Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / What Happened to Regina Hicks?

Transcript

What Happened to Regina Hicks? · Murder Files Unsealed

0:00
Speaker 1: So picture this. It is October two thousand and one,
0:05
and a twenty five year old woman drowns inside a
0:08
white nineteen ninety two Chevrolet Camaro.
0:11
Speaker 2: Right in a completely murky retention pond in rural Ohio.
0:15
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you know, on the surface, that sounds like
0:17
a tragic but straightforward traffic accident, like a dark road
0:20
and a misturned.
0:21
Speaker 2: A terrible mistake, basically.
0:22
Speaker 1: Exactly a mistake. But when the dive team finally hooks
0:26
the cables to that submerged car and hauls it out
0:29
of the cold water, they look inside and realize an
0:32
accidental crash was physically impossible, completely impossible, because the victim,
0:36
Regina Rohicks, she wasn't behind the wheel, She was strapped
0:40
tightly into the passenger.
0:41
Speaker 2: Seat with her seatbelt securely fastening.
0:43
Speaker 1: Yes, with the seatbelt fastened. I mean it is just chilling.
0:46
Speaker 2: It is the ultimate paradox. I mean, you don't accidentally
0:49
drive your own car into a body of water from
0:50
the passenger.
0:51
Speaker 1: Side, right, How would you even do that?
0:53
Speaker 2: You wouldn't and you certainly don't just sit there buckled
0:55
in as the muddy water rises. So that single visual
0:59
that fastened passenger seat belt. It completely transforms the entire scene.
1:04
Speaker 1: From a tragedy into like a meticulously staged grime scene.
1:08
Speaker 2: Exactly.
1:08
Speaker 1: You are looking at a scenario that practically screams foul
1:12
play from literally the very first second.
1:14
Speaker 2: Yeah, the red flags are immediate.
1:16
Speaker 1: So today our mission on this deep dive is to
1:19
really explore the agonizing mechanics of a cold case. We
1:24
are going to look at how a crime with such obvious,
1:26
glaring red flags managed to sit ice cold for nearly
1:29
a quarter of a century.
1:31
Speaker 2: A massively frustrating twenty four years.
1:33
Speaker 1: Right. We are drawing on recent trial transcripts, statements from
1:37
the Ohio Attorney General, and also insights connected to the
1:41
newly aired twenty twenty episode called The Secret in the
1:43
Water from May twenty twenty six.
1:45
Speaker 2: Which was incredibly detailed by the.
1:47
Speaker 1: Way it really was. And we're going to trace how
1:50
a suddenly broken silence in twenty twenty five finally brought
1:53
a killer to justice.
1:55
Speaker 2: If we connect this to the bigger picture, this story
1:57
is fundamentally a masterclass in the heartbreaking game between knowing
2:01
who committed a crime and legally proving it in a
2:03
court of law.
2:04
Speaker 1: Yes, knowing versus proving. It's so tough it.
2:07
Speaker 2: Forces us to examine the friction between absolute common sense
2:12
and the rigorous, sometimes paralyzing demands of the American justice.
2:16
Speaker 1: System, because common sense says one thing, but the law
2:18
says another.
2:19
Speaker 2: Exactly, we are going to explore what happens when physical
2:23
evidence tells you exactly how a murder happened, but completely
2:28
fails to tell you who did it.
2:29
Speaker 1: So let's establish the baseline. Here. We are in here
2:32
on County, Ohio, right, and it is October eighteenth, two
2:36
thousand and one. I want you to picture the landscape.
2:38
This is farm country, each farm country. The roads out
2:41
here they stretch out in these long straight lines right
2:44
between harvested fields. And it gets incredibly dark at night.
2:48
Speaker 2: There are no street lights illuminating every intersection out there.
2:50
Speaker 1: No none at all. So Regina Rohicks leaves her boyfriend's
2:53
house in a town called Willard. She gets into her
2:56
white Camaro and she is setting out on a completely
2:59
munday and.
3:00
Speaker 2: Mission, just a normal evening.
3:01
Speaker 1: Errand yeah, she is just driving over to pick up
3:04
her four year old son.
3:05
Speaker 2: Montana, and she is picking him up from a very
3:07
specific location, which is the home of her estranged husband's
3:12
best friend.
3:12
Speaker 1: Which is such a wild detail, it is a critical
3:16
piece of the geographical and psychological map of this case.
3:20
Speaker 2: I mean, she is navigating familiar roads, making a short trip.
3:24
She probably didn't even think twice of that.
3:26
Speaker 1: Right, She is just a mother running a routine errand exactly.
3:29
It is the kind of drive you do on autopilot.
3:31
You grab your keys, you throw your bag on the seat.
3:34
You figure you'll be back home with your kid in
3:35
twenty minutes.
3:36
Speaker 2: Which she never makes it.
3:37
Speaker 1: No, Regina never arrives at that house. She just vanishes
3:41
into the rural darkness, and for four agonizing days, her
3:45
family is thrown into that unique kind of hell reserve
3:49
for the relatives of missing persons.
3:51
Speaker 2: The waiting must have been unbearable.
3:52
Speaker 1: Absolutely, every phone call makes your heart stop. Every car
3:56
pulling into the driveway feels like it might be the police. Right,
3:59
and four days later the waiting ends in the worst
4:02
possible way. A local farmer is out near town Line
4:05
Road twelve. Yeah, and he spot something unnatural near a
4:08
retention pond just off Section Line Road thirty.
4:11
Speaker 2: He spots tire tracks, and you know, in a rural environment,
4:15
farmers know the land intimately.
4:17
Speaker 1: They know every inch of it exactly.
4:19
Speaker 2: They know where tractors belong, where trucks pull off, and
4:22
where the grass should just remain undisturbed.
4:25
Speaker 1: Right, And these tracks were definitely undisturbed until then.
4:27
Speaker 2: Yeah, these tracks led directly off the road, carved right
4:31
through the mud and grass and just disappeared straight into
4:35
the water of the retention pond.
4:36
Speaker 1: And just to give you a visual, these retention ponds
4:39
are everywhere in farming communities.
4:41
Speaker 2: They are super common.
4:42
Speaker 1: They are designed to manage water runoff and prevent flooding
4:46
in the fields. Like. They aren't recreational lakes.
4:48
Speaker 2: No, you don't go swimming in them.
4:50
Speaker 1: No, they are functional and often deep, and the water
4:53
is incredibly murky, filled with silt and agricultural runoff.
4:58
Speaker 2: It is basically the perfect place for something heavy to disappear.
5:01
Speaker 1: Yeah, so the authorities are called the divers go in
5:05
and they locate the camaro, they pull it out, and
5:07
this is where the investigation hits that massive wall of
5:11
forensic contradiction.
5:12
Speaker 2: The contradiction is huge here.
5:13
Speaker 1: I was looking through the details of the autopsy report
5:16
and the first thing that jumped out to me wasn't
5:18
the drowning it was the.
5:20
Speaker 2: Trauma, right, the physical trauma.
5:21
Speaker 1: How does someone get blunt force trauma while belted into
5:25
a car that is sinking.
5:26
Speaker 2: They don't. They just don't. And this is where forensic
5:30
science has to step in and basically translate the physical
5:33
trauma into a sequence of events.
5:35
Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this because it's so important.
5:38
Speaker 2: Let's break down the mechanics of the evidence found at
5:41
the scene and during the autopsy, because it is vital
5:44
to understanding why the police immediately knew this was murder.
5:48
Speaker 1: Right.
5:48
Speaker 2: First, we have the positioning, Like you mentioned, she was
5:51
in the passenger seat, buckled in.
5:52
Speaker 1: Yeah, the driver's seat was totally empty.
5:54
Speaker 2: Exactly, The driver's seat was empty, and this definitively rules
5:57
out a scenario where she suffered like a medical and urgency,
6:01
lost control of the vehicle.
6:02
Speaker 1: And crashed, right unless someone believed she crashed and then
6:05
in some sort of state of delirium, climbed over the
6:08
center console, sat in the passenger seat, and then buckled
6:10
herself in while the car filled.
6:12
Speaker 2: With water, which is completely absurd.
6:14
Speaker 1: It makes zero sense.
6:15
Speaker 2: It defies all human survival instincts. Second, we look at
6:18
the toxicology.
6:19
Speaker 1: Report, because in cases of bizarre vehicular incidents, investigators always
6:24
look for chemical explanations, right always.
6:27
Speaker 2: They want to know, was she profoundly intoxicated? Was she
6:31
under the influence of narcotics that might induce like a
6:34
dissociative state or severe hallucinations?
6:37
Speaker 1: And what did the tox report say?
6:39
Speaker 2: The toxicology came back completely clean, zero drugs, zero alcohol.
6:44
She was completely sober.
6:46
Speaker 1: Wow, which means she had her full faculties.
6:49
Speaker 2: Yes she did.
6:50
Speaker 1: If she had somehow found herself in a sinking car awake,
6:54
a sober twenty five year old would.
6:56
Speaker 2: Fight absolutely, She would fight for her life.
6:58
Speaker 1: She would unbuckle that belt, she would try to kick
7:00
out a window. She would scramble for the remaining air
7:03
pocket near the ceiling of the vehicle.
7:05
Speaker 2: Precisely, the lack of defensive wounds, the lack of broken
7:09
fingernails from clawing at the glass, and the fastened seatbelt
7:12
all pointing capacitation.
7:13
Speaker 1: Couldn't fight back, right.
7:14
Speaker 2: Which brings us to the most damning piece of physical evidence.
7:18
The autopsy revealed three distinct, blunt four strikes to the
7:23
top of Regina's scalp.
7:24
Speaker 1: Okay, let's slow down and really look at that three
7:26
strikes at the top of the head.
7:28
Speaker 2: Yeah, three strikes.
7:29
Speaker 1: When a car hits the water, Even if it goes
7:31
in relatively fast and hits the surface hard, the physics
7:34
of that impact dictate the injuries.
7:36
Speaker 2: Yes. Think about the biomechanics of a crash. If you
7:41
are strapped into a passenger seat and the vehicle suddenly decelerates,
7:46
whether by hitting water or hitting a tree, your body
7:49
is thrown forward against.
7:50
Speaker 1: The restraint right you hit seat belt.
7:52
Speaker 2: You would expect to see bruising across the chest and
7:55
a collar bone.
7:56
Speaker 1: From the sea shone poor facial trauma from hitting the dashboard.
7:59
Speaker 2: Exactly, or whiplash related injuries to the cervical spine. You
8:03
absolutely do not get three isolated downward strikes to the
8:07
top of the cranium.
8:08
Speaker 1: That requires a very specific motion.
8:11
Speaker 2: It requires an overhead swinging motion with a solid object.
8:14
Speaker 1: It requires an attacker. Someone stood over her or beside
8:17
her and brought something heavy down on her head three times.
8:20
Speaker 2: It is highly indicative of a brutal assault that occurred
8:23
before the vehicle ever entered the retention pond.
8:26
Speaker 1: Wow, so they knocked her out first.
8:28
Speaker 2: The strikes were definitely designed incapacitator.
8:30
Speaker 1: But here is the part that is so incredibly dark.
8:34
Despite those severe blows to the head, the coroner determined
8:37
that her actual cause of death was drowning.
8:39
Speaker 2: Yes, and this is terrible to think about. The autopsy
8:44
would have looked for specific physiological markers often called a
8:47
vital reaction.
8:49
Speaker 1: What does that mean exactly?
8:50
Speaker 2: When a person who is alive enters the water and
8:53
goes under the body's autonomous reflex is to try.
8:57
Speaker 1: And breathe, right you gasped for air, water.
9:00
Speaker 2: Rushes into the lungs, into the stomach. Microscopic organisms in
9:04
the water, like diatoms, can be absorbed into the bloodstream
9:07
and deposited in organ.
9:09
Speaker 1: And if they are already dead, if.
9:10
Speaker 2: A body is deceased before it goes into the water,
9:13
those physiological processes just don't happen. The water might enter
9:16
the airway passively, but it isn't actively inhaled deeply into
9:20
the lung tissue in the same way.
9:21
Speaker 1: So the diatoms proved she was alive.
9:24
Speaker 2: The corner's findings confirmed that Regina was alive when that
9:26
camaro hit the water, unconscious from the head trauma, undoubtedly,
9:30
but her heart was beating and she was breathing.
9:32
Speaker 1: Oh my god, it is a suffocating reality to think about.
9:35
Speaker 2: It really is horrifying.
9:37
Speaker 1: To be knocked unconscious, placed into your own car, and
9:40
then essentially left to slowly drown in the dark, helpless.
9:44
It feels like a locked room mystery. But the room
9:46
is a metal box filling with muddy water.
9:48
Speaker 2: That's a very accurate way to describe it.
9:50
Speaker 1: So you are the investigators in two thousand and one.
9:53
You have a submerged car, a victim buckled into the
9:56
passenger side, a clean toxicology report.
10:00
Speaker 2: And three blunt force wounds to the.
10:01
Speaker 1: Head, and death by drowning. The physical evidence screams foul play.
10:07
Speaker 2: It's undeniably a homicide, and she was.
10:09
Speaker 1: On her way to pick up her son from the
10:11
circle of her estranged husband. To me, and I think
10:14
to anyone listening, this points a massive, glowing kneon arrow
10:17
at one specific direction.
10:19
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely so.
10:20
Speaker 1: How does an investigation stall at the starting line when
10:22
the circumstances are this suspicious?
10:25
Speaker 2: Because physical evidence is incredibly good at telling you what happened,
10:29
but unless the killer makes a mistake, it is terrible
10:31
at telling you who did it.
10:32
Speaker 1: That is so frustrating.
10:34
Speaker 2: The autopsy proves she was struck, the position of the
10:36
body proves she was incapacitated. The water in her lungs
10:40
proves the sequence of death.
10:42
Speaker 1: But the water also washes things away, right, Yes, water
10:46
is the absolute enemy of forensic trace evidence.
10:49
Speaker 2: A submerged vehicle is a totally compromised crime scene.
10:53
Speaker 1: It just ruins everything.
10:54
Speaker 2: Water washes away fingerprints from the steering wheel, It degrades
10:59
biological material. It deludes blood evidence.
11:02
Speaker 1: So no DNA.
11:03
Speaker 2: Unless the killer left a piece of themselves behind like
11:08
DNA under her fingernails, which she wouldn't have because she
11:11
was likely attacked from behind or quickly knocked out. The
11:14
physical link between the crime and the perpetrator.
11:16
Speaker 1: Is severed, so the environment itself aided the killer very much.
11:20
Though the pond acted like a reset button on the
11:22
forensic evidence exactly.
11:24
Speaker 2: The investigators were left with a brilliantly clear picture of
11:27
the murder, but a completely blank canvas regarding the murderer's
11:31
physical presence at the scene.
11:32
Speaker 1: That has to be maddening for a detective.
11:34
Speaker 2: This perfectly tees up the transition from forensic science to
11:38
behavioral profiling and circumstantial evidence. If the science can't give
11:42
you a name, you have to look at the psychology
11:44
and the motives of the people surrounding the victim.
11:46
Speaker 1: Right, you look at who benefits, And.
11:48
Speaker 2: In this case, suspicion immediately and intensely fell on one man.
11:54
Speaker 1: Let's look at the prime suspect, Paul Hicks.
11:56
Speaker 2: Regina's a strange husband and.
11:58
Speaker 1: The father of her four year old son, Montana. Now,
12:01
when we talk about behavior that raises suspicion, Paul's actions
12:05
and the immediate aftermath of Regina's death are just staggering.
12:09
Speaker 2: They really are.
12:10
Speaker 1: We found this detail in the source material and it
12:12
genuinely stopped me in my tracks. The very next day,
12:15
after Regina's body is pulled from that pond, the very
12:19
next day, Paul Hicks marched into court, filed for divorce,
12:22
and sought full legal custody of their son.
12:24
Speaker 2: The sheer audacity of that timing is what makes it
12:27
so chilling.
12:28
Speaker 1: I mean, twenty four hours later.
12:29
Speaker 2: Psychologically, it suggests a profound lack of empathy, a complete
12:33
absence of the paralyzing grief you would expect from someone
12:35
whose child's mother was just found murdered.
12:37
Speaker 1: Most people would be a catatonic.
12:39
Speaker 2: Instead of grieving, he executes a chillingly pragmatic legal maneuver.
12:45
A twenty five year old mother is found dead under
12:48
highly suspicious circumstances, and within a day, the estranged husband's
12:52
priority is to formalize a legal separation from a deceased
12:56
person and secure total control over the child.
13:00
Speaker 1: It feels like an admission of motive to me.
13:02
Speaker 2: It certainly looks like one think about it.
13:04
Speaker 1: Regina wanted her independence. The sources indicate she was fighting
13:07
for it. She wanted out of the relationship, she wanted custodies,
13:10
she wanted child support. She was breaking away, and the
13:13
absolute second she is out of the picture, Paul swoops
13:16
in to establish total dominance over the situation. It is
13:20
the ultimate exercise in control.
13:22
Speaker 2: It is the behavioral equivalent of a smoking gun. To
13:25
investigators and certainly to Regina's family, it looked like Paul
13:28
was simply tying up the loose ends of a plan
13:30
he had already executed.
13:32
Speaker 1: But this is where the reality of the justice system
13:34
crashes headfirst into the intuition of the investigators.
13:37
Speaker 2: Because knowing someone did it and proving they did it
13:40
are two entirely different universes.
13:42
Speaker 1: Right, it's the gap we talked about precisely.
13:45
Speaker 2: Let's explore the legal void that trapped the police in
13:48
two thousand and one, Special Agent John Soriah of the
13:52
Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation the BCI, he summed up
13:56
the agonizing frustration of those early days perfectly.
13:59
Speaker 1: What did he say?
14:00
Speaker 2: He said, there was nothing to definitively link him to
14:03
the crime, No admissions. It's a hard case.
14:07
Speaker 1: Which has to be a uniquely bitter pill for a
14:09
detective to swallow.
14:10
Speaker 2: Absolutely, you are looking.
14:11
Speaker 1: At the puzzle. All the pieces fit together to form
14:14
a picture of Paul Hicks, but you just can't arrest him.
14:17
Speaker 2: Let's put this in perspective using the standard of proof
14:20
required in our system. The Constitution demands proof beyond the
14:24
reasonable doubt to strip a person of their liberty.
14:26
Speaker 1: And suspicion isn't proof.
14:27
Speaker 2: Everyone in town whispering what they suspect is not evidence.
14:30
A husband acting suspiciously callous is not proof of murder.
14:33
Speaker 1: So if they had arrested him.
14:35
Speaker 2: If investigators had arrested Paul Hicks in two thousand and
14:38
one based solely on the fact that they were estranged,
14:40
that she was found murdered, and that he filed for
14:43
custody the next day. Any competent defense attorney would have
14:46
dismantled the prosecution's case before lunch.
14:48
Speaker 1: They would just point to the empty spaces, right. They'd say,
14:51
where is the DNA, where is the murder weapon? Where
14:54
is the eyewitness placing Paul at the pond?
14:56
Speaker 2: The defense would simply say, my client is It's a
15:00
grieving man who took immediate steps to protect his son
15:03
after a tragedy. You have absolutely zero physical proof he
15:07
was ever in that camaro that night.
15:08
Speaker 1: And a jury would have to let him go.
15:10
Speaker 2: A jury instructed to convict only if there is no
15:13
reasonable doubt would be forced to acquit him.
15:16
Speaker 1: And here is where I need to talk about double jeopardy,
15:18
because it explains why police don't just roll the dice
15:21
and hope a jury sides with them on a weak case.
15:23
Speaker 2: Right. Think of double jeopardy like walking into a high
15:25
stakes casino where you are only given one single chip,
15:30
one chip, you can only place your bet once. If
15:33
the state takes Paul Hicks to trial in two thousand
15:35
and one with a weak, purely circumstantial case and the
15:39
jury finds him not guilty, the state loses its chip forever.
15:44
Speaker 1: He can never be tried for Regina's murder again, no
15:46
matter what happens in the future.
15:48
Speaker 2: Even if ten years later they find a video tip
15:50
of him doing it, even if he writes the book
15:52
confessing to it.
15:53
Speaker 1: Wait, really, even with a confession.
15:55
Speaker 2: Even then, once acquitted, he is permanently shielded by the
15:59
thing at amendment. So the BCI investigators, recognizing they didn't
16:04
have a winning hand, had to make the agonizing decision
16:07
to walk away from the table.
16:09
Speaker 1: They had to let him walk.
16:10
Speaker 2: They couldn't risk burning their only chance of justice. The
16:13
case goes cold, the files go into a box, and
16:16
Paul Hicks walks free.
16:18
Speaker 1: I want you to really think about what that means
16:21
for the people left behind.
16:22
Speaker 2: The psychological toll is massive.
16:25
Speaker 1: Just imagine for a second putting yourself in the living
16:27
room of Regina's family. You know, with every fiber of
16:31
your being who took your loved.
16:32
Speaker 2: One, but the system tells you there is not enough
16:35
evidence to put handcuffs on him.
16:36
Speaker 1: So you have to endure the psychological torture. You have
16:39
to sit there day after day, year after year, and
16:42
watch this man raise the victim's sun in the same town.
16:45
You have to watch him go to the grocery store,
16:47
get gas, live his life, breathe the air that Regina
16:50
isn't breathing for decades.
16:52
Speaker 2: It's unbearable.
16:53
Speaker 1: How do you survive that without losing your mind? How
16:56
do you not completely surrender to despair?
16:59
Speaker 2: It is an unamis adtionable burden. It is a specific
17:02
type of complex trauma. The Rowan Holberg families were left
17:07
with this devastating, hollow void.
17:09
Speaker 1: They had to carry so much grief.
17:10
Speaker 2: They were caring, not just the raw grief of losing
17:13
a vibrant and twenty five year old woman, but the compounded,
17:15
festering trauma of a denied justice. They had to watch
17:20
the prime suspect absorb Regina's child into his world.
17:24
Speaker 1: But they didn't give up.
17:25
Speaker 2: No, they didn't. What is truly remarkable about the human spirit,
17:28
and specifically about Regina's family, is how they weaponized that agony.
17:34
They refused to let the silence win.
17:35
Speaker 1: Be fought back.
17:36
Speaker 2: They refused to let Regina be forgotten by the community
17:39
or by the police.
17:40
Speaker 1: Yes, Lycella Holberg, Regina's family member, she became an absolute
17:43
force of nature She was relentless. She utilized one of
17:46
the most effective visceral tools available to a grieving family billboards.
17:51
Speaker 2: Billboards are so powerful.
17:53
Speaker 1: She raised money, she offered rewards, and she plastered Regina's
17:57
face alongside questions demanding justice on these massive.
18:00
Speaker 2: Signs, right out in the open.
18:02
Speaker 1: She made sure that anyone driving through Huron County, navigating
18:05
those same rural roads where Regina was taken, was forced
18:08
to look up and remembered that a murderer was still
18:11
living among them.
18:12
Speaker 2: And that kind of public pressure is not just an
18:14
expression of grief, It is a vital investigative strategy in
18:18
a cold case. How So, billboards serve two distinct powerful purposes. First,
18:24
they keep the investigators accountable. Every time a detective drives
18:29
to work and sees that sign, they are reminded that
18:31
there is a family in their jurisdiction waiting for answers.
18:34
Speaker 1: It stops them from forgetting exactly.
18:36
Speaker 2: It prevents the file from gathering dust in a basement.
18:39
It's a refusal to let the case be quietly archived.
18:43
And the second purpose, the second purpose, is even more tactical.
18:46
It creates an ambient psychological pressure cooker within the community.
18:50
A billboard is a constant, looming reminder to anyone who
18:54
might know something, or to the killer themselves, that the
18:57
past is not buried.
18:58
Speaker 1: It's like a daily taunt to their conscience.
19:01
Speaker 2: Right if someone held cover up the crime or heard
19:03
a confession, that billboard is a daily strike against their conscience.
19:08
It keeps the tension high, it makes people nervous, and
19:12
nervous people eventually talk.
19:13
Speaker 1: And that relentless pressure, spanning nearly a quarter of a century,
19:16
is what finally tipped the scales.
19:18
Speaker 2: It just took time.
19:19
Speaker 1: Over time, a new generation stepped into the arena. You
19:22
have the BCI Cold Case team taking a fresh, modernized
19:27
look at the old files, right with new eyes. You
19:29
have independent voices like local podcaster Ashley Ford digging into
19:34
the whisper networks of Huron County and putting a spotlight
19:37
directly back on the key players.
19:38
Speaker 2: All of this creates heat.
19:40
Speaker 1: Yes, it was this sustained heat that finally melted the
19:43
resolve of the one person who actually held the missing
19:46
piece of the puzzle, which brings us.
19:48
Speaker 2: To the dam breaking in twenty twenty five.
19:51
Speaker 1: Fast forward twenty four years, twenty twenty five, Regina has
19:56
been gone for nearly as long as she was alive.
19:58
Speaker 2: That's a sobering thought.
19:59
Speaker 1: And suddenly a bombshell revelation shatters the decades of silence.
20:03
A man named Steve Gates walks into an interview room
20:06
and comes forward to the authorities. And here is where
20:09
the narrative of this deep dive takes an incredibly dark,
20:13
deeply cynical turn. Steve Gates wasn't just some random witness
20:17
who happened to see something while walking his dog.
20:19
Speaker 2: No, he was intimately involved.
20:20
Speaker 1: He was Paul Hicks's best friend. And even more horrifying,
20:24
think back to the beginning of our deep dive, the
20:27
destination Regina was driving to that night to pick up
20:30
her son with Steve Gates's house.
20:32
Speaker 2: The irony is staggering, and it adds such a layer
20:35
of malice to the crime. The last place Regina was
20:38
supposed to arrive safely, the place she was going to
20:41
collect her child, was the exact location where her fate
20:44
was sealed.
20:45
Speaker 1: She walked right into a trap.
20:46
Speaker 2: She walked right into a trap at the hands of
20:48
her estranged husband while his best friend watched.
20:51
Speaker 1: So what exactly did Steve Gates tell investigators after sitting
20:55
on this secret for twenty four years because he didn't
20:58
just give them a puzzle piece. He handed them the
21:01
entire box with the picture on the front.
21:03
Speaker 2: He really did. He provided a meticulous, devastatingly clear narrative
21:07
that perfectly mapped onto the physical evidence from two thousand
21:10
and one.
21:10
Speaker 1: What did he say happened?
21:12
Speaker 2: According to Gates's testimony, the night of October eighteen began
21:15
with a vicious argument at his home. Paul and Regina
21:19
were locked in an.
21:20
Speaker 1: Altercation, an argument that escalated.
21:22
Speaker 2: And during this fight, Gates admitted he watched Paul strike
21:25
Regina violently, knocking her completely unconscious.
21:28
Speaker 1: Which instantly explains the mystery of the autopsy the three
21:32
blunt forced trauma wounds to the top of her scalp.
21:35
That they didn't happen in the car.
21:36
Speaker 2: No, they happened in Steve Gates's house. Oh wow, precisely,
21:41
the forensic time capsule from two thousand and one suddenly
21:44
aligns perfectly with the witness testimony in twenty twenty five.
21:48
The what finally connects with the who and the where.
21:50
Speaker 1: It all clicks into place.
21:52
Speaker 2: Gates then detailed the next horrific steps. He claimed Paul
21:55
picked up Regina's limp unconscious body, carried her outside to
21:59
her own nineteen ninety to camaro, and placed her into
22:01
the passenger.
22:02
Speaker 1: Seat and then buckled her in.
22:03
Speaker 2: He then reached over and buckled the seatbelt around.
22:05
Speaker 1: Her, again matching the paradoxical crime scene exactly. It explains
22:09
why a victim of a water crash was strapped into
22:11
the passenger side.
22:13
Speaker 2: Yes, it explains the staging of the scene. Then, according
22:17
to Gates, Paul got into the driver's seat, started the Camaro,
22:20
and drove it down the rural roads to that specific
22:23
retention pond off section Line Road thirty.
22:25
Speaker 1: And Gates followed him.
22:27
Speaker 2: Gates claimed he didn't just hear about this later he
22:30
witnessed the disposal. He watched Paul position the car and
22:33
then either push or drive the vehicle directly into.
22:36
Speaker 1: The dark water and just left her there.
22:38
Speaker 2: And then Paul simply walked away, leaving his unconscious wife
22:42
to drown as the muddy water breached the doors and
22:45
filled the cabin.
22:46
Speaker 1: And there was a quote from Gates's testimony regarding Paul's
22:49
demeanor afterward that just chilled me to the bone.
22:51
Speaker 2: It is so disturbing.
22:53
Speaker 1: After the car was submerged, Paul allegedly turned to his
22:56
best friend and said, Duch's fing dead.
22:58
Speaker 2: It is the ultimate state of cold, calculated.
23:01
Speaker 1: Intent, no remorse at all.
23:03
Speaker 2: There is no panic in that phrase. There is no
23:05
frantic realization of a mistake. There is no call for
23:08
an ambulance. It is the sterile statement of a predator
23:12
who has successfully achieved an objective.
23:14
Speaker 1: He got exactly what he wanted.
23:16
Speaker 2: It perfectly encapsulates the lethal control that Paul required. Gates
23:20
also went on to provide context for the murder, alleging
23:23
that there was a history of prior physical abuse by
23:26
Paul toward Virginia.
23:28
Speaker 1: So this wasn't an isolated incident.
23:30
Speaker 2: No. It paints a picture of a highly volatile, dangerous
23:33
dynamic leading up to that fatal night.
23:36
Speaker 1: Okay, I have to jump in here because I know
23:38
exactly what you are thinking as you listen to this.
23:41
I felt the same visceral anger when I read the
23:44
source material.
23:45
Speaker 2: It is infuriating.
23:46
Speaker 1: Wait, this guy, Steve Gates, stands in his own home
23:50
and watches a woman get beaten, unconscious. He watches her
23:54
body get stuffed into a car. He watches that car
23:56
get driven into a palm to drown her, and he
23:59
just stays quiet.
24:01
Speaker 2: For twenty four years, he said absolutely nothing.
24:03
Speaker 1: He wakes up every day, drinks his coffee, goes to work,
24:06
knowing exactly what happened to his best friend's wife. He
24:08
drives past Lasla Halbrooks billboards.
24:11
Speaker 2: He sees the family suffering.
24:12
Speaker 1: He knows Regina's son is growing up motherless, raised by
24:15
a murderer. And he only decides to talk when the
24:18
authorities corner him and offer him immunity.
24:20
Speaker 2: That's the reality of it.
24:22
Speaker 1: How does a jury trust a single syllable that comes
24:25
out of a man like that?
24:26
Speaker 2: What's facinating here is that is the most vital question
24:29
of the case, and it cuts to the absolute core
24:32
of how the American justice system truly operates behind closed doors.
24:36
Speaker 1: Because it feels so wrong.
24:38
Speaker 2: We have to examine the brutal, pragmatic calculus of prosecution.
24:42
When the BCI and the prosecutors finally got Steve Gates
24:45
in a room, they faced an impossible choice.
24:48
Speaker 1: Well was the choice.
24:49
Speaker 2: They had two bad actors, the man who wielded the
24:51
weapon and the man who hid the secret. Do they
24:54
want to punish Steve Gates for his complicity, his accessory
24:57
after the fact, and his cowardly twenty four your silence.
25:00
Speaker 1: Or do they want the main guy or do.
25:02
Speaker 2: They want to catch the primary killer, the man who
25:04
actually struck the blows and drowned Regina.
25:07
Speaker 1: You want the primary killer, You want the architect of
25:09
the murder, exactly.
25:11
Speaker 2: And sometimes to catch the devil, you have to write
25:13
a contract with a demon. That is the grim reality
25:16
of immunity deals.
25:18
Speaker 1: They made a deal with the devil.
25:20
Speaker 2: Prosecutors are not naive. They know that when they put
25:23
an immunized witness on the stand, the jury is going
25:26
to absolutely despise him.
25:27
Speaker 1: I would despise him.
25:29
Speaker 2: They know the defense attorney's going to tear him apart
25:31
on cross examination. But they also know the math of
25:34
their case.
25:35
Speaker 1: Without him, they have nothing.
25:36
Speaker 2: Without Steve Gates, they have a submerged car, an old
25:39
autopsy report, and a lot of whispers. With Steve Gates,
25:43
they have an eyewitness to murder.
25:45
Speaker 1: It's the only way to build the bridge.
25:46
Speaker 2: They needed his testimony to bridge the chasm between the
25:49
physical evidence of two thousand and one and the identity
25:52
of Paul Hicks.
25:53
Speaker 1: It is such a bitter pill to swallow, to look
25:56
at a man who enabled a murderer for a quarter
25:59
of a entry and hand him a get out of
26:01
jail free card. You are essentially rewarding his silence.
26:05
Speaker 2: It is deeply uncomfortable, and it feels inherently unjust, But
26:09
prosecutors are tasked with prioritizing the highest level of accountability.
26:13
Speaker 1: They wanted Paul Hicks more than they wanted Steve Gates.
26:15
Speaker 2: They believed granting immunity to Gates was the only viable
26:18
path to locking Paul Hicks in a prison cell. And
26:21
your exact skepticism, your revulsion at gates silence and his
26:24
self serving deal, is exactly what Paul Hicks' defense team
26:28
would weaponize when the trial finally began.
26:30
Speaker 1: Right because once Gates talks, the dominoes fall. Finally, in
26:34
April twenty twenty five, the BCI and the US Marshals
26:37
finally move in. They arrive at Paul Hicks' door and
26:41
arrest him for the murder of Regina Roehicks Douse.
26:43
Speaker 2: He pleads not guilty.
26:44
Speaker 1: He pleads not guilty, and in December twenty twenty five,
26:48
twenty four years and two months after Regina was pulled
26:51
from that pond, we find ourselves inside the Huron County
26:54
Common Please Court.
26:55
Speaker 2: The trial finally begins.
26:58
Speaker 1: Let's set the scene for this courtroom battle, because what
27:01
happened in that room is the quintessential anatomy of a
27:03
cold case trial. It is fundamentally different from a modern
27:07
murder trial.
27:08
Speaker 2: Oh totally different.
27:09
Speaker 1: You don't have ring camera footage, you don't have cell
27:12
tower pings showing their GPS locations, you don't have fresh
27:15
DNA swabs.
27:17
Speaker 2: It is a battle fought entirely on the terrain of
27:19
human memory, character, and motive exactly. The trial lasted two
27:23
grueling weeks and you have Huron County Prosecutor James Sitterley
27:28
leading the charge for the state. He was assisted by
27:31
the Ohio Attorney General's Special Prosecution Section, and his.
27:34
Speaker 1: Strategy was really interesting, wasn't it.
27:36
Speaker 2: Sitterly's strategy was fascinating. In cases with weak physical evidence,
27:41
some prosecutors try to gloss over the holes. Siderably did
27:44
the opposite.
27:45
Speaker 1: He highlighted them.
27:46
Speaker 2: He leaned into the lack of forensics by highlighting that
27:49
the physical mechanics of the scene were so bizarre they
27:52
could only be explained by a deliberate, targeted assassination. He
27:56
anchored his entire case on the concept of intent and
27:59
mode motive.
28:00
Speaker 1: Yes, his opening argument was basically a rhythm, like a chant,
28:04
designed to drill into the jury subconscious It was very effective.
28:07
Let me read the exact quote from the trial transcript.
28:10
Sitterly said, motive, motive, motive, That's what it's about here.
28:15
Regina's independence, Regina wanted child support, Regina wanted custody. Regina
28:20
fought back. You don't fight back against Paul Hicks.
28:22
Speaker 2: You don't fight back against Paul Hicks. That is a
28:24
brilliantly constructed phrase, it really is. It instantly reframes the
28:29
narrative for the jury. Sitterly is telling them this wasn't
28:31
just a husband who snapped during an argument. He is
28:34
painting a portrait of a man who demands total authoritarian
28:38
control over his environment and his partner.
28:40
Speaker 1: A man who won't be defied, a.
28:42
Speaker 2: Man who views his wife's bid for independence, her desire
28:47
for child support, her push for custody, not as a
28:51
standard marital dispute, but as an intolerable defiance, an insurrection
28:55
that must be put down with lethal force.
28:58
Speaker 1: And to prove that it was a calculated execut Kushin
29:00
Sitterly walked the jury through the sheer physical mechanics of
29:04
the drowning.
29:04
Speaker 2: He went back to the car.
29:06
Speaker 1: He argued, you can't accidentally get somebody, stuff them in
29:10
the car and in the passenger seat, drive them down
29:12
the road and then into a pond, and then drown
29:14
that person. That's not accidental, that's intention.
29:17
Speaker 2: He is anchoring the jury back to the paradox we
29:19
discussed in the very first minute.
29:21
Speaker 1: Of this deep dive, the seat belt.
29:23
Speaker 2: He is taking the defense's best argument that there is
29:25
no proof Paul did it and flipping it. He is saying,
29:28
look at the scene, the passenger seat, the seat belt,
29:32
the lack of drugs, the blows to the head.
29:34
Speaker 1: An accident is just physically impossible.
29:36
Speaker 2: A suicide is physically impossible. Therefore it is a murder.
29:39
And as all the people on earth who had the intense,
29:41
urgent motive to murder Regina that specific.
29:44
Speaker 1: Week, the man who filed for full custody the very
29:47
next day.
29:48
Speaker 2: Exactly the invisible string of circumstantial evidence tying Paul to
29:52
the Camaro. But the defense did not just sit back
29:55
and let Sitterly spin this narrative.
29:57
Speaker 1: They fought back hard.
29:58
Speaker 2: They had a very clear, highly effective counterattack, and it
30:02
rested entirely on destroying the credibility of the state's star witness.
30:06
Speaker 1: They aimed all their artillery at Steve Gates.
30:09
Speaker 2: They went straight for the jugular. The defense hammered home
30:12
the exact outrage you expressed earlier. They stood in front
30:15
of the jury and pointed at Gates, highlighting his twenty
30:18
four year silence.
30:19
Speaker 1: They made sure the jury knew he was a liar.
30:22
Speaker 2: They dissected the immunity deal, essentially arguing to the jury,
30:26
the state is asking you to send a man to
30:27
prison for the rest of his life based on the
30:30
word of a liar, a man who watched a murder
30:33
hit it for decades and is only pointing the finger
30:35
at Paul Hicks now to save his own skin from prosecution.
30:39
Speaker 1: It's a strong argument.
30:40
Speaker 2: They argued that the state's entire case relied on and
30:43
I quote from the proceedings, speculation and conjecture built upon
30:47
zero forensic evidence, directly linking Paul to the edge of
30:50
that retention.
30:51
Speaker 1: Pond, which, if we are being objective, is technically true.
30:54
Speaker 2: It is entirely true.
30:56
Speaker 1: Think about it from a juror's perspective, You are looking
30:59
at the evidence presented in court. There is no DNA
31:03
swab from the Camaro's steering wheel.
31:05
Speaker 2: Matching Paul, no fingerprints.
31:07
Speaker 1: There are no plaster casts of Paul's boots in the
31:10
mud by the pond. There is no fiber from Paul's
31:13
jacket on Regina's closing. There is literally just the spoken
31:17
word of an immunized accomplice who admitted to lying for
31:21
twenty four years.
31:22
Speaker 2: And that is a remarkably strong defense in a criminal trial.
31:26
Remember the instruction the judge gives a jury the burden
31:29
is beyond a reasonable doubt.
31:31
Speaker 1: So they just have to create doubt.
31:33
Speaker 2: The defense doesn't have to prove that Paul is innocent,
31:36
They don't have to prove who actually killed Regina. They
31:39
just have to prove that Steve Gates is so deeply compromised,
31:41
so inherently untrustworthy, that a reasonable person cannot confidently send
31:46
a man to prison based solely on his story.
31:49
Speaker 1: So the prosecution recognized they had a vulnerability. They knew
31:51
Gates was a flawed vessel for their case.
31:53
Speaker 2: They had to back him up.
31:55
Speaker 1: To bolster his narrative. They had to prove to the
31:57
jury that Paul Hicks was exactly kind of man who
32:00
would execute this plot. They had to show his true colors,
32:04
and how did they do that? The sources mentioned the
32:06
state introduced testimony regarding Paul's violent past, specifically referencing an
32:12
Arsen scheme.
32:12
Speaker 2: This is a highly nuanced and critical legal maneuver regarding
32:17
character evidence.
32:18
Speaker 1: Because you can't just call someone a bad.
32:19
Speaker 2: Guy in the American legal system. Under rules like Federal
32:23
Rule of Evidence four H four B, a prosecutor generally
32:27
cannot introduce evidence of a defendant's past bad acts just
32:31
to argue, look, he's a bad guy who does bad things,
32:33
so he probably committed this murder.
32:34
Speaker 1: That is considered highly prejudicial. You can't say a guy
32:38
who shoplifted ten years ago is naturally.
32:40
Speaker 2: A murderer exactly. However, there are exceptions. You can introduce
32:44
past crimes or bad acts if they demonstrate a specific motive,
32:47
an opportunity, a distinct intent, or a common scheme or plan.
32:51
Speaker 1: So the Arsen scheme fits into that.
32:53
Speaker 2: By petitioning the judge to allow evidence of a history
32:56
of violence and destructive retaliatory acts like an Arson scheme.
33:01
Siderley was trying to show the jury the blueprint of
33:04
Paul's psychology.
33:05
Speaker 1: He's establishing a pattern of behavior.
33:07
Speaker 2: He is arguing when Paul Hicks feels challenge, when he
33:12
loses control, his established pattern is to respond with calculated,
33:16
devastating destruction.
33:18
Speaker 1: It corroborates Gates's testimony that Paul was capable of a
33:21
cold blooded, staged murder.
33:23
Speaker 2: Yes, it backs up the story that Paul is a
33:26
dangerous man.
33:27
Speaker 1: I want to ask you to do something difficult. Put
33:29
yourself in the jury box for a second. You are
33:31
sitting in that courtroom in December twenty twenty five.
33:34
Speaker 2: It's a heavy burden.
33:35
Speaker 1: You have spent two weeks absorbing this incredibly tragic story
33:39
of a twenty five year old mother whose life was
33:41
brutally cut short. You look at the state's table and
33:44
they have no DNA, no fingerprints, no video evidence.
33:47
Speaker 2: Just an immunized witness.
33:48
Speaker 1: Their star witness is a guy who waited nearly a
33:50
quarter of a century to suddenly grow a conscience, and
33:53
he only did it after securing a get out of
33:55
jail free card. That is a massive hurdle, it really is.
33:59
But then you look at the other side of the scale.
34:01
You have a mountain of circumstantial motive. You have a
34:04
husband whose immediate response to his wife's murderer was to
34:08
file legal documents securing control of his son the next day,
34:12
And you have the undeniable, haunting physical reality of the
34:15
crime scene. Someone battered Regina unconscious, buckled her into her
34:19
own passenger seat, and pushed her into the dark water.
34:22
Speaker 2: It is an incredibly heavy burden for twelve citizens to carry.
34:27
They had to navigate a labyrinth of reasonable doubt.
34:30
Speaker 1: They had to weigh the defense's entirely valid points about
34:33
the lack of hard forensics against the sheer physical impossibility
34:37
of an accidental drowning in the passenger seat.
34:39
Speaker 2: They had to combine that impossible scene with Paul's glaring
34:42
motive for control, his violent history, and Steve Gates's detailed narrative.
34:47
Speaker 1: They had to decide who to believe.
34:49
Speaker 2: Ultimately, the jury had to decide if Gates, despite his
34:52
horrific moral failing and his cowardly silence, was finally actually
34:56
telling the truth about the night of October eighteen, two
34:58
thousand and.
34:59
Speaker 1: One, and two two weeks of testimony, arguments, and deep deliberation,
35:02
on December nineteen, twenty twenty five, that Huron County jury
35:06
made their decision.
35:07
Speaker 2: What did they decide?
35:08
Speaker 1: They emerged and found Paul Hicks guilty on all counts,
35:12
three counts of murder and one count of kidnapping.
35:15
Speaker 2: Wow, a sweeping, definitive conviction. The jury looked past the
35:20
faded evidence and the flawed witness and they saw the intent.
35:24
Speaker 1: They saw the truth of what happened. The following month,
35:26
in January twenty twenty six, the court reconvenes for the
35:30
final act of this legal drama, the sentencing phase, the
35:33
final chapter, and Judge James Conway, presiding over the case,
35:36
did not mince his words. He looked at Paul Hicks
35:39
and sentenced him to twenty five years to life, fifteen
35:42
years for the murder charges and ten consecutive years for
35:45
the kidnapping charge.
35:46
Speaker 2: Consecutive meaning they stack.
35:48
Speaker 1: Yes, this means Hicks will not even be eligible for
35:51
a parole. Hearing for twenty five years and Judge Conway
35:54
made a particularly biting, profound remark from the bench before
35:58
handing down the sentence.
36:00
Speaker 2: What was a quote?
36:00
Speaker 1: He stated, there is no reason for leniency in this case.
36:04
The defendant had the benefit of roaming free for the
36:06
last quarter of a century before facing justice here today that.
36:09
Speaker 2: Is so powerful. The judge is acknowledging the concept of
36:12
stolen time.
36:13
Speaker 1: He acknowledges the twenty four years.
36:15
Speaker 2: This wasn't the case where a killer was apprehended a
36:17
week later. Paul Hicks successfully gained the system for twenty
36:21
four years. He got to wake up, drink coffee, watch
36:24
the sun rise, and live his life as a freeman
36:27
for over two.
36:28
Speaker 1: Decades time that Regina was robbed of.
36:31
Speaker 2: He got to experience the very years of life that
36:33
he denied her. The judge is ensuring that the punishment
36:37
reflects not just the crime, but the egregious delay in accountability.
36:41
Speaker 1: And that brings us to what I believe is the
36:43
most complex, emotionally shattering reality of this entire deep dive.
36:48
The human toll this delay took on the survivors.
36:51
Speaker 2: The fallout is immense.
36:52
Speaker 1: Specifically, I want to talk about Montana Hicks. Montana was
36:55
just a four year old boy when his mother was murdered.
36:58
He is now a twenty eight year old man.
37:00
Speaker 2: He grew up in the shadow of this.
37:01
Speaker 1: During the sentencing hearing, he stood up in that courtroom
37:04
and read a victim impact statement, and his words are
37:07
just devastating in their honesty.
37:09
Speaker 2: What did he say to the court.
37:10
Speaker 1: He told the court, now I have to hear what
37:12
has to be decided for my dad. Do I feel
37:15
like he should be punished. No, but anyone who committed
37:18
a crime should pay. I lost my mom and now
37:21
I'm losing my dad.
37:22
Speaker 2: Oh wow, it is a profound, almost paralyzing, psychological entanglement.
37:28
Speaker 1: I can't even imagine.
37:30
Speaker 2: We have to really unpack the unique agony of Montana's position.
37:35
He was raised, fed, clothed, and shaped by the man
37:38
who murdered his mother.
37:40
Speaker 1: He loves his father.
37:41
Speaker 2: That bond was forged over twenty four years. Yet he
37:44
is sitting in a courtroom faced with the legal and
37:47
factual reality of the horrific crime his father committed against
37:50
the woman who gave him life.
37:51
Speaker 1: The cognitive dissonance must be deafening.
37:53
Speaker 2: That level of cognitive dissonance holding love for the parent
37:56
you know, while acknowledging the monster who killed the parent
37:58
you lost, is unimaginable.
38:00
Speaker 1: You can hear the internal war in his statement, You
38:02
really can.
38:03
Speaker 2: His intellectual moral understanding that crime requires a penalty is
38:07
constantly warring against the visceral emotional trauma of watching his
38:11
only surviving parent be taken away in shackles to die
38:13
in the prison system.
38:15
Speaker 1: And Montana also articulated something else that I think is
38:18
crucial to highlight, especially when we consume true crime stories
38:22
and expect neat tidy endings.
38:24
Speaker 2: Closure isn't always simple.
38:26
Speaker 1: He talked about a lingering, persistent lack of closure because
38:30
the conviction ultimately relied on Gates's testimony and circumstantial behavioral
38:34
evidence rather than hard, irrefutable forensic proof like a DNA
38:39
match or recorded confession.
38:41
Speaker 2: There is always that Dad, there is this.
38:43
Speaker 1: Tiny microscopic seed of doubt that remains planted in his mind.
38:47
Without the physical science to point to. He has to
38:50
place his trust entirely in a jury's interpretation of a delayed,
38:53
immunized witness.
38:55
Speaker 2: Which is the tragic, silent reality for many families involved
38:58
in cold cases.
39:00
Speaker 1: Do you think a guilty verdict fixes everything?
39:02
Speaker 2: We tend to view a guilty verdict as a magic
39:04
wand that cures the grief, But a conviction in a
39:07
court of law does not always equal complete emotional or
39:10
psychological closure for the victims.
39:12
Speaker 1: It's just a legal answer.
39:13
Speaker 2: The justice system provides a procedural answer, a societal penalty,
39:18
but it cannot always erase the agonizing ambiguity that haunts
39:22
the survivors and the quiet moments. Montana will likely spend
39:26
the rest of his life managing that complex grief.
39:29
Speaker 1: You can sharply contrast Montana's incredibly complex, layered grief with
39:34
the reaction of Regina's extended family.
39:36
Speaker 2: The Roe and Holbrook families.
39:38
Speaker 1: Cousin Angela Rowe, spoke on behalf of the family after
39:41
the sentencing, and her statement was one of pure, unadulterated,
39:44
breathless relief.
39:46
Speaker 2: They finally got justice.
39:47
Speaker 1: She told the press, we lost so much sleep over this,
39:50
and it feels like we can finally breathe again. We
39:53
are just overwhelmed and feeling so much joy because we
39:55
have been waiting for this moment for twenty four years.
39:58
Speaker 2: For the Roe and Holbrook families, this verdict was the
40:00
ultimate validation they had saw since two thousand and one.
40:03
Speaker 1: They knew it all along.
40:04
Speaker 2: It was the moment the justice system finally caught up
40:06
to the truth they had carried in their bones for
40:08
over two decades. Their fight games, the billboards, the pressure,
40:13
the refusal to let Regina fade away was finally vindicated.
40:17
Speaker 1: Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost summarized the macro view of
40:20
this victory perfectly.
40:22
Speaker 2: What was his statement, He.
40:23
Speaker 1: Declared, today a killer is held accountable, Although twenty four
40:26
years after the crime, it's a stark reminder that truth
40:29
has no expiration date. Prison bars will now restrain the
40:33
evil that stole Regina from her loved ones.
40:36
Speaker 2: Truth has no expiration date. That is a powerful resonance.
40:39
Speaker 1: Statement, it really is. And when you step back and
40:42
look at the entire tapestry of this case, you cannot
40:45
help but see the tragic, overarching ripple effects of domestic.
40:49
Speaker 2: Violence that is the core issue here.
40:51
Speaker 1: This wasn't a random attack. Regina Rohicks was actively fighting
40:55
for her independence. She was fighting for custody of her
40:58
beloved son, trying to break the chains of a volatile,
41:02
dangerous dynamic.
41:03
Speaker 2: And that is when things get most dangerous.
41:05
Speaker 1: And it was that very courage, that very push for
41:07
a free, independent life that triggered her murder.
41:10
Speaker 2: It highlights a grim statistical reality that experts in domestic
41:14
violence constantly warn about the extreme danger inherent in the
41:18
act of leaving an abusive relationship.
41:20
Speaker 1: Leaving is the hardest part.
41:22
Speaker 2: The moment a victim attempts to assert independence, to sever
41:25
the ties of control is statistically the most lethal time
41:29
in their life.
41:30
Speaker 1: Because the abuser loses their grip.
41:32
Speaker 2: The abuser realizes the psychological control is slipping, and they
41:36
escalate to physical terminal control. Paul Hicks's reaction to Regina's
41:41
push for independence was the ultimate permanent desertion of dominance.
41:45
Speaker 1: So as we stand today, Paul Hicks is sitting in
41:48
a state prison serving his twenty five years to life sentence.
41:51
He has filed an appeal, which is standard legal procedure
41:54
following a conviction of this magnitude.
41:56
Speaker 2: That's to be expected.
41:57
Speaker 1: But regardless of the appellate courts, escape left behind in
42:01
Huron County is permanently, irrevocably altered for everyone involved.
42:05
Speaker 2: Absolutely. The retention pond off Section Line Road thirty is
42:08
quiet again. The muddy tire tracks from two thousand and
42:11
one have long since been swallowed by the grass.
42:13
Speaker 1: But the memory is still there.
42:15
Speaker 2: But the impact of that dark night in October reverberates
42:18
through the generations. The trauma reshaped the community, reshaped Montana's
42:22
entire existence, and it forever altered the legacy of the
42:25
Row and Hulebook families.
42:27
Speaker 1: It really is an incredible haunting arc we've covered today.
42:31
Think about the elements. A twenty four year old secret
42:35
buried under the freezing dark water of a rural Ohio
42:38
farm pond.
42:39
Speaker 2: A secret kept for decades, a case.
42:42
Speaker 1: That was kept on life support solely by a family's
42:44
relentless refusal to quit hope and a few stubborn billboards.
42:49
And finally a truth brought into the light of a
42:51
courtroom by the suffocating heavy burden of a guilty conscience.
42:54
Speaker 2: The pressure finally worked.
42:56
Speaker 1: And the fact that this case received massive national attention
42:59
just recently with the May twenty twenty six, twenty twenty
43:02
episode The Secret in the Water proves how deeply this
43:06
specific kind of story resonates with us. People are captivated
43:10
by the endurance of justice and the idea that the
43:12
past cannot be permanently submerged.
43:15
Speaker 2: When we look back at the totality this investigation, from
43:17
the first dive to the final gavel, the thing that
43:20
stands out most prominently is a profound reflection on how
43:23
secrets behave in small communities.
43:25
Speaker 1: They just fester don't they A.
43:27
Speaker 2: Secret of this magnitude doesn't just sit quietly in the
43:29
back of a man's mind. It acts like a slow
43:31
acting radioactive poison. It corroded the relationships in Willard, Ohio.
43:36
Speaker 1: It created all those whispers, It.
43:38
Speaker 2: Fueled decades of anxious whispers in diners and grocery stores,
43:42
and it kept an entire family in a state of suspended,
43:45
agonizing animation.
43:47
Speaker 1: It couldn't move on.
43:48
Speaker 2: But this case also serves as a stark, undeniable reminder
43:52
that time, no matter how much passes, does not erase intent.
43:57
The mechanics of the justice system might be painfully.
43:59
Speaker 1: Slow, the legal hurdles are huge, he.
44:02
Speaker 2: Have a injury hurdles like the lack of DNA or
44:04
the rules of double jeopardy might seem massive, but intent
44:08
leaves a mark on the human psyche that eventually, even
44:11
a quarter century later, can be forced out of the
44:14
shadows and brought into the light.
44:15
Speaker 1: That is perfectly said, the truth has a way of
44:18
eroding the dams built to hold it back. And as
44:20
we wrap up this deep dive, I want to leave
44:22
you with a lingering thought to ponder long after we
44:25
sign off.
44:26
Speaker 2: It's an important question to ask.
44:27
Speaker 1: Think back to Montana Hicks, a son caught between his
44:30
mother's memory and his father's reality. He said he still
44:33
struggles with true closure because the verdict was built on
44:36
a delayed witnesses testimony rather than irrefutable physical proof.
44:40
Speaker 2: That doubt remains.
44:42
Speaker 1: It makes you wonder when a dark secret is kept
44:44
hidden for a quarter of a century, does the eventual
44:47
truth truly set you free or does a twenty four
44:50
year delay mean the psychological damage is already permanent. Think
44:54
about the immense weight of the secrets people carry every
44:56
day and what it really costs the soul to finally
44:58
let them go.