.
43:40
Speaker 3: I got to get home to my fiance. I need
43:42
Speaker 3: to go pick up my child. So you have this
43:45
Speaker 3: woman who's trying to make good decisions and plan the
43:47
Speaker 3: rest of her life, and really because of a feeling
43:51
Speaker 3: of discomfort and a need to leave the scene where
43:54
Speaker 3: she's been made to feel like she doesn't belong and
43:56
Speaker 3: the reality that she simply cannot continue to be hanging
44:00
Speaker 3: out the rest of the evening. She makes really smart decisions.
44:03
Speaker 3: She says, let me borrow your car, let me get
44:06
Speaker 3: myself home, let me get back to my family, and
44:10
Speaker 3: just the pure lack of luck that evening where she
44:15
Speaker 3: breaks down. She's going to need to rely on people
44:19
Speaker 3: to help her because they don't have cell phones. She
44:22
Speaker 3: has these three kids that stop and help her, and
44:24
Speaker 3: they seem like they have the best of intentions, and
44:26
Speaker 3: yet someone else seemed like a better choice that night,
44:30
Speaker 3: and we don't know who that is. It seems like
44:32
Speaker 3: law enforcement does. I so very wish that they would
44:35
Speaker 3: release some information and let the public know what else
44:39
Speaker 3: they need to further pursue this case, because it sounds
44:42
Speaker 3: like there is a chance for some kind of resolution,
44:45
Speaker 3: even though justice might have eluded the family.
44:48
Speaker 1: I think Ashley, you summed up everything about Jarita and
44:52
Speaker 1: her life and how tragic this is and how she
44:55
Speaker 1: was loved and people will miss her, and just it
44:58
Speaker 1: felt really visceral the description of that night, just how
45:03
Speaker 1: all of these patrons at this bar seem to be
45:05
Speaker 1: targeting their attention on Sharrita, and how unsafe and uncomfortable
45:11
Speaker 1: that must have felt, enough so that when they returned,
45:14
Speaker 1: she left. And I do think that this is a
45:17
Speaker 1: case where Jimmy Allen Nelson looks like the perfect suspect.
45:20
Speaker 1: He's got the blue pickup truck, he's known to be racist,
45:23
Speaker 1: he was at the tavern that night, so on paper,
45:26
Speaker 1: everything looks great. And then you've got somebody who seems
45:29
Speaker 1: to have an alcohol use disorder substance use disorder, and
45:34
Speaker 1: his memory isn't great, but he's also really suggestible, So
45:38
Speaker 1: it's really difficult. But I think it's one of those
45:41
Speaker 1: things where you've got the prosecutor, Nicol Palumbo, who basically
45:47
Speaker 1: is the one who initiates this whole process to get
45:50
Speaker 1: Jimmy Allen Nelson freed. For the prosecutor to initiate that
45:54
Speaker 1: it takes something big. So in my gut, I believe
45:57
Speaker 1: that somebody else is responsible, and the Jimmy Allen Nelson
46:00
Speaker 1: was just a really great suspect. But I don't think
46:03
Speaker 1: initially they had enough to convict him of murder, but
46:07
Speaker 1: I think in lieu of there being any other alternate
46:10
Speaker 1: suspects presented, it was just sort of the best option.
46:15
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is such a weird case, and we've talked
46:18
Speaker 2: a lot about that incident where Treta felt uncomfortable in
46:20
Speaker 2: the tavern, and we still don't know if that had
46:23
Speaker 2: any relation to what ultimately happened to her, because it
46:26
Speaker 2: was several hours before she went missing, so it's possible
46:29
Speaker 2: it's just a red herring, but who knows. Maybe the
46:32
Speaker 2: person who ultimately killed her was in the bar for
46:36
Speaker 2: that incident and just didn't like this black woman being
46:39
Speaker 2: in their establishment, and then when she returned later on,
46:42
Speaker 2: decided to follow her, and just by her bad luck,
46:44
Speaker 2: her truck broke down, so they took advantage of the
46:47
Speaker 2: situation in order to abduct her and murder her. And
46:51
Speaker 2: even though I've seen so many cases like this where
46:53
Speaker 2: it seems like police have developed tunnel vision and they
46:56
Speaker 2: put all their eggs in one basket and focused on
46:58
Speaker 2: the wrong suspect, this is one where I can't really
47:01
Speaker 2: blame them at first, because we talked about all the
47:03
Speaker 2: things that made Jimmy Allen Nelson look like a compelling suspect,
47:07
Speaker 2: his ever changing stories, the fact that he bleu drove
47:09
Speaker 2: a blue pickup truck, and the fact that he was
47:13
Speaker 2: known for being racist and got angry once because Treta,
47:17
Speaker 2: a person of color, set foot inside his sister in
47:20
Speaker 2: lost house, which he did not like, So he could
47:22
Speaker 2: have targeted for no other reason besides the color of
47:25
Speaker 2: her skin. Yet it was just a huge, completely out
47:29
Speaker 2: of the blue twist when the police just decided, when
47:32
Speaker 2: the prosecutor just decided to drop the charges against him
47:35
Speaker 2: and say, we have evidence pointing towards another suspect. So yeah,
47:39
Speaker 2: I don't blame the police for focusing on Jimmy for
47:42
Speaker 2: so long. But we could also debate about how they
47:45
Speaker 2: probably never should have took him to trial in the
47:47
Speaker 2: first place with the evidence they had, because all they
47:50
Speaker 2: really had was just Jimmy's ever changing stories, which may
47:53
Speaker 2: just be the result of his drinking issues and his
47:56
Speaker 2: memory issues, and just because he might be a bad person. Sure,
48:00
Speaker 2: these allegations about him being a racist probably are true,
48:03
Speaker 2: but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a murderer, and
48:06
Speaker 2: at the very least he was a free man when
48:09
Speaker 2: he passed away in twenty twenty two, but I'm sure
48:13
Speaker 2: it must have been difficult all these years living with
48:15
Speaker 2: a cloud of suspicion over him. And like we've said
48:18
Speaker 2: many times already, now that Jimmy is dead and it's
48:21
Speaker 2: been twelve years since the charges against him were dismissed
48:24
Speaker 2: and there have been no developments in the investigation at
48:26
Speaker 2: all since then, I would really like to hear more
48:29
Speaker 2: details about this alternate suspect and what compelling evidence there
48:33
Speaker 2: is to suggest that he was the real perpetrator, because
48:36
Speaker 2: it was obviously compelling enough to let another suspect go,
48:40
Speaker 2: but not compelling enough to charge someone else with the crime.
48:43
Speaker 2: And that's why it remains unsolved, and sadly, treat is
48:47
Speaker 2: still missing and her family doesn't have answers about what
48:49
Speaker 2: happened to her, and until they get that one big
48:52
Speaker 2: break in this case, unfortunately, this case is destined to
48:55
Speaker 2: remain unsolved.
48:59
Speaker 1: Robin, do you want to tell us a little bit
49:00
Speaker 1: about the Trail Went Cold Patreon?
49:03
Speaker 2: Yes, the Trail Cold Patreon has been around for three
49:05
Speaker 2: years now, and we offer these standard bonus features like
49:09
Speaker 2: early ad free episodes, and I also send out stickers
49:12
Speaker 2: and sign thank you cards to anyone who signs up
49:15
Speaker 2: with us on Patreon if you join our five dollars
49:18
Speaker 2: tier Tier two. We also offer monthly bonus episodes in
49:22
Speaker 2: which I talk about cases which are not featured on
49:25
Speaker 2: The Trail Went Cold's original feed, so they're exclusive to Patreon,
49:29
Speaker 2: and if you join our highest tier tier free the
49:31
Speaker 2: ten dollars tier. One of the features we offer is
49:34
Speaker 2: a audio commentary track over classic episodes of UNSAWD Mysteries,
49:39
Speaker 2: where you can download an audio file and then boot
49:42
Speaker 2: up the original Unsolved Mysteries episode on Amazon Prime or
49:45
Speaker 2: YouTube and play it with my audio commentary playing in
49:48
Speaker 2: the background, where I just provide trivia and factoids about
49:52
Speaker 2: the cases featured in this episode. And incidentally, the very
49:55
Speaker 2: first episode that I did a commentary track over was
49:58
Speaker 2: the episode featuring this case. So if you want to
50:01
Speaker 2: download a commentary track in which I make more smart
50:03
Speaker 2: ass remarks about Jewel Kaylor, then be sure to join
50:07
Speaker 2: Tier three.
50:07
Speaker 4: So I want to let you know a little bit
50:09
Speaker 4: about the Jewles and n Ashy Patreons. So there's early ad
50:12
Speaker 4: free episodes of The Path Went Chili. We've got our
50:15
Speaker 4: Pathwent chili mini's, which are always over an hour, so
50:18
Speaker 4: they're not very mini, but they're just too short to
50:20
Speaker 4: turn into a series, and we're really enjoying doing those,
50:23
Speaker 4: so we hope you'll check out those patreons.
50:25
Speaker 1: We'll link them in the show notes.
50:27
Speaker 2: So I want to thank you all for listening, and
50:29
Speaker 2: any chance you have to share us on social media
50:32
Speaker 2: with a friend or to rate and review is greatly appreciated.
50:35
Speaker 2: You can email us at the Pathwentchili at gmail dot com.
50:38
Speaker 2: You can reach us on Twitter at the Pathwin. So
50:41
Speaker 2: until next time, be sure to bundle up because cold
50:44
Speaker 2: trails and chili pass call for warm clothing.
50:46
Speaker 1: Music by Paul Rich from the podcast Cold Callers Comedy