Latest / Kat Has Questions: True Crime and Unsolved Mysteries / Illinois Unsolved: The Murder of Holly Cassano | How DNA Solved a 10-Year Illinois Cold Case

Transcript

Illinois Unsolved: The Murder of Holly Cassano | How DNA Solved a 10-Year Illinois Cold Case · Kat Has Questions: True Crime and Unsolved Mysteries

0:07
Speaker 1: Welcome to Cat Has Questions, curiosity, stories, and the strange
0:12
Speaker 1: corners of everyday life. Hello, hello, I'm Cat. Guys, with
0:19
Speaker 1: my Illinois Unsolved episodes, I've started getting the actual court documents,
0:24
Speaker 1: FOIAing departments and reading them like I'm a lawyer or something.
0:29
Speaker 1: I feel like I'm actually like an investigative journalist. What,
0:32
Speaker 1: like it's hard? No, but in all seriousness, Google and
0:36
Speaker 1: AI are a great way to decipher complicated language. And
0:41
Speaker 1: as Michael Scott says, explain that to me like I'm five.
0:45
Speaker 1: But shout out to Sarah from the Champaign County Clerk's
0:47
Speaker 1: Office because she was super nice about helping me get
0:50
Speaker 1: these documents together for today's case. And I've got a
0:54
Speaker 1: really interesting one that is solved, but it's been after
0:57
Speaker 1: a long time coming. So share it with your brother
1:00
Speaker 1: in the Midwest and let's get into it. On August 28th, 2018,
1:07
Speaker 1: investigator Dwayne Rolfs sat across from Michael Henslick inside an
1:12
Speaker 1: interview room at the Champaign County Sheriff's Office. The questioning
1:16
Speaker 1: had lasted roughly five hours. For most of it, Henslick
1:20
Speaker 1: denied killing Holly Cassano. Investigators already knew his DNA matched
1:25
Speaker 1: the male blood and semen recovered from Holly's body and
1:28
Speaker 1: home nearly nine years earlier. They had followed him, collected
1:33
Speaker 1: cigarette butts, and submitted them to the Illinois State Police
1:36
Speaker 1: Crime Laboratory. The results had finally placed a name beside
1:41
Speaker 1: the unknown profile. But Henslick continued to deny it. Then
1:46
Speaker 1: Rolfs slammed a binder onto the table. He reminded Henslick
1:49
Speaker 1: that Holly's daughter had been only 17 months old when
1:52
Speaker 1: her mother was killed. She was now 10. Rolfs told
1:56
Speaker 1: him he was tired of listening to his excuses and
1:58
Speaker 1: asked him again. Had he killed Holly? This time, Henslick
2:03
Speaker 1: said he was sorry. Then he admitted that he had.
2:07
Speaker 1: Rolfs asked how. Henslick answered, I stabbed her. When Rolfs
2:12
Speaker 1: asked where, Henslick said, all over her torso. For nearly
2:17
Speaker 1: nine years, investigators had possessed evidence belonging to the man
2:20
Speaker 1: sitting across from them. His blood, his semen, a DNA
2:25
Speaker 1: profile strong enough to eliminate more than 150 other men.
2:29
Speaker 1: What they had not possessed was his name. To understand
2:34
Speaker 1: why it took until 2018 to identify him, we have
2:37
Speaker 1: to return to the morning of November 2, 2009. This
2:42
Speaker 1: is the murder of Holly Cassano. At approximately 10.38 a.m.
2:47
Speaker 1: on November 2, 2009, the Champaign County Sheriff's Office received
2:51
Speaker 1: a call from Candlewood Estates, a mobile home community on
2:55
Speaker 1: the northeast side of Mahomet, Illinois. The original dispatch described
3:00
Speaker 1: a 22-year-old woman who was unconscious and not breathing. Then
3:04
Speaker 1: the information changed. The caller believed her daughter was dead,
3:08
Speaker 1: and there was blood everywhere. Deputy Boleski arrived at 298
3:14
Speaker 1: DuPage at approximately 10.49 a.m. Holly's mother, Toni Cassano, was
3:21
Speaker 1: sitting on the front step, speaking on the telephone. When
3:25
Speaker 1: the deputy asked where her daughter was, Toni directed him
3:28
Speaker 1: toward the bedroom at the rear of the home. The
3:31
Speaker 1: front door stood open behind a closed screen door. Boleszczyk
3:35
Speaker 1: entered and immediately saw blood near the doorway. There was
3:39
Speaker 1: more blood on the floor in a trail extending through
3:41
Speaker 1: the narrow mobile home toward the back bedroom. He followed it.
3:45
Speaker 1: Holly Cassano was lying face up on the floor beside
3:48
Speaker 1: her bed. There was a large amount of blood in
3:51
Speaker 1: the room and on her body. Her top had been
3:54
Speaker 1: pushed up, exposing her chest. Her underwear had been damaged
3:58
Speaker 1: and pulled down over her thigh. The deputy requested investigators
4:02
Speaker 1: and asked his supervisor to expedite to the scene. Two
4:06
Speaker 1: paramedics entered long enough to attach monitor leads and confirm
4:09
Speaker 1: that Holly had no signs of life. Then everyone else left.
4:13
Speaker 1: At 22 years old, Holly Cassano had been murdered inside
4:17
Speaker 1: her own home. Investigators would document between 55 and 60
4:22
Speaker 1: stab wounds. Some had pierced her heart, lungs, liver, and
4:27
Speaker 1: one kidney. Cuts to her right arm, hand, and fingers
4:31
Speaker 1: showed that she had raised them toward the knife and
4:33
Speaker 1: tried to protect herself. Dr. Scott Denton estimated that Holly
4:37
Speaker 1: remained alive for approximately three to seven minutes after receiving
4:42
Speaker 1: the fatal wounds. The violence was concentrated in and around
4:46
Speaker 1: her bedroom. Apparent knife marks penetrated the blanket on the bed.
4:51
Speaker 1: Other cuts passed through Holly's clothing. The evidence suggested that
4:55
Speaker 1: portions of the attack occurred while she was on the
4:58
Speaker 1: bed and continued after she reached the floor beside it.
5:03
Speaker 1: The person responsible had also been injured. Investigators recovered blood
5:07
Speaker 1: belonging to an unknown man, and it appeared on Holly's
5:10
Speaker 1: body and in multiple locations in the residence. They also
5:15
Speaker 1: recovered semen from Holly. Laboratory testing showed that the semen
5:19
Speaker 1: and the male blood came from the same person. Before
5:22
Speaker 1: detectives knew anything about the man's identity, they knew that
5:26
Speaker 1: he had been inside Holly's bedroom, had intimate physical contact
5:29
Speaker 1: with her, and had bled during the attack. His biological
5:33
Speaker 1: evidence tied him directly to both Holly and and the
5:36
Speaker 1: violence inside the home. Investigators developed a complete male DNA
5:40
Speaker 1: profile and entered it into CODIS, the law enforcement database
5:43
Speaker 1: used to compare crime scene evidence with profiles that are
5:47
Speaker 1: already collected from qualifying offenders. There was no match for
5:51
Speaker 1: this specific DNA sample. So detectives began collecting comparison samples themselves.
5:57
Speaker 1: They tested Holly's former partner, co-workers, acquaintances, men connected to
6:02
Speaker 1: Candlewood Estates. Anyone whose relationship with Holly and proximity to
6:06
Speaker 1: the scene required investigation. More than 150 men would eventually
6:12
Speaker 1: provide DNA, and not one of them matched. The crime
6:16
Speaker 1: scene had given investigators the kind of evidence that often
6:19
Speaker 1: solves a homicide quickly, forensic evidence. But the database could
6:23
Speaker 1: not identify its owner. The fingerprints recovered from a window
6:27
Speaker 1: did not identify him. No witness placed him at Holly's house,
6:31
Speaker 1: and none of the men identified Investigators initially found through
6:34
Speaker 1: Holly's relationships or neighborhood matched that biological evidence. For nine years,
6:40
Speaker 1: the case would remain trapped between two facts. Investigators knew
6:44
Speaker 1: the killer had left his blood and semen behind. They
6:47
Speaker 1: simply did not know who he was. Before her name
6:51
Speaker 1: appeared in police reports and court opinions, Holly Marie Cassano
6:56
Speaker 1: was a young mother living in the community where she
6:58
Speaker 1: had grown up. Holly was born October 28, 1987, and
7:03
Speaker 1: graduated from Muhammad Seymour High School in 2006. By November 2009,
7:09
Speaker 1: she was 22 years old and raising her 17-month-old daughter, Alexis.
7:14
Speaker 1: Holly lived at 298 DuPage in Candlewood Estates. She worked
7:19
Speaker 1: part-time as a checkout cashier at the Meijer store in Champaign,
7:22
Speaker 1: approximately nine miles east of her home. Her family described
7:26
Speaker 1: her as outgoing, funny, and and deeply devoted to her daughter.
7:31
Speaker 1: Holly's aunt, Lisa Nakashian, later said Holly would do anything
7:36
Speaker 1: to help anybody and made people feel as though they
7:39
Speaker 1: were her closest friend. A quote from her, she had
7:42
Speaker 1: a full life ahead of her, and it was stolen
7:44
Speaker 1: from her. It was stolen from her daughter. It was
7:47
Speaker 1: stolen from all of us. Holly had just celebrated her
7:50
Speaker 1: 22nd birthday on October 28th, only four days before her
7:54
Speaker 1: mother found her. Halloween came three days later, and had
7:59
Speaker 1: reportedly been her favorite holiday. Then came November 2nd, the
8:04
Speaker 1: date Tony would later refer to as Holly's death day.
8:08
Speaker 1: For her family, those dates would remain permanently grouped together.
8:12
Speaker 1: Holly's birthday, her favorite holiday, Halloween, and the day she
8:16
Speaker 1: was found murdered, all within less than a week. At
8:20
Speaker 1: the time, Holly was separated from Alexis' father. The two
8:24
Speaker 1: had been together for several years, and it was an
8:27
Speaker 1: on-and-off relationship, as many are, They had once planned to
8:30
Speaker 1: marry and had recently become involved in disputes concerning communication, visitation,
8:35
Speaker 1: and support for their daughter. A court hearing was scheduled
8:39
Speaker 1: for November 5th, three days after Holly was found. That
8:44
Speaker 1: history would make her former partner one of the first
8:46
Speaker 1: people investigators examined closely. But the relationship did not define
8:51
Speaker 1: every part of Holly's life, and it would be misleading
8:54
Speaker 1: to reconstruct her entirely through the conflict preserved in police reports.
8:58
Speaker 1: Most of Holly's time was occupied by the responsibilities of
9:01
Speaker 1: raising a toddler, working, and relying on family for childcare
9:05
Speaker 1: when her shifts extended late into the evening. On Sunday,
9:09
Speaker 1: November 1st, Alexis was staying with Tony and Holly's family
9:13
Speaker 1: while Holly worked. That arrangement was not unusual. Holly was
9:18
Speaker 1: scheduled at Meijer from approximately 1.45 in the afternoon until 10.15
9:21
Speaker 1: that night. After clocking out, she remained inside the store
9:25
Speaker 1: for roughly another half hour speaking with co-workers. She was
9:30
Speaker 1: seen leaving at approximately 10.45 p.m. One co-worker later reported
9:35
Speaker 1: seeing Holly's vehicle traveling west on Interstate 74 toward Muhammad.
9:41
Speaker 1: The drive from the store to Candlewood Estates would normally
9:43
Speaker 1: have taken only a matter of minutes. At 11.16 p.m.,
9:48
Speaker 1: Holly's phone was still active. Her final documented communication was
9:53
Speaker 1: a text message sent to a male co-worker. The released
9:56
Speaker 1: records do not disclose what Holly wrote. They establish only
10:00
Speaker 1: the time. The recipient and the message became part of
10:04
Speaker 1: the investigation. Detectives interviewed the co-worker and obtained his DNA.
10:10
Speaker 1: It did not match the unknown male profile recovered from
10:13
Speaker 1: Holly's home. After 11.16, the timeline goes quiet. No witness
10:20
Speaker 1: definitively reported seeing the person who entered Holly's home. No
10:24
Speaker 1: neighbor called the police after hearing a disturbance. No surveillance
10:27
Speaker 1: footage captured the arrival or departure of an unidentifiable suspect.
10:33
Speaker 1: The next fixed event came the following morning. Holly had
10:36
Speaker 1: told Tony she would be at her mother's house by
10:38
Speaker 1: 9 a.m. Alexis had spent the night there, and Holly
10:41
Speaker 1: was expected to pick her up. Nine o'clock passes. Holly
10:45
Speaker 1: didn't arrive. She didn't answer her phone or respond to
10:48
Speaker 1: any messages. Eventually, Toni drove to 298 DuPage herself. The
10:54
Speaker 1: mobile home sat roughly in the center of a development
10:57
Speaker 1: containing more than 600 lots. It was not isolated from
11:01
Speaker 1: every neighbor, but it was also not a place where
11:04
Speaker 1: every late-night visitor would necessarily attract attention. When Toni reached
11:10
Speaker 1: the home, she found the front door unlatched. She went
11:14
Speaker 1: inside and discovered her daughter in her bedroom. The investigators
11:18
Speaker 1: who arrived afterward would begin reducing Holly's final hours to
11:22
Speaker 1: a timeline. Finishing work at 10.15, leaving Meyer at 10.45,
11:28
Speaker 1: traveling west toward Muhammad, and her phone sending a message
11:32
Speaker 1: at 11.16 p.m. Then she was expected to be at
11:36
Speaker 1: Tony's by 9 the following morning. Between those final two points,
11:41
Speaker 1: someone entered 298 DuPage and killed her. The timing gave
11:45
Speaker 1: detectives a window. The evidence inside gave them a DNA profile.
11:51
Speaker 1: What neither provided was an immediate explanation for why the
11:54
Speaker 1: killer had gone there or how he had entered. Once
11:58
Speaker 1: Deputy Bileszczyk confirmed that Holly was dead, the home was
12:01
Speaker 1: secured as a homicide scene. Lieutenant Ogle entered at approximately 11.10 a.m.,
12:07
Speaker 1: and Lieutenant Jones followed one minute later. A little before noon,
12:13
Speaker 1: an Illinois State Police crime scene technician arrived and assumed
12:15
Speaker 1: control of processing the residence. The mobile home was narrow,
12:20
Speaker 1: making the path between the rear bedroom and the front
12:23
Speaker 1: entrance easy to trace. Blood was visible near the doorway
12:27
Speaker 1: where the first deputy entered. More appeared along the floor
12:31
Speaker 1: leading to the bedroom. Initially, the trail could have suggested
12:35
Speaker 1: that Holly had tried to move through the residence after
12:37
Speaker 1: being wounded. Later analysis pointed toward a different explanation. The
12:42
Speaker 1: offender had been injured in the bedroom and moved toward
12:45
Speaker 1: the front of the home while bleeding. Some of Holly's
12:49
Speaker 1: blood found outside the bedroom appeared to have been transferred
12:52
Speaker 1: as the attacker moved through the residence. The trail was
12:56
Speaker 1: not evidence of Holly reaching the door. It documented the
12:59
Speaker 1: killer leaving her behind. Inside the bedroom, investigators found evidence
13:04
Speaker 1: that the attack had occurred in more than one position.
13:07
Speaker 1: Holly was on the floor beside the bed. but apparent
13:10
Speaker 1: stab marks penetrated the green blanket on the mattress. There
13:14
Speaker 1: were also cuts through portions of the clothing she had
13:16
Speaker 1: been wearing. Taken together, the scene suggested that Holly was
13:20
Speaker 1: attacked while she was on or near the bed and
13:23
Speaker 1: that the violence continued on the floor. The autopsy showed
13:26
Speaker 1: the extent of that violence. Dr. Scott Denton counted between
13:31
Speaker 1: 55 and 60 stab wounds. Holly had been stabbed in
13:35
Speaker 1: the chest and back, with most of the wounds concentrated
13:38
Speaker 1: across her back. several penetrated vital organs including her heart, lungs, liver,
13:43
Speaker 1: and one kidney. Other wounds struck her arms, hands, and face.
13:49
Speaker 1: The cuts to Holly's right arm, hand, and fingers were defensive.
13:53
Speaker 1: Denton concluded that she had raised them toward the weapon
13:56
Speaker 1: and tried to block the knife. These injuries unfortunately showed
14:00
Speaker 1: that Holly was conscious during at least part of the
14:02
Speaker 1: attack and physically resisted the person killing her. That struggle
14:07
Speaker 1: may also explain how the offender was injured. Oftentimes during
14:11
Speaker 1: a repeated stabbing, an attacker's hand can actually slide onto
14:14
Speaker 1: the blade because their hand gets slippery. I mean, I
14:17
Speaker 1: know that's disgusting. A victim can grab and strike at
14:20
Speaker 1: the weapon, and the exact moment the injury occurred could
14:23
Speaker 1: not be reconstructed, though. But the male blood established that
14:27
Speaker 1: Holly was not the only person who bled. And investigators
14:31
Speaker 1: recovered the unknown man's blood on Holly and elsewhere inside
14:34
Speaker 1: the home. The same man's DNA was present in semen,
14:38
Speaker 1: recovered from her body as well. So they matched the
14:42
Speaker 1: profile to a single person, the sexual evidence as well
14:45
Speaker 1: as the blood deposited during the attack. And Holly's clothing
14:49
Speaker 1: was also significant. Her top had been pushed up above
14:53
Speaker 1: her chest, her underwear had a severed strap, and had
14:56
Speaker 1: been pulled down over her left thigh. Denton testified that
15:00
Speaker 1: the displaced and damaged clothing was suggestive of a sexual
15:03
Speaker 1: assault based on his experience as a forensic pathologist. At
15:07
Speaker 1: this stage, though, investigators could establish sexual contact, but could
15:11
Speaker 1: not rely on the biological evidence alone to reconstruct everything
15:15
Speaker 1: that preceded it. They did not know whether Holly had
15:18
Speaker 1: willingly allowed the man into her home. They didn't know
15:21
Speaker 1: what was said before the attack. And they didn't know
15:24
Speaker 1: whether the knife had been brought to 298 DuPage or
15:27
Speaker 1: taken from somewhere inside it. The possible points of entry
15:31
Speaker 1: did not resolve those questions. A screen had been removed
15:34
Speaker 1: from a window on the north side of the mobile home.
15:37
Speaker 1: Investigators recovered fingerprints from the glass and submitted them for comparison,
15:42
Speaker 1: but no identification was produced from that either. More importantly,
15:46
Speaker 1: the window itself was locked when crime scene personnel examined it.
15:51
Speaker 1: So the removed screen could have been related to the crime,
15:54
Speaker 1: like an unsuccessful entry attempt or something completely unrelated. It
15:58
Speaker 1: did not establish that the killer had climbed through the window.
16:02
Speaker 1: The front door also showed no documented signs of forced entry.
16:06
Speaker 1: and was unlatched when Tony arrived. So that left several possibilities.
16:12
Speaker 1: Holly may have opened the door to someone she recognized,
16:14
Speaker 1: the door may already have been unlocked, or the killer
16:17
Speaker 1: may have entered by a method this scene did not
16:19
Speaker 1: clearly preserve. So investigators could not choose among those based
16:24
Speaker 1: on the door and the window alone. What the scene
16:27
Speaker 1: did establish was far more concrete. That the offender was male,
16:32
Speaker 1: he was physically close to Holly, and he was injured
16:34
Speaker 1: during the crime. He left blood as he traveled from
16:38
Speaker 1: the bedroom toward the front entrance. The DNA from the
16:41
Speaker 1: blood matched the semen. The profile was not partial and
16:46
Speaker 1: not too degraded to use. It was strong enough to
16:49
Speaker 1: compare against known individuals and to enter into CODIS. That
16:54
Speaker 1: should have provided investigators with an enormous advantage. But only
16:58
Speaker 1: if the man's DNA was already in the system, and
17:01
Speaker 1: it wasn't. The fingerprints from the window led to nowhere.
17:06
Speaker 1: CODIS led nowhere. So then detectives turned toward the people
17:10
Speaker 1: they could find. They began with the person whose history
17:13
Speaker 1: with Holly created the most obvious reason for immediate scrutiny,
17:17
Speaker 1: the father of her daughter. He had recently been released
17:20
Speaker 1: from jail. He had continued trying to contact Holly. The
17:25
Speaker 1: two had a court hearing scheduled three days after her death,
17:29
Speaker 1: and when investigators picked him up for questioning, he understood
17:31
Speaker 1: immediately what everyone would think. Before detectives accused him of anything,
17:36
Speaker 1: he told them, quote, I know who it is. What
17:40
Speaker 1: he meant was not that he knew who had killed Holly.
17:43
Speaker 1: He believed everyone would think it was him, that the
17:46
Speaker 1: evidence would eventually show that it was not. The father
17:50
Speaker 1: of Holly's daughter was interviewed within hours of her body
17:53
Speaker 1: being discovered. His name is redacted in the sheriff's records
17:56
Speaker 1: released through FOIA, so I'm going to preserve that redaction.
18:00
Speaker 1: He was investigated extensively and but the biological evidence ultimately
18:04
Speaker 1: excluded him. At the beginning of the case, however, detectives
18:09
Speaker 1: had several reasons to examine him closely. He and Holly
18:13
Speaker 1: had been together for approximately four and a half years.
18:16
Speaker 1: They had become engaged and at one point planned to
18:19
Speaker 1: marry in May of 2010. Their daughter Alexis had been
18:23
Speaker 1: born during that relationship. But in June 2009, Holly ended
18:28
Speaker 1: the relationship and returned to Muhammad with their daughter. The
18:32
Speaker 1: separation had not been peaceful. There had been disputes over
18:35
Speaker 1: communication and access to Alexis, police had become involved, and
18:40
Speaker 1: there had been legal proceedings concerning an order of protection.
18:44
Speaker 1: A court hearing addressing child support and visitation was scheduled
18:47
Speaker 1: for November 5th, three days after Hawley was found. He
18:52
Speaker 1: also recently had been released from jail on an unrelated
18:55
Speaker 1: matter and had continued attempting to contact Hawley. Those facts
18:59
Speaker 1: did not prove he had harmed her, but it made
19:02
Speaker 1: people very suspicious. They made him the most immediate person
19:08
Speaker 1: investigators needed to account for. At approximately 12.50 p.m. on
19:13
Speaker 1: November 2nd, investigators David Sherrick and Dwayne Rolfs began transporting
19:17
Speaker 1: him to the Champaign County Sheriff's Office. During the drive,
19:21
Speaker 1: he told them Holly did not associate with what he
19:23
Speaker 1: called a, quote, bad crowd. He described her as private,
19:28
Speaker 1: and said she often ignored or ended calls when she
19:30
Speaker 1: did not want to speak with him. He understood how
19:33
Speaker 1: the breakup, the disputes over Alexis, and the approaching court
19:37
Speaker 1: hearing would look to investigators. At approximately 1.20 p.m., Sherrick
19:43
Speaker 1: advised him of his Miranda rights and began a recorded
19:45
Speaker 1: interview that lasted more than two hours. He had told
19:49
Speaker 1: investigators that he met Holly when she was 17 and
19:51
Speaker 1: he was 19. He lived across the street from her
19:54
Speaker 1: family in Candlewood Estates and first began speaking to her
19:58
Speaker 1: after seeing her return home from school on the school bus.
20:01
Speaker 1: They started dating soon after that. According to him, Holly's
20:07
Speaker 1: decision to leave in June 2009 felt sudden. She returned
20:12
Speaker 1: home from work, told him the relationship was over, and
20:16
Speaker 1: then she moved back to Muhammad with Alexis. He admitted
20:19
Speaker 1: he did not want the separation. He continued calling and
20:22
Speaker 1: texting Holly, hoping they might reconcile or that he could
20:25
Speaker 1: arrange time with their daughter. Holly increasingly directed him toward
20:30
Speaker 1: the court system instead. Investigators asked whether he had ever
20:33
Speaker 1: physically harmed her, and he initially said no. He then
20:37
Speaker 1: acknowledged one incident in which he backhanded a Holly during
20:41
Speaker 1: an argument. He described it as a reaction after she
20:44
Speaker 1: moved close to his face. The admission gave detectives another
20:49
Speaker 1: reason to scrutinize his history with Holly, but it still
20:53
Speaker 1: did not tell them what happened inside 298 DuPage. Investigators
20:59
Speaker 1: asked when he last communicated with her. At first, he
21:02
Speaker 1: had said he had sent Holly a message on her birthday,
21:04
Speaker 1: October 28th, and tried calling her around that time. Later
21:09
Speaker 1: in the interview, he remembered another message. On Halloween, he
21:12
Speaker 1: asked Holly to send him a photograph of Alexis in
21:15
Speaker 1: her costume. According to him, Holly did not respond. The
21:20
Speaker 1: change in his answer was important, but detectives did not
21:23
Speaker 1: have to rely entirely on his memory. He had agreed
21:26
Speaker 1: to surrender the phone. Because the account was in his
21:29
Speaker 1: mother's name, she needed to sign the necessary forms, and
21:33
Speaker 1: investigators then photographed and reviewed the messages stored in the device.
21:38
Speaker 1: and they could compare what he had said with the
21:40
Speaker 1: communications themselves. So his whereabouts that weekend that Holly was murdered.
21:46
Speaker 1: He said that on Saturday, October 31st, he had worked
21:50
Speaker 1: on a construction project near Watsika with his mother's boyfriend.
21:53
Speaker 1: They returned home in the late afternoon or early evening.
21:57
Speaker 1: That night, he said he played video games and went
21:59
Speaker 1: to bed at approximately 10. On Sunday, the day Holly
22:02
Speaker 1: worked her final shift, he claimed he stayed at the house.
22:06
Speaker 1: He described playing Xbox and a computer game. His mother
22:10
Speaker 1: had left for part of the day, and her boyfriend
22:12
Speaker 1: spent some of the evening gambling online and watching TV.
22:16
Speaker 1: He said he continued playing games until approximately 2 a.m.
22:20
Speaker 1: Monday morning and then went to sleep. He repeatedly denied
22:23
Speaker 1: going to Holly's home, he denied ever driving past her home,
22:27
Speaker 1: and he denied seeing her during the weekend. Parts of
22:30
Speaker 1: the timeline could be checked through interviews with other people
22:33
Speaker 1: at the house. But his claim that he had spent
22:36
Speaker 1: portions of the night playing games alone did not create
22:39
Speaker 1: an automatic, independent alibi. Investigators needed physical evidence. So the
22:45
Speaker 1: blood inside Holly's mobile home told detectives that the offender
22:48
Speaker 1: had been cut. That made the former partner's body, clothing,
22:51
Speaker 1: and shoes as relevant as his account for the weekend.
22:56
Speaker 1: Investigators examined and photographed his hands, arms, torsos, and legs.
23:00
Speaker 1: They documented marks on his fingers. They photographed his clothing.
23:04
Speaker 1: They inspected the bottoms of his shoes after noticing that
23:06
Speaker 1: there was like some dark material on them. And he
23:09
Speaker 1: explained the material came from working around old pipes and
23:12
Speaker 1: using his foot to brace one while cutting it. Investigators
23:15
Speaker 1: did not document the kind of recent unexplained laceration that
23:19
Speaker 1: they would expect the offender to have. But a visual
23:24
Speaker 1: examination is not clear. A wound could begin to heal.
23:28
Speaker 1: Blood is washed away. DNA was truly the decisive test.
23:33
Speaker 1: Near the end of the interview, investigators asked him to
23:35
Speaker 1: provide a buccal swab from the inside of his mouth,
23:39
Speaker 1: and he agreed. The sample was packaged and submitted for
23:43
Speaker 1: both comparison with the unknown male blood and semen, and
23:46
Speaker 1: it did not match. So the following day, on November 3rd,
23:50
Speaker 1: investigators brought him back into the Champaign Police Department for
23:53
Speaker 1: a polygraph exam. The released report did not provide a
23:57
Speaker 1: simple conclusion stating that he passed or failed the And
24:00
Speaker 1: a polygraph test is actually not what eliminated him anyways.
24:03
Speaker 1: It was the DNA. The circumstances of his relationship with
24:06
Speaker 1: Holly justified the investigation, but the forensic evidence ended it.
24:12
Speaker 1: His interview still gave detectives useful information. He described Holly
24:17
Speaker 1: as private and firm about who she allowed into her life.
24:20
Speaker 1: He provided names or partial descriptions of men she may
24:23
Speaker 1: have known, spoken with, or dated. Some of those leads
24:27
Speaker 1: were based on limited knowledge or rumor, but detectives had
24:30
Speaker 1: to follow them. He also offered one observation that remained
24:34
Speaker 1: relevant to the apparent lack of forced entry. Whoever she
24:38
Speaker 1: let in her house, she knew. That could not establish
24:42
Speaker 1: how the killer entered. But once her former partner was excluded,
24:46
Speaker 1: detectives had to look beyond the most visible conflict in
24:49
Speaker 1: Holly's life. The correct man might not be the person
24:52
Speaker 1: with the clearest documented motive. He might be someone whose
24:55
Speaker 1: connection to Holly was barely visible at all. So investigators
25:00
Speaker 1: had to expand outward from Holly's family and former relationship.
25:04
Speaker 1: They returned to Meyer and interviewed the co-workers who had
25:08
Speaker 1: seen her during the final hours of her life. They
25:11
Speaker 1: examined her phone activity. They spoke with relatives, friends, neighbors,
25:15
Speaker 1: and men whose names surfaced during those conversations. Some were
25:19
Speaker 1: people Holly knew well. Some maybe had spent some time
25:22
Speaker 1: in Candlewood Estates. Others were included because someone reported recent injury,
25:28
Speaker 1: unusual behavior, or possible interest in Holly. A name appearing
25:33
Speaker 1: in the investigative files did not necessarily mean the police
25:36
Speaker 1: considered that person a formal suspect. Some were witnesses, maybe
25:40
Speaker 1: some were possible leads. And some were simply asked for
25:43
Speaker 1: DNA because it was the fastest and most reliable way
25:46
Speaker 1: to exclude them faster. The male co-worker who had received
25:50
Speaker 1: Holly's final documented text at 11.16 p.m. was interviewed and tested,
25:54
Speaker 1: and he did not match. Other men connected to her
25:58
Speaker 1: work and social life were also eliminated. Investigators canvassed Candlewood Estates,
26:05
Speaker 1: looking for anyone who had noticed something unusual late Sunday
26:08
Speaker 1: night or early Monday morning. Anything like a vehicle leaving,
26:12
Speaker 1: a person walking, raised voices, a dog barking, someone who
26:16
Speaker 1: maybe had a cut on their hand. No witnesses gave
26:18
Speaker 1: police an identification that could be connected to the DNA.
26:22
Speaker 1: Because the offender had bled through the residence, reports of
26:25
Speaker 1: injured men received particular attention. Investigators inspected so many hands
26:31
Speaker 1: and arms and they photographed marks and asked how and
26:34
Speaker 1: when each injury occurred. But most of the cuts had
26:39
Speaker 1: good excuses. Construction work, automotive repairs, broken glass, tools, you know,
26:45
Speaker 1: ordinary accidents all leave injuries. The cut is only meaningful
26:50
Speaker 1: if the DNA aligns with it. Several men attracted attention
26:54
Speaker 1: because of injuries, but none matched. The investigative file grew
26:58
Speaker 1: because detectives recorded possibilities before knowing whether they mattered. One
27:03
Speaker 1: interview led to another name. A relative remembered someone Holly
27:08
Speaker 1: may have spoken with. A friend knew only a first
27:11
Speaker 1: name or a nickname. The fact that more than 150
27:15
Speaker 1: men were eventually tested does not mean Holly maintained relationships
27:19
Speaker 1: with 150 men. The number just reflects how broadly investigators worked.
27:25
Speaker 1: More than 150 samples were collected and everyone was excluded.
27:30
Speaker 1: As I mentioned, the DNA was also searched through CODIS
27:32
Speaker 1: and there was no hit. CODIS could only compare Holly's
27:36
Speaker 1: evidence with profiles that had already been lawfully collected and
27:40
Speaker 1: entered into the system. So it's not a complete registry
27:44
Speaker 1: of every person with a criminal history. Or like every
27:48
Speaker 1: person who's ever been arrested or every person who's ever
27:50
Speaker 1: been investigated. If the offender's profile was not in the database,
27:55
Speaker 1: CODIS could not produce a name. Investigators, therefore, remained dependent
27:59
Speaker 1: on traditional police work. They needed someone to mention the
28:02
Speaker 1: correct man. Michael Henslick was not among the men whose
28:06
Speaker 1: voluntary samples were tested and excluded. By the end of
28:10
Speaker 1: the initial investigative period, the sheriff's office knew a great
28:13
Speaker 1: deal about the crime. Where she was beforehand, all the
28:18
Speaker 1: DNA and all the evidence in the scene that was
28:20
Speaker 1: at her house... The case did not stall because the
28:24
Speaker 1: detectives lacked biological evidence. The unknown profile just remained in
28:29
Speaker 1: the system. But as the years passed, the case increasingly
28:33
Speaker 1: depended on one of two things happening. The offender's DNA
28:37
Speaker 1: eventually needed to be entered into CODIS, or forensic science
28:41
Speaker 1: would develop another way to search for him. Investigators continued
28:45
Speaker 1: accepting tips. They revisited names. They'd compare additional samples. They
28:50
Speaker 1: made public appeals for information about anyone who showed unusual
28:53
Speaker 1: interest in Holly or appeared with an unexplained injury after
28:57
Speaker 1: November 1, 2009. Traditional forensic testing could answer, does this
29:02
Speaker 1: sample belong to this specific person? CODIS could ask, does
29:06
Speaker 1: this profile match anyone already in the database? Neither method
29:10
Speaker 1: could generate a name from an unknown profile when the
29:13
Speaker 1: correct person had never been tested. Year after year, Holly's
29:16
Speaker 1: evidence returned the same result. No match. So over the years,
29:21
Speaker 1: DNA testing changes in a different method began changing cold
29:25
Speaker 1: case investigations. Investigative genetic genealogy does not search for an
29:30
Speaker 1: exact offender profile in the same way CODIS does. It
29:34
Speaker 1: searches for people who share portions of DNA with the
29:36
Speaker 1: unknown contributor. Those people may be distant relatives. who voluntarily
29:41
Speaker 1: uploaded their genetic information for genealogical research. So think like 23andMe, Ancestry.com,
29:48
Speaker 1: that sort of thing. A match to a relative does
29:51
Speaker 1: not identify the offender immediately, but it provides a branch
29:54
Speaker 1: of the family. Genealogists then use public records to determine
30:00
Speaker 1: how the matched individuals are related and which descendants could
30:03
Speaker 1: fit the person investigators are seeking. Birth records, marriage records, obituaries,
30:08
Speaker 1: property information, family connections across several generations. And this was
30:13
Speaker 1: the change that the case needed. The Champaign County Sheriff's
30:17
Speaker 1: Office submitted the unknown profile for investigative genetic genealogy. And
30:23
Speaker 1: to be clear, the resulting work does not establish guilt.
30:27
Speaker 1: But it identified Michael Henslick as a possible contributor of
30:31
Speaker 1: the semen and blood recovered in Holly's case. And this
30:34
Speaker 1: is 10 years after her murder. This gave detectives a name,
30:38
Speaker 1: but it's really only a lead. Genealogy can point toward
30:42
Speaker 1: the wrong person within a family. Records may be incomplete.
30:47
Speaker 1: Multiple male relatives may fit the approximate age and location.
30:51
Speaker 1: Investigators still needed a direct sample from Henslick before they
30:54
Speaker 1: could connect him to 298 DuPage. they also needed to
30:58
Speaker 1: examine whether the lead made sense outside the family tree.
31:01
Speaker 1: And it did. Henslick was close in age to Holly
31:04
Speaker 1: and had ties to Muhammad. He was not a random
31:07
Speaker 1: man living hundreds of miles away with no apparent access
31:10
Speaker 1: to her community. But before the genealogy report, no known
31:14
Speaker 1: relationship had made Henslick stand out from the many men
31:17
Speaker 1: considered during the investigation. Now, once they got this lead,
31:21
Speaker 1: investigators did not immediately confront him. Telling Henslick they wanted
31:25
Speaker 1: his DNA didn't would a risk alerting him before they
31:27
Speaker 1: had enough evidence to arrest him. Instead, detectives followed him
31:32
Speaker 1: and waited for him to discard something carrying his saliva.
31:35
Speaker 1: And Henslick smoked cigarettes. When he threw cigarette butts down,
31:38
Speaker 1: investigators collected them. The items were submitted to the Illinois
31:43
Speaker 1: State Police Crime Laboratory and compared directly with the male
31:46
Speaker 1: profile recovered from Holly's body. On August 28, 2018, the
31:50
Speaker 1: laboratory reported the result. the DNA on the cigarette butts
31:56
Speaker 1: matched the male blood and semen from the crime scene.
31:59
Speaker 1: For almost nine years, investigators had known the same man
32:03
Speaker 1: left both forms of biological evidence, and now they knew
32:06
Speaker 1: who that man was, Michael Henslick. The genealogy had not
32:11
Speaker 1: become the proof of his guilt. It had given detectives
32:14
Speaker 1: the name they needed to obtain traditional forensic proof. After
32:19
Speaker 1: his arrest, a swab would produce the same result. At trial,
32:24
Speaker 1: The most conservative estimate presented was that the profile would
32:27
Speaker 1: be expected in approximately 1 out of 1.6 billion unrelated
32:32
Speaker 1: individuals selected at random. That's a very good odd that
32:37
Speaker 1: they have the right person, basically, is what that means.
32:41
Speaker 1: The man whose identity could not be found through more
32:43
Speaker 1: than 150 voluntary comparisons had been identified through relatives who
32:47
Speaker 1: may never have known Hawley or Henslick personally. But the
32:53
Speaker 1: DNA match created a new question. How would Henslick explain it?
32:57
Speaker 1: His semen was on Holly's body. His blood was on
33:00
Speaker 1: her and throughout her home. And the offender had left
33:03
Speaker 1: the scene with an injury that should still have produced
33:06
Speaker 1: a scar. Investigators arrested Henslick and brought him into the
33:11
Speaker 1: sheriff's office. For hours, he denied killing Holly. Then, investigator
33:16
Speaker 1: Dwayne Rolfs placed the evidence in front of him and
33:19
Speaker 1: asked the question detectives had been waiting nearly nine years
33:21
Speaker 1: to answer. Why did you kill her? They no longer
33:25
Speaker 1: needed him to say whether he had been there or not.
33:28
Speaker 1: They needed him to explain why. The interview continued for
33:31
Speaker 1: more than five hours. According to the appellate court, investigators
33:36
Speaker 1: asked Henzik at least 66 times why he had killed her.
33:40
Speaker 1: For hours, he resisted the premise of the question. He
33:43
Speaker 1: denied involvement. He denied responsibility. And he offered no explanation
33:49
Speaker 1: for why his DNA matched the blood and semen from
33:51
Speaker 1: the scene. if you remember that wound that the killer had,
33:54
Speaker 1: the man sitting in the interview room had a scar
33:57
Speaker 1: on his left arm and wrist. The scar alone could
34:00
Speaker 1: not prove when the injury occurred, but with all the
34:03
Speaker 1: DNA evidence and everything else, Henslick acknowledged that he injured
34:07
Speaker 1: his left arm on the date of the murder. He
34:10
Speaker 1: also admitted that the blood dripping inside Holly's home belonged
34:12
Speaker 1: to him. His DNA could not explain his state of mind,
34:16
Speaker 1: but it eliminated any believable claim that he had never
34:19
Speaker 1: been there. So the interrogation was persistent and at times aggressive.
34:24
Speaker 1: Henslick raised the possibility of retaining an attorney, but never
34:27
Speaker 1: made the unequivocal request for one. When the subject came up,
34:31
Speaker 1: investigators allowed him to take a cigarette break and use
34:33
Speaker 1: the bathroom. They reminded him that he had a right
34:35
Speaker 1: to counsel, but told him an attorney might not be
34:38
Speaker 1: provided immediately. Near the end of the interrogation, investigator Dwayne
34:42
Speaker 1: Rolfs changed his approach. He slammed a binder onto the
34:45
Speaker 1: table and And Rolfs reminded Henslick that Holly's daughter had
34:48
Speaker 1: only been 17 months old when her mother was killed.
34:52
Speaker 1: By 2018, she was 10. Henslick was 30. Rolfs called
34:56
Speaker 1: him a big boy and said he was tired of
34:58
Speaker 1: listening to what he had described as lies. Then he
35:01
Speaker 1: told Henslick it was time to stand up and be
35:03
Speaker 1: a man. Rolfs asked again whether he had killed Holly.
35:07
Speaker 1: This time, Henslick apologized. Then he admitted that he had.
35:11
Speaker 1: Rolfs asked how. I stabbed her, he said. Where? Henslick
35:17
Speaker 1: said he stabbed Holly all over her torso. The confession
35:20
Speaker 1: did not come before the physical evidence. Investigators already knew
35:24
Speaker 1: the DNA belonged to him. What the admission did was
35:27
Speaker 1: connect that biological evidence directly to the murder weapon and
35:30
Speaker 1: the attack. After admitting the killing, Henslick began describing what
35:35
Speaker 1: he claimed had happened inside Holly's home. He said he
35:39
Speaker 1: went to the mobile home to talk to her. He
35:41
Speaker 1: claimed that he and Holly had consensual sex and then
35:43
Speaker 1: fell asleep. According to Henslick, he woke up and began
35:47
Speaker 1: stabbing Holly while she was still sleeping. He said she
35:51
Speaker 1: awakened and asked, what? He also said she cried for help.
35:57
Speaker 1: Those details only came from Henslick, let's remember that. They
36:01
Speaker 1: cannot independently establish Holly's exact words or the precise moment
36:05
Speaker 1: she was awake. The autopsy did establish that she was
36:09
Speaker 1: conscious for part of the attack and that she had
36:12
Speaker 1: defensive wounds. Henslick said that after killing Holly, he went
36:16
Speaker 1: into the kitchen looking for a cloth to wipe blood
36:18
Speaker 1: from himself. He claimed he later threw the knife away
36:21
Speaker 1: somewhere in the country. The weapon was not identified in
36:25
Speaker 1: the appellate record and has ever been recovered. Henslick denies
36:29
Speaker 1: raping Holly. He insisted that their initial sexual encounter had
36:32
Speaker 1: been consensual. But during the same interrogation, he said he
36:36
Speaker 1: thought he might have had intercourse with Holly's body after
36:39
Speaker 1: killing her. That statement had to be considered immediately. alongside
36:43
Speaker 1: the condition in which Tony found her daughter. Holly's top
36:47
Speaker 1: had been pushed above her chest. Her underwear had been damaged,
36:50
Speaker 1: pulled down over her thigh. So this, to me, doesn't
36:54
Speaker 1: sound like consensual sex. But the torn clothing and the
36:59
Speaker 1: way she was found... is suggestive of sexual assault. Henslick's
37:03
Speaker 1: admission established that he had had sexual contact with Holly.
37:07
Speaker 1: The judge would later say that the explanation strained credibility
37:10
Speaker 1: when measured against the physical evidence and Henslick's own acknowledgement
37:14
Speaker 1: of possible sexual contact after Holly's death. Investigators also wanted
37:19
Speaker 1: to know why. There wasn't really a clear connection between
37:23
Speaker 1: the two of them. Like, they went to the same
37:24
Speaker 1: high school, but there wasn't that much of a connection.
37:28
Speaker 1: He suggested that he might have been jealous. He said
37:31
Speaker 1: he wanted to be with Holly's cousin, Amber. He also
37:34
Speaker 1: mentioned alcohol. He described himself as emotional and said he had, quote,
37:39
Speaker 1: lost himself. When investigators asked what had made him so angry,
37:43
Speaker 1: Henslick answered, I think I was just angry about it all.
37:49
Speaker 1: None of the statements fully explain why he would go
37:51
Speaker 1: to Holly's home or why the attack involved dozens of
37:54
Speaker 1: stab wounds. The confession answered who killed Holly, but it
37:58
Speaker 1: really doesn't provide a reasonable explanation. Even if he was
38:01
Speaker 1: dating or wanted to date Holly's cousin, that makes no
38:04
Speaker 1: sense why he would kill her or what she had
38:06
Speaker 1: to do with it at all. By the end of
38:09
Speaker 1: the interrogation, Henslick had acknowledged the central facts investigators had
38:12
Speaker 1: spent nine years trying to connect to a person. He
38:16
Speaker 1: admitted to being in her home. He admitted to sexual contact.
38:19
Speaker 1: He admitted to stabbing her, injuring his left arm, and
38:23
Speaker 1: leaving blood inside the residence. Before the jury could hear
38:27
Speaker 1: some of this evidence, however, His defense would argue that
38:29
Speaker 1: investigators had pushed too far during the interrogation. Michael Henslick
38:34
Speaker 1: was charged with four counts of first-degree murder in Champaign County.
38:38
Speaker 1: The separate counts represented different legal theories of the same homicide.
38:42
Speaker 1: There was one victim and one murder. Before trial, defense
38:46
Speaker 1: attorney Lindsay Lepp challenged two parts of the investigation. The
38:50
Speaker 1: first was that the genetic genealogy process that had led
38:54
Speaker 1: detectives to Henslick. The second was his confession. His defense attorney, Lep,
39:00
Speaker 1: initially requested a hearing to challenge whether investigative genetic genealogy
39:04
Speaker 1: was sufficiently accepted within the scientific community. The technique at
39:08
Speaker 1: the time was still relatively new in criminal investigations. She
39:11
Speaker 1: also argued that introducing it could unfairly prejudice the jury.
39:17
Speaker 1: The state responded that the prosecutors did not intend to
39:19
Speaker 1: present that specific result of the Parabon genealogy report. The
39:24
Speaker 1: family tree research had really only helped police identify Henslick.
39:29
Speaker 1: But then, they ended up doing the conventional forensic DNA
39:32
Speaker 1: evidence testing later. Lep withdrew that genealogy challenge. Jurors would
39:38
Speaker 1: not be asked to convict Henslick because a genealogist had
39:41
Speaker 1: placed him within a family tree. They would be shown
39:44
Speaker 1: the direct forensic testing. The defense also testified asked Judge
39:49
Speaker 1: Jason Baum to prevent the jury from hearing Henslick's confession.
39:53
Speaker 1: She argued that his statements had not been voluntary, that
39:56
Speaker 1: the interview lasted more than five hours, they repeatedly accused
39:59
Speaker 1: him of murder, they questioned him at least 66 times
40:02
Speaker 1: about why he had killed her, he missed dinner one time,
40:07
Speaker 1: Rolf slammed the binder on the table, but the judge
40:10
Speaker 1: denied the motion. The court found that Henslick had been
40:13
Speaker 1: advised of his rights and understood them. He never made
40:16
Speaker 1: an unambiguous request for an attorney, and the questioning, although
40:19
Speaker 1: persistent and aggressive, had not deprived him of the ability
40:23
Speaker 1: to decide whether to speak. The confession would be heard
40:26
Speaker 1: by the jury. The appellate court later reached the same conclusion,
40:31
Speaker 1: finding that the investigator's conduct had not critically impaired Henslick's
40:34
Speaker 1: capacity for self-determination. So at the trial, the jury found
40:38
Speaker 1: Michael Henslick guilty of first-degree murder. Jurors also found that
40:42
Speaker 1: the murder had been accompanied by exceptional brutal or heinous
40:45
Speaker 1: behavior indicative of wanton cruelty, which I don't know what
40:50
Speaker 1: that is. That additional finding was based on the specific
40:53
Speaker 1: manner in which Holly was killed. That finding made Henslick
40:57
Speaker 1: eligible for a sentence of natural life imprisonment. At sentencing,
41:02
Speaker 1: he changed his story again, though. So during his interrogation,
41:05
Speaker 1: Henslick finally admitted to killing Holly, like we said. But
41:09
Speaker 1: then at sentencing, he maintained that he was innocent. He
41:12
Speaker 1: now was claiming that another man had killed her. According
41:15
Speaker 1: to this version, the injury to Henslick's arm did not
41:18
Speaker 1: occur while he was attacking Holly. He said he was
41:21
Speaker 1: injured while trying to get between her and the actual killer.
41:24
Speaker 1: He blamed himself only because he failed to call 911 immediately.
41:28
Speaker 1: It was a fundamental reversal. Basically, he was just saying
41:32
Speaker 1: he was there and was trying to protect Holly from
41:35
Speaker 1: this random third person. Judge Baum did not accept the
41:39
Speaker 1: new account. In explaining the sentence, Judge Baum described Holly's
41:42
Speaker 1: murder as a He noted that Holly suffered between 55
41:49
Speaker 1: and 60 stab wounds. He rejected Henslick's claim that the
41:54
Speaker 1: initial sexual encounter had been consensual, saying it strained credibility
41:58
Speaker 1: under the evidence. The judge then addressed Henslick's admission that
42:02
Speaker 1: he may have had sexual contact with Holly's body after
42:04
Speaker 1: killing her, describing that conduct as defying standards of humanity.
42:08
Speaker 1: He also said, quote, He concluded that Henslick's actions were
42:17
Speaker 1: calculated to inflict maximum pain and suffering while Holly fought
42:21
Speaker 1: for her life. Finding that the community needed protection from him,
42:26
Speaker 1: Judge Baum sentenced him to... the rest of his natural
42:31
Speaker 1: life in prison. So over the years, Michael Henslick has
42:36
Speaker 1: tried to appeal this verdict. But in April of 2022,
42:43
Speaker 1: the conviction in natural life sentence was affirmed. And then
42:47
Speaker 1: in November of 2022, Henslick filed a post-conviction petition arguing
42:52
Speaker 1: about that second man who now he's claiming was in
42:55
Speaker 1: the house. And that Henslick is now saying there were
42:59
Speaker 1: two intruders coming through the window. He just keeps changing
43:01
Speaker 1: his story. Judge Baum rejected the post-conviction claim. He noted
43:07
Speaker 1: that Henslick's account had changed from multiple attackers to a
43:09
Speaker 1: single attacker and that he had remained silent about them
43:13
Speaker 1: for nine years. The judge stated, quote, there is, however,
43:17
Speaker 1: a good explanation for why his version of events is
43:19
Speaker 1: not consistent with the physical evidence. His version of events
43:23
Speaker 1: is a lie, unquote. As recent as January 5th, 2026,
43:28
Speaker 1: Fifth District Appellate Court affirmed the decision again that his
43:32
Speaker 1: sentence was good. The judges concluded that even if Lep
43:36
Speaker 1: could have investigated or prepared Henslick more thoroughly, he would
43:39
Speaker 1: not have shown a reasonable probability that his testimony would
43:42
Speaker 1: have changed the verdict. The blood and semen belonged to him.
43:46
Speaker 1: His confession placed the knife in his hand. And the
43:49
Speaker 1: physical evidence contradicted the story he later wanted the jury
43:52
Speaker 1: to hear. Michael Henslick's conviction remains intact. So does a
43:57
Speaker 1: sentence of natural life imprisonment. More than 16 years after
44:01
Speaker 1: Holly Cassano was killed, the legal case has reached another ending.
44:06
Speaker 1: But it still could not answer every question about her
44:09
Speaker 1: final night. Henslick never gave investigators one reliable explanation for
44:14
Speaker 1: why he was there at 298 DuPage. During his interrogation,
44:19
Speaker 1: he suggested jealousy, alcohol, anger, At sentencing, he claimed someone
44:24
Speaker 1: else killed her. Later, that unidentified man became two intruders
44:28
Speaker 1: who supposedly entered through a window, restrained him, and then
44:31
Speaker 1: killed her, and then deliberately distributed his blood throughout the residence. Okay.
44:37
Speaker 1: Holly was 22 years old. She had finished a late
44:40
Speaker 1: shift at Meijer and driven home to Muhammad. She was
44:43
Speaker 1: expected at her mother's at 9 a.m. the following morning.
44:47
Speaker 1: Holly was also the mother of a 17-month-old daughter. Alexis
44:51
Speaker 1: was luckily not inside the home that night because she
44:54
Speaker 1: had stayed with her grandparents. Most of her childhood had
44:57
Speaker 1: passed while the man who killed her mother remained unidentified.
45:01
Speaker 1: That is the loss a conviction cannot repair. A sentence
45:05
Speaker 1: can prevent Henslick from leaving prison, but it cannot return
45:08
Speaker 1: the years Holly should have spent raising her daughter. It
45:11
Speaker 1: cannot give Tony back the morning before she opened that door.
45:15
Speaker 1: and it cannot restore the life Holly expected to continue
45:19
Speaker 1: after an ordinary Sunday shift at Meijer. For years, this
45:23
Speaker 1: case was described as cold, but the evidence was never gone.
45:27
Speaker 1: Holly Cassano's case demonstrates the difference between possessing evidence and
45:31
Speaker 1: understanding where it leads. In 2009, they had the biological profile.
45:36
Speaker 1: In 2018, they finally had his name. And in 2020,
45:41
Speaker 1: a jury held him responsible for Holly's murder and found
45:43
Speaker 1: the attack exceptionally brutal and heinous. Michael Henslick will spend
45:49
Speaker 1: the rest of his life in prison. Holly should have
45:52
Speaker 1: had a life beyond 22. She should have watched her
45:55
Speaker 1: daughter grow up. And she should be remembered for more
45:58
Speaker 1: than the violence committed against her, and more than the
46:01
Speaker 1: DNA that eventually solved her case. I'm Kat, and this
46:06
Speaker 1: has been another episode of Illinois Unsolved, a special series
46:10
Speaker 1: from Kat Has Questions. Thank you for listening and for
46:13
Speaker 1: remembering Holly Cassano. Make sure you're following the show so
46:16
Speaker 1: you don't miss the next case. As always, stay curious.
46:22
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to Cat Has Questions. If you liked
46:24
Speaker 1: this episode, follow the show and share it with someone
46:27
Speaker 1: who loves a good spiral. See you next week.