Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / Netflix’s New True Crime Doc Dives Into a Mother’s Mysterious Disappearance

Transcript

Netflix’s New True Crime Doc Dives Into a Mother’s Mysterious Disappearance · Murder Files Unsealed

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the deep Dive. Today, we're jumping into
0:02
a story that, honestly it feels ripped from a script.
0:05
We're talking deep sea survival, massive family wealth, and a
0:10
really chilling cold case murder.
0:12
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's got all those elements. And what's crucial here,
0:14
I think, is how investigators had to piece together these
0:17
seemingly separate tragedies a boat sinking in twenty sixteen, a
0:21
homicide back in twenty thirteen.
0:23
Speaker 1: All potentially linked by one person and a whole lot
0:27
of money exactly.
0:28
Speaker 2: So our mission today really is to wade through the sources.
0:31
We've got investigative journalism, you know, some really deep reporting there.
0:34
We've got legal documents, especially from this key insurance trial,
0:38
and then the technical stuff NTSP reports, drift modeling, all
0:42
focusing on Nathan Carmon, the.
0:43
Speaker 1: Guy found floating alone on a life raft after his
0:46
mother Linda, just vanished at sea in September twenty sixteen.
0:50
And this isn't just a missing person situation, is it?
0:52
Speaker 2: Oh? Not at all? It spirals pretty quickly, starts as
0:54
a maritime search, then becomes this really bitter inheritance fight
0:59
over forty two million dollar forty two yeah, and that
1:02
battle eventually leads to a federal murder indictment. It connects
1:05
two generations of tragedy.
1:07
Speaker 1: It's complex, Okay, So before we get into the events,
1:10
let's just set the stage. Who are the key players
1:13
and what's the deal with this fortune?
1:15
Speaker 2: Right? The money is central. You start with the patriarch,
1:17
John Chocolos. He's a self made real estate guy, built
1:20
up an empire worth about forty two million dollars when.
1:23
Speaker 1: He died, and his plan was to split it.
1:25
Speaker 2: Evenly between his four daughters, one of whom was Linda
1:28
Carmen and Nathan's mother.
1:30
Speaker 1: Okay, and here's the crux of it, right, the inheritance structure.
1:32
Speaker 2: Precisely, if Linda died, her share, which was around seven
1:36
million dollars, wasn't going back into the pot or anything.
1:39
It was set to go directly to her.
1:40
Speaker 1: Air, her sole air, her sole air.
1:43
Speaker 2: Nathan Carmen. So you immediately see this huge potential financial
1:47
motive hanging over everything that happens next.
1:49
Speaker 1: Seven million dollars is definitely a motive. And Nathan himself,
1:54
what are the sources tell us about him?
1:56
Speaker 2: He's a really complex figure. Twenty two, when the boat
1:59
sank decribed as you know, an eccentric tinkerer, very into guns.
2:02
He was homeschooled, considered a prodigy in some ways.
2:05
Speaker 1: And there's the autism diagnosis too, Yes.
2:08
Speaker 2: Crucially diagnosed as high functioning autistic. And this isn't just
2:11
background noise. This intersection of like specialized intelligence and maybe
2:16
social difficulties becomes this core battleground later on. Was it
2:21
Nerda virgins or was it calculation?
2:23
Speaker 1: That's the big question looming over it all. Okay, let's
2:25
get into the timeline. September twenty sixteen the fishing.
2:29
Speaker 2: Trip, right, So, September seventeenth, Nathan talks his mother Linda
2:34
into going on this overnight tuna fishing trip. And it's
2:36
not just you know, popping out a few miles.
2:38
Speaker 1: This was serious.
2:39
Speaker 2: They were heading eighty miles off shore Black Canyon, which
2:43
is I mean, it's deep water, known for being unpredictable.
2:47
Not exactly a casual trip.
2:48
Speaker 1: Especially in the boat. They were using tell us about
2:50
the chicken pox.
2:51
Speaker 2: Yeah, the chicken pox. It was this nineteen sixty eight
2:54
thirty one foot aluminum fishing boat, pretty old. Nagan had
2:58
bought it at.
2:58
Speaker 1: Auction and he'd restore it himself.
3:00
Speaker 2: That was the claim he'd done work on it himself,
3:03
and that restoration or lack thereof, becomes pretty critical. Later
3:08
they left from Rampoint Marina in Rhode Island.
3:11
Speaker 1: And the alarm gets raised pretty.
3:12
Speaker 2: Fast, almost immediately. Linda was supposed to text a friend
3:15
the next morning, September eighteenth. That text never arrived. Her
3:20
phone went silent. Nathan's phone went.
3:22
Speaker 1: Silent, and they're eighty miles out in an old boat.
3:24
Speaker 2: He supposedly fixed himself. The family obviously panics. The Coastguard
3:29
gets involved quickly.
3:30
Speaker 1: And this wasn't a small search effort, No, it was massive.
3:33
Speaker 2: They searched for eight days, covered something like sixty two
3:36
thousand square miles of the Atlantic. Think about that. That's
3:39
like the size of Florida.
3:40
Speaker 1: They're searching, just vast emptiness. And then after eight days
3:44
a sighting.
3:45
Speaker 2: Yeah, just when hope was pretty much gone. September twenty fifth,
3:49
this huge Chinese freighter, the Orient Lucky spots a little
3:52
yellow life raft way out there, about one hundred miles
3:55
south of Martha's Vineyard, far from where anyone expected, and
3:58
inside Nathan Carmen alone. He was in rough shape, physically
4:03
lost a lot of weight, maybe sixty pounds, severely dehydrated,
4:06
lips cracked, but he was conscious, lucid.
4:09
Speaker 1: The freighter captain was amazed he was alive, called it.
4:12
Speaker 2: A sheer miracle in an email to the coastguard. I mean,
4:15
surviving eight days in a raft like that, it is
4:18
pretty incredible.
4:19
Speaker 1: But that miracle immediately leads to questions, what happened out there?
4:24
What was his story?
4:25
Speaker 2: His initial story, given right there to the Coastguard was
4:29
very specific, very sudden. He said he heard a funny
4:32
noise near the engine, looked down, saw a lot of water,
4:37
and then he claims the boat just dropped out from
4:40
beneath them in seconds gone. He said, he deployed the raft, yelled,
4:44
whistled for his mom, but heard nothing.
4:46
Speaker 1: She just vanished with the boat vanished in seconds. That
4:49
sounds fast for a thirty one foot boat.
4:52
Speaker 2: Extremely fast, And that's really the first major crack in
4:56
the story for investigators. Even in bad weather, a boat
4:59
that's doesn't typically just you know, boof disappear in seconds.
5:03
That defied physics for the coast guard guys.
5:05
Speaker 1: So the focus shifts from tragic accident to wait.
5:09
Speaker 2: A minute, exactly, this is where the technical side takes over.
5:12
Investigators start digging into the chicken pox itself and the
5:14
work Nathan did on it, and what they find, or
5:17
rather what they don't find, is alarming.
5:18
Speaker 1: Like the Bilge pumps.
5:19
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Bilge pumps critical safety equipment, your main defense
5:24
against taking on water. Nathan removed both of them weeks
5:27
before the trip. Remove them why, claimed they were faulty,
5:31
but he didn't replace them. You're prepping an old boat
5:34
for an eighty mile offshore trip into potentially rough seas
5:38
at night, and you take out the Bilge pumps.
5:40
Speaker 1: That seems reckless at best, reckless or preparatory.
5:44
Speaker 2: Given the potential seven million dollars payout, it looks really suspicious.
5:48
Speaker 1: And it wasn't just the pumps. Was that there were
5:50
issues with the hull itself.
5:51
Speaker 2: Right, He'd done some modifications, drilled new holes in the
5:54
hole to install trim tabs, which is a fairly common thing.
5:57
Speaker 3: But how he filled the holes that was the problem.
6:00
Speaker 2: He used marine putty, but forensic experts who looked at
6:03
it later basically said the way he did it was
6:05
just cosmetic. It wasn't a proper seal it was designed
6:08
or at least destined to fail under pressure.
6:11
Speaker 1: Patched up to look okay but fundamentally weak.
6:13
Speaker 2: Exactly easily disguised too. And then there's the stuff in
6:17
the life raft when they recovered it. The grab bag contents.
6:20
Speaker 1: Right, the survival kit that was weird.
6:22
Speaker 2: Really weird. It had some bizarre items like tuna sandwiches,
6:26
his passport. Okay, maybe the passport makes some sense if
6:29
you think you'll be picked up internationally. But then when
6:33
a point.
6:33
Speaker 1: Three Toho eight rifle, a high powered rifle in a
6:36
life raft, what's that for?
6:38
Speaker 2: Good question? Not exactly useful for signaling or catching fish, yeah,
6:42
but potentially very relevant later. And what wasn't there is
6:45
maybe even more telling. No EPIRB, no EPRB, that emergency
6:49
beacon that automatically signals your location, and no flares, basic
6:53
non negotiable offshore safety gear missing.
6:56
Speaker 1: So he packed sandwiches and a rifle, but not a
6:59
beacon or flares. It suggests a different kind of planning.
7:03
Speaker 2: It certainly raises questions about the intent of the trip,
7:06
doesn't it was survival the main goal or was something
7:08
else planned?
7:09
Speaker 1: But the real bombshell, the evidence that couldn't be explained
7:12
away by weird choices came from the ocean itself. The
7:15
drift analysis.
7:16
Speaker 2: This is fascinating forensic work. They brought in oceanographers from
7:19
the University of Rhode Island. These guys used data from
7:21
NOA buoy's satellite imagery. Complex computer models.
7:24
Speaker 1: Just figure out where the raft should.
7:26
Speaker 2: Have gone precisely based on the coordinates Nathan gave for
7:30
where the boat supposedly sank and factoring in currents when
7:35
the Gulf stream, the models were clear.
7:38
Speaker 1: And where should it have drifted.
7:40
Speaker 2: It should have been pushed northeast. The models predicted it
7:43
would have hit the Nantucket Shoals area within about forty
7:45
eight hours.
7:46
Speaker 1: Nantucket Shoals. Why is that specific location important.
7:50
Speaker 2: It's relatively shallow compared to the deep ocean. It's heavily
7:53
trafficked by fishing boats and shipping. If the raft ended
7:57
up there, the chances of a quick rescue and finding
8:00
debris or Linda's body would have been much much higher.
8:04
Speaker 1: But that's not where he was found.
8:06
Speaker 2: Not even close. He was found one hundred and twenty
8:08
miles south of where the models predicted, way off course.
8:11
The analysis showed the only way he could have ended
8:14
up where the orient lucky found him was if the
8:16
raft was deployed much later than.
8:17
Speaker 1: He claimed later how much later.
8:19
Speaker 2: Significantly later, specifically after the prevailing current shifted direction around
8:24
dawn on September eighteenth. His timeline didn't match the ocean's timeline.
8:28
Speaker 1: So the signs basically says he lied about when and
8:31
where the boat sank.
8:32
Speaker 2: That was the inescapable conclusion for the investigators. Two things
8:36
became clear. One the boat probably sank hours earlier than
8:40
Nathan said, and two, the coordinates he gave the coastguard
8:44
were likely false.
8:45
Speaker 1: Why give false corridurettes.
8:47
Speaker 2: To buy time to ensure he was alone for longer,
8:51
to reduce the chances of anyone finding the wreckage quickly
8:53
or finding his mother. It moved the whole thing firmly
8:56
into the realm of deliberate deception potentially homicide.
9:00
Speaker 1: Okay, so the boat sinking looks intentional, the drift path
9:03
looks faked. But investigators didn't stop there. They started looking back,
9:07
didn't They back to twenty thirteen?
9:08
Speaker 2: Exactly because this wasn't Nathan's first brush with family tragedy
9:12
and suspicion. The FBI and the local police in Connecticut,
9:16
they immediately saw parallel to the unsolved murder of his grandfather,
9:19
John Chocalos three years earlier.
9:21
Speaker 1: The patriarch the source of the forty two million dollar fortune.
9:25
Speaker 2: The very same December twenty twenty thirteen, Windsor, Connecticut, Chocoalos
9:29
was found dead in his kitchen. It wasn't natural causes, No,
9:32
it was brutal execution style, shot four times in the
9:34
head with one point two to two caliber weapon while he.
9:37
Speaker 1: Was asleep, and the scene it didn't look like a
9:41
random break in, not at all. No.
9:42
Speaker 2: Fourth century the killer likely had a key or was
9:46
let in. The safe full of valuables was untouched, so
9:50
robbery wasn't the motive, and the killer apparently left on
9:53
foot tracks, disappearing in fresh snow. It suggested planning, familiarity
9:59
and insight job.
10:00
Speaker 1: And the last person known to have seen John Chockalos.
10:02
Speaker 2: Alive Nathan Carmen. He'd stayed over the night before, supposedly
10:06
helping his grandfather with Christmas lights. Seems innocent enough on
10:10
the surface, but the.
10:11
Speaker 1: Police focus turned to him pretty quickly.
10:13
Speaker 2: What did they find self on data was key. They
10:16
were able to pay Nathan's film location shortly after the
10:19
estimated time of death. It placed him near a specific dumpster,
10:23
and in that dumpster, police later recovered a computer hard
10:25
drive and a GPS unit from Nathan's truck. Both had
10:28
been wiped clean.
10:29
Speaker 1: Wiped clean. That's highly suggestive of trying to hide something
10:32
his movements.
10:33
Speaker 2: Perhaps precisely destroying digital evidence right after your grandfather is murdered.
10:38
That's a huge red flag. And then there was the gun.
10:40
Speaker 1: The murder weapon was a point two two caliber. Was
10:43
there a connection to Nathan a very.
10:45
Speaker 2: Strong, circumstantial one weeks before the murder, Nathan had bought
10:49
a six hour rifle in New Hampshire. Now the actual
10:53
murder weapon, the point two two, was never found.
10:55
Speaker 1: So no direct ballistics match, no.
10:58
Speaker 2: Direct match possible without the gun, But investigators found something interesting.
11:02
The specific six hour model Nathan bought was known to
11:06
be compatible with a rare type of aftermarket suppressor threading,
11:09
and that matched. It matched the threading pattern inferred from
11:13
Marx left on the shell casings found at the Chocalo's
11:16
murder scene. It wasn't definitive proof, but it was another
11:19
strong link in the chain pointing towards Nathan and that
11:22
specific type of weapon.
11:23
Speaker 1: Wow. Okay, So you have the timing, the wiped electronics,
11:26
the potential weapon link.
11:27
Speaker 2: And suddenly the twenty sixteen boat sinking looks very different.
11:30
Investigators started thinking, maybe this isn't just about Linda's seven
11:33
million dollars. Maybe it's the second.
11:35
Speaker 1: Act, the second act of what a longer plan.
11:38
Speaker 2: If Nathan was involved in killing his grandfather in twenty thirteen,
11:42
that sped up the inheritance process for his mother and aunts,
11:45
but the money was still tied up in probate maybe
11:47
arguments between the sisters.
11:49
Speaker 1: But if Linda then dies, If Linda.
11:51
Speaker 2: Dies before the grandfather's estate is fully settled, her seven
11:55
million dollars share bypasses all that potential family drama and
11:59
pro acla. It flows directly, cleanly to Nathan unless unless
12:04
he's disqualified under Connecticut's slayer statute.
12:06
Speaker 1: Ye.
12:06
Speaker 2: Basically, you can't inherit from someone you're murdered.
12:08
Speaker 1: So if he killed his grandfather, he might risk losing
12:11
everything eventually. But if he killed his mother after his
12:14
grandfather and it looked like an accident.
12:16
Speaker 2: He potentially gets seven million dollars free and clear. It
12:20
provides this chillingly logical, step by step financial motive connecting
12:24
both deaths. Killed the patriarch to start the flow, kill
12:28
the mother to secure your share directly.
12:30
Speaker 1: It's cold, it's calculated, but proving it, especially the boat
12:34
sinking part, needed hard evidence of how he did.
12:36
Speaker 2: It, and that proof, ironically didn't first emerge at a
12:39
criminal trial. It came out in a civil lawsuit Nathan
12:42
himself initiated.
12:43
Speaker 1: He sued his own insurance company for the boat YEP.
12:46
Speaker 2: In twenty seventeen. He filed a claim for eighty five
12:49
thousand dollars the insured value of the chicken pox. Yeah,
12:52
he wanted the insurance money for the boat he allegedly
12:54
sank deliberately. That seems bold, extremely bold, But that lawsuit
12:59
became the state each for the first real forensic showdown.
13:03
The insurance company wasn't just going to pay out. Their
13:06
defense was simple. This wasn't an accident, It was fraud.
13:09
You sank your own boat.
13:11
Speaker 1: And in a civil case the burden of proof is
13:13
lower than in a criminal case.
13:14
Speaker 2: Much lower preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
13:19
This allowed the insurance company's lawyers to really go deep
13:22
on the technical evidence. The trial took place in twenty
13:25
nineteen in Providence Federal Court eight days.
13:29
Speaker 1: What did the insurance company present?
13:31
Speaker 2: They brought in heavy hitters, maritime engineers. They even built
13:35
a life sized mockup of the stern of the chicken
13:37
pox right there in the courtroom, a physical model. Yeah,
13:39
to demonstrate exactly how the modifications Nathan made would have
13:42
caused the sinking. One expert testified that the holes Nathan
13:46
drilled for the trim tabs weren't just poorly repaired, they
13:49
were sabotage quality.
13:51
Speaker 1: Sabotage quality.
13:52
Speaker 3: What did that mean?
13:52
Speaker 1: Specifically, it went back.
13:54
Speaker 2: To how the holes were drilled. They suspected he used
13:56
a step bit and importantly that he beveled the edges,
13:59
cut them at an angle. And why is befling bad
14:02
Because it makes it almost impossible for marine putty to
14:05
get a proper grip. If you just drill straight through,
14:08
the putty might hold for a bit, but beveling creates
14:11
this smooth edge, prevents friction and sure as the putty
14:14
will pop out under pressure. It looks repaired, but it's engineered.
14:18
Speaker 1: To fail, designed to fail catastrophically.
14:20
Speaker 2: That was the argument. And they also tackled his claim
14:23
about the boat sinking in thirty seconds.
14:25
Speaker 1: Which seemed unbelievable from the start.
14:27
Speaker 2: The engineers ran tank tests using the chicken Pox's specs.
14:31
Their conclusion to sync that fast, the boat would need
14:35
five major simultaneous breaches below the waterline, not just a
14:39
couple of leaky holes.
14:41
Speaker 1: Five breaches. How would that happen accidentally?
14:44
Speaker 2: It wouldn't. Really, The implication was clear. The sinking had
14:48
to be deliberate, engineered to be sudden and overwhelming, giving
14:50
Linda absolutely no chance.
14:52
Speaker 1: And Nathan had to testify in this trial.
14:54
Speaker 2: He did. He was the plaintiff trying to get his money.
14:57
He's on the stand for something like twelve hours.
14:59
Speaker 1: Twelve How did he come across?
15:02
Speaker 2: Reports from the trial describe him as fidgety, often evasive,
15:05
but also prone to these long detailed digressions lecturing.
15:10
Speaker 3: Basically lecturing about what about highly technical stuff like he
15:14
apparently spent ages explaining the specific metallurgical properties of different
15:19
aluminum alloys.
15:20
Speaker 1: He corrected the judge on aluminum types.
15:23
Speaker 2: Yeah, the source material mentions him correct and Judge McConnell
15:25
on the difference between five eighty three and sixty sixty
15:28
one aluminum, which you know, shows incredible technical knowledge.
15:31
Speaker 1: Well, maybe not the best social awareness for a courtroom
15:34
where you're suspected of sinking a boat and killing your mom.
15:37
Speaker 2: Exactly, that contrast, the intellectual precision versus the social awkwardness
15:43
or inappropriateness, really defined his persona during the trial.
15:47
Speaker 1: Did the jury buy his explanations or the lectures?
15:50
Speaker 2: Not for a second. They deliberated for only forty five minutes.
15:53
Speaker 1: Forty five minutes after an eight day trial.
15:55
Speaker 2: Yeah, swift verdict.
15:57
Speaker 1: They ruled against Nathan, finding he'd made wilful representations. They
16:01
avoided the insurance policy. She got nothing.
16:03
Speaker 2: So the civil court basically said, you sank your boat
16:06
on purpose, pretty much, And the importance of this civil
16:09
trial cannot be overstated. Those transcripts, filled with expert testimony,
16:15
the judge's findings, Nathan's own words under oath.
16:18
Speaker 1: It was the road map.
16:19
Speaker 2: It was the complete blueprint for the federal prosecutors. They
16:22
now had a court validated narrative, backed by forensic engineering,
16:26
explaining how the boat was sunk. The method was.
16:29
Speaker 1: Established, which leads us right back to that central conflict.
16:32
Was this the action of a calculating killer hiding behind
16:34
a diagnosis, or was his behavior misunderstood due to his autism.
16:39
Speaker 2: That became the core battleground. The defense strategy leaned heavily
16:43
on his neurodivergence, you know, the homeschooling, the prodigy label,
16:46
the documented diagnosis of high functioning autism.
16:49
Speaker 1: How did they frame his behavior?
16:51
Speaker 2: They argued that things investigators saw as suspicious, his bluntness,
16:55
his tendency to go off on technical cangents, his apparent
16:58
lack of emotion were actually typical tes rates for someone
17:00
on the spectrum.
17:01
Speaker 1: Like the flat effect during interviews exactly.
17:04
Speaker 2: The defense suggested this wasn't coldness, but maybe masking fatigue,
17:09
the exhaustion that can come from constantly trying to navigate
17:13
neurotypical social expectations.
17:15
Speaker 1: And not crying about his mother.
17:17
Speaker 2: Framed is a possible emotional processing delay, not a lack
17:22
of grief. The argument was, essentially, you're misinterpreting autistic traits
17:26
as signs of guilt. Can someone who processes the world
17:29
so differently truly form the kind of cold, premeditated intent
17:34
needed for murder?
17:35
Speaker 1: It's a really difficult question ethically and legally. How do
17:38
you separate the condition from the alleged crime.
17:40
Speaker 2: Especially when the person is also highly intelligent. Does that
17:44
intelligence make the neurodivergens a mitigating factor or does it
17:47
make the potential for calculation even higher? The prosecution certainly
17:51
took the latter view.
17:52
Speaker 1: They didn't see social awkwardness. They saw evasion and legal maneuvering.
17:56
Speaker 2: Absolutely. They pointed to the fact that during depositions for
17:59
that insurance case, Nathan invoked his Fifth Amendment right against
18:02
self incrimination one hundred and forty seven times.
18:04
Speaker 1: One hundred and forty seven times. That sounds less like
18:06
confusion and more like legal strategy.
18:09
Speaker 2: That was the prosecution's point. This wasn't someone lost in
18:12
social cues. This was someone keenly aware of their legal
18:15
jeopardy and using every tool to protect themselves.
18:18
Speaker 1: And there was that specific exchange about the rifle right,
18:20
the potential grandfather of murder weapons.
18:23
Speaker 2: Yes, when asked directly about the missing SIGs hour during
18:26
a deposition, he didn't just say I don't know or deflect.
18:30
He gave a very precise, legalistic answer. What did he say,
18:33
I declined to answer on the grounds that may incriminate me.
18:36
Speaker 1: Wow, that's specific. He knew exactly what that question implied
18:40
and how to shut it down.
18:41
Speaker 2: Legally, it showed a level of legal understanding that seemed
18:45
to contradict the narrative of someone simply lost in their
18:48
own world. So you're left with this fundamental, unresolved question,
18:52
where does the neurodivergence end and the alleged criminal calculation begin?
18:57
Can both exist?
18:58
Speaker 1: A question that ultimately a criminal jury would have had
19:01
to decide, and the federal government clearly decided they had
19:04
enough to prove calculation.
19:06
Speaker 2: Yes. After years of investigation, synthesizing the evidence from the sinking,
19:10
the insurance trial, and the grandfather's murder, it all culminated
19:13
in twenty twenty.
19:14
Speaker 1: Two the federal indictment.
19:15
Speaker 2: May tenth, twenty twenty two, a grand jury and Drumont
19:19
handed down an eight count indictment serious charges murder on
19:23
the high seas, fraud, and that chillingly specific charge of
19:27
killing during the course of a scheme to inherit.
19:30
Speaker 1: They laid out the whole alleged plan in the indictment.
19:33
Speaker 2: It was incredibly detailed. Count one explicitly alleged Nathan murdered
19:37
Linda with the point three to zero eight rifle, the
19:40
one from a life raft possibly linked to the twenty
19:42
thirteen murder two, suggesting he shot her before scuttling the boat, so.
19:47
Speaker 1: Not just letting her drown, but actively killing her first.
19:50
Speaker 2: That was the allegation. It also charged him with fraud
19:53
for filing those false distress coordinates, deliberately misleading the Coastguard.
19:57
Speaker 1: Search, and lying on the inheritance forms.
20:00
Speaker 2: Count seven cover that claiming it was an accidental death
20:02
to try and secure the seven million dollars from his
20:04
grandfather's estate via his mother.
20:06
Speaker 1: They felt they had it all tied up, motive method,
20:09
the link between the two deaths, the financial trail.
20:12
Speaker 2: It seemed like the case was finally heading towards the
20:14
resolution in court. The trial was scheduled for October twenty
20:17
twenty three. Nathan was twenty eight, waiting in jail.
20:21
Speaker 1: Everyone was waiting for this trial, the culmination of a
20:24
decade of tragedy and suspicion.
20:26
Speaker 2: But then the final twist. June fifteenth, twenty twenty three,
20:31
just months before the trial.
20:32
Speaker 1: Was set to begin, he was found in his cell.
20:34
Speaker 2: Found unresponsive. The official medical examiner's report later ruled the
20:38
manner of death undetermined, not suicide, not homicide undetermined, but
20:42
the cause the cause of death was ruled asphyxia, and
20:46
the report noted ligature marks were present, so asphyxiation, but
20:50
the circumstances remained officially unclear.
20:53
Speaker 1: And legally what did that mean for the case?
20:56
Speaker 2: Case closed? With the defendant deceased, all federal charges were
20:59
just missed. There would be no trial, no verdict, no
21:02
legal finding of guilt or innocence.
21:04
Speaker 1: And that note he supposedly left.
21:06
Speaker 2: Ah Yes, report surfaced that Nathan left a note for
21:09
his attorneys, but the US Marshall Service sealed it. We
21:12
have no idea what it said. A confession, a final denial,
21:15
another technical explanation. It adds another layer of frustrating ambiguity.
21:19
Speaker 1: So no criminal justice outcome. But what about the money,
21:22
the seven million dollars that.
21:23
Speaker 2: At least had a clear resolution. The probate courts ultimately
21:27
ruled against Nathan's state receiving the funds.
21:31
Speaker 1: So his aunts got it.
21:32
Speaker 2: His mother's sisters, the ants who had fought him legally
21:35
for years, inherited the full Jackalist estate and importantly, Linda's
21:40
specific seven million dollar share was directed by the court to.
21:44
Speaker 1: Charities, which charity.
21:46
Speaker 2: Fittingly charities supporting autism research and also domestic violence shelters.
21:51
A poignant end to the financial aspect, ensuring the money
21:54
didn't go where Nathan allegedly wanted it to.
21:56
Speaker 1: Even without a shrial. This story is just its stick
22:00
with you, and it's getting the documentary treatment. Now.
22:02
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a Netflix film in the works, and the
22:05
sources suggest it's trying not to paint him as just
22:07
a simple villain. It wants to explore the complexity.
22:10
Speaker 1: How are they doing that?
22:11
Speaker 2: Apparently by contrasting different kinds of footage. You'll see old
22:15
home movies, Linda being a loving mother, young Nathan playing
22:18
set against say the Stark Coast Guard, bodycam video from
22:22
his rescue, that terror on his face, the physical state
22:25
he was in.
22:25
Speaker 1: Juxtaposing the different Nathans.
22:28
Speaker 2: Exactly and using the conflicting voices, you'll likely hear his
22:31
aunt Valerie saying, with absolute certainty, he executed my father,
22:35
and then perhaps his former guardian Adltam pleading you can't
22:38
indict a brain wiring, showing that deep divide in perception.
22:42
Speaker 1: And they're using the tech evidence visually.
22:44
Speaker 2: Seems so animated drift models to show how impossible his
22:47
original story was three D reconstructions of the whole damage
22:51
and crucially they incorporated the very latest findings.
22:54
Speaker 1: The NTSB report from when they finally found the wreck.
22:57
Speaker 2: Yes, that came out in twenty twenty four after years
22:59
of searching. They located the Chicken Pox. It was deep
23:02
about six to eight hundred feet down.
23:04
Speaker 1: And what did the NTSB conclude about the wreckage? Did
23:07
it confirm the sabotage theory?
23:09
Speaker 2: It provided a final damning piece of physical evidence. The
23:13
report highlighted damage to the port side bilge area and
23:16
the NTSB described it as resulting from get this catastrophic
23:20
implosion consistent with deliberate overpressurization.
23:23
Speaker 1: Deliberate over pressurization. Okay, break that down. What does that mean?
23:27
Speaker 2: In Planet Elsh It means the boat didn't just leak
23:29
or get hit by a wave. It means water was
23:32
actively rapidly forced into the hull somehow, maybe through intentionally
23:37
open sea valves or other means. This built up immense
23:40
internal pressure very quickly, causing the whole structure around the
23:44
bilge to violently implode inwards.
23:47
Speaker 1: So it supports the idea of a very fast engineered sinking,
23:51
not just leaky puttiholes.
23:52
Speaker 2: Precisely, it strongly suggests an active, deliberate action to flood
23:57
the boat extremely rapidly consistent with Nathan's claim of a
24:00
near instant sinking, but pointing to him as the cause,
24:03
not an accident. The physical evidence finally matched the theory
24:06
from the insurance trial.
24:08
Speaker 1: So we have the science, the forensics pointing one way,
24:11
but the person at the center is gone.
24:13
Speaker 2: And that's the core theme the source is keep returning to.
24:15
There's no need ending here, no courtroom confession, no final
24:19
judgment delivered by a jury. It's deeply unsatisfying in that sense.
24:23
Speaker 1: Leave you with more questions than answers.
24:24
Speaker 2: Almost Yeah, was he this mirror figure, brilliant but broken?
24:30
Maybe entitled? Was he predator or prey or somehow both?
24:35
How much money is a mother's life worth? He was
24:37
the only witness to whatever happened to Linda in those
24:39
final moments, and that knowledge died with him.
24:42
Speaker 1: Okay, this has been incredibly dense, a really detailed look
24:44
at a truly disturbing case. Let's try and pull out
24:47
the main takeaways for everyone listening.
24:49
Speaker 2: I think the key facts that jump out are those
24:52
sabotage quality whole modifications, the drift path evidence that just
24:56
completely undercut his story, The crystal clear seven million dollar
24:59
in inheritance motive and that strong circumstantial link back to
25:04
his grandfather's unsolved murder in twenty thirteen.
25:07
Speaker 1: And from a process perspective, the big learning here is
25:09
how that civil insurance trial became so pivotal. It wasn't
25:11
criminal court, but the forensic evidence presented there, the engineering reports,
25:15
the testimony about the hall that essentially built the foundation
25:18
for the later murder indictment.
25:20
Speaker 2: Absolutely it shows how different legal arenas can sometimes work together,
25:24
even unintentionally, to uncover the truth. The lower burden of
25:27
proof in the civil case allowed the how to be established,
25:31
which prosecutors then use to build their case for why.
25:33
Speaker 1: Which brings us to our final thought for you, the listener,
25:36
We have the NTSB confirming deliberate over pressurization, scientific proof
25:42
the boat was intentionally sunk. We know Nathan died leaving
25:45
that sealed note.
25:46
Speaker 2: So the physical evidence arrives confirming the method, But the
25:50
full story, the nuances, maybe a confession or a final
25:53
desperate plea of innocence that's locked away died with him.
25:57
Speaker 1: It forces you to ask what's the value of no
26:00
knowing how something happens? Scientifically? When the person responsible is gone.
26:03
Justice in a courtroom sense is impossible, and the full
26:06
human story remain sealed. Does that technical knowledge satisfy our
26:10
need for resolution?
26:11
Speaker 2: It's a tough one. If you want to dig even deeper.
26:14
Evan Lebowski's original Wired article is essential. Reading the NTSB
26:18
report itself is publicly available for the technical details, and
26:22
keep an eye out for that documentary. And apparently the
26:25
lawyer from the insurance case, David Farrell Junior, is writing
26:27
a book too.
26:28
Speaker 1: Plenty more to explore until next time on the deep Dive,
26:31
Keep questioning, keep digging,