WEBVTT - Hell and Gone Murder Line: Nina Ingram Part 3

0:00:46.480 --> 0:00:48.241
<v Speaker 1>School of Humans.

0:00:49.241 --> 0:00:53.000
<v Speaker 2>Helen Got Murder Line actively investigates cold case murders in

0:00:53.040 --> 0:00:56.200
<v Speaker 2>an effort to raise public awareness invite witnesses to come

0:00:56.241 --> 0:01:00.121
<v Speaker 2>forward and present evidence that could potentially be further investigated

0:01:00.121 --> 0:01:03.761
<v Speaker 2>by law enforcement. While we value insights from family and

0:01:03.801 --> 0:01:07.720
<v Speaker 2>community members, their statements should not be considered evidence and

0:01:07.761 --> 0:01:11.560
<v Speaker 2>point to the challenges of verifying facts inherent in cold cases.

0:01:12.280 --> 0:01:15.800
<v Speaker 2>We remind listeners that everyone has presumed innocent until proven

0:01:15.800 --> 0:01:19.080
<v Speaker 2>guilty in a court of law. Nothing in the podcast

0:01:19.200 --> 0:01:22.080
<v Speaker 2>is intended to state or imply that anyone who has

0:01:22.161 --> 0:01:25.601
<v Speaker 2>not been convicted of a crime is guilty of any wrongdoing.

0:01:26.241 --> 0:01:27.121
<v Speaker 2>Thanks for listening.

0:01:30.681 --> 0:01:34.321
<v Speaker 3>Sometime after ten pm on April twenty first, two thousand

0:01:34.321 --> 0:01:37.801
<v Speaker 3>and six, twenty one year old college student Nina Ingram

0:01:37.961 --> 0:01:41.961
<v Speaker 3>was brutally murdered inside her apartment, Unit number one at

0:01:42.001 --> 0:01:46.521
<v Speaker 3>the Law Quad Complex in Fayettvile, Arkansas. The cause of

0:01:46.561 --> 0:01:50.760
<v Speaker 3>death was ligature strangulation, and the Arkansas State Crime Lab

0:01:51.001 --> 0:01:55.201
<v Speaker 3>ruled the death a homicide. Despite the fact that detectives

0:01:55.240 --> 0:01:59.120
<v Speaker 3>interviewed dozens of Nina's friends, co workers, and her significant other,

0:01:59.800 --> 0:02:04.641
<v Speaker 3>they had no viable suspects for years. One big question

0:02:04.881 --> 0:02:08.400
<v Speaker 3>was how did Nina's killer get access to her apartment.

0:02:09.321 --> 0:02:11.241
<v Speaker 1>One of the theories that police.

0:02:10.881 --> 0:02:14.041
<v Speaker 3>Had early on was that Nina's killer rushed her at

0:02:14.081 --> 0:02:17.201
<v Speaker 3>her apartment door and pushed her inside when she put

0:02:17.201 --> 0:02:20.081
<v Speaker 3>her key into the door, which could explain why none

0:02:20.121 --> 0:02:23.601
<v Speaker 3>of the neighbors who police spoke to reported hearing screams

0:02:23.641 --> 0:02:27.041
<v Speaker 3>on the night of April twenty first. But Nina's door

0:02:27.481 --> 0:02:31.041
<v Speaker 3>was locked from the inside, her keys, purse, and all

0:02:31.081 --> 0:02:34.201
<v Speaker 3>of her belongings, including her cell phone, were with her,

0:02:34.561 --> 0:02:37.641
<v Speaker 3>and there was no sign of forced entry. She was

0:02:37.721 --> 0:02:41.641
<v Speaker 3>violently strangled, which must have taken several minutes, and yet

0:02:41.680 --> 0:02:44.240
<v Speaker 3>there was no sign of anything taken from.

0:02:43.960 --> 0:02:46.321
<v Speaker 1>Her residence or of sexual assault.

0:02:47.161 --> 0:02:50.681
<v Speaker 3>So if Nina's killer did force their way in, that

0:02:50.721 --> 0:02:53.241
<v Speaker 3>would mean that they either locked the door behind them

0:02:53.721 --> 0:02:56.561
<v Speaker 3>or locked the door from the inside and then went

0:02:56.601 --> 0:03:01.241
<v Speaker 3>out another way, probably through the unlocked front window. But

0:03:01.321 --> 0:03:04.281
<v Speaker 3>if they did that, that would mean that they carefully

0:03:04.321 --> 0:03:07.041
<v Speaker 3>replaced the screen and pulled the window down to the

0:03:07.081 --> 0:03:12.321
<v Speaker 3>exact same spot where it was opened before. The Fayetteville

0:03:12.401 --> 0:03:15.841
<v Speaker 3>Police Department considered this a cold case, one of the

0:03:15.961 --> 0:03:20.361
<v Speaker 3>only unsolved cases since the nineteen seventies, but then in

0:03:20.401 --> 0:03:24.161
<v Speaker 3>twenty twelve, they arrested and charged twenty six year old

0:03:24.281 --> 0:03:28.401
<v Speaker 3>Rico Tavarius Cone with Nina's murder, but the case against

0:03:28.521 --> 0:03:30.841
<v Speaker 3>Rico Cone was not as solid as it appeared to

0:03:30.881 --> 0:03:34.601
<v Speaker 3>be on the surface. He spent over three years behind bars,

0:03:34.961 --> 0:03:37.481
<v Speaker 3>and then the case against him was dismissed.

0:03:38.121 --> 0:03:39.081
<v Speaker 1>Three years later.

0:03:39.161 --> 0:03:42.921
<v Speaker 3>In twenty eighteen, Rico filed a civil lawsuit against the

0:03:42.921 --> 0:03:47.001
<v Speaker 3>Fayetteville Police Department, detectives, and employees at the Arkansas State

0:03:47.041 --> 0:03:51.481
<v Speaker 3>Crime Lab, who he alleged violated his civil rights. The

0:03:51.521 --> 0:03:55.921
<v Speaker 3>allegations made in Rico Cohne's lawsuit are obviously only one

0:03:55.961 --> 0:03:59.881
<v Speaker 3>side of this story, but it is a completely different

0:03:59.921 --> 0:04:02.601
<v Speaker 3>story than the one that has been put out, at

0:04:02.681 --> 0:04:05.081
<v Speaker 3>least so far, by the fate of a police department.

0:04:05.961 --> 0:04:09.121
<v Speaker 3>The lawsuit claims that there were several people of interests

0:04:09.441 --> 0:04:13.001
<v Speaker 3>who police interviewed over the years, people who were, according

0:04:13.041 --> 0:04:17.001
<v Speaker 3>to the lawsuit, potential suspects. The lawsuit alleges that these

0:04:17.041 --> 0:04:23.281
<v Speaker 3>potential suspects were overlooked. This case is still unsolved. The

0:04:23.320 --> 0:04:27.320
<v Speaker 3>person who murdered Nina Ingram has never been arrested or charged,

0:04:28.001 --> 0:04:31.760
<v Speaker 3>so this person is still out there and we have

0:04:31.880 --> 0:04:34.760
<v Speaker 3>access to part of this case file through a Foyer request.

0:04:35.481 --> 0:04:38.960
<v Speaker 3>Could the clues to the killer's identity be in this

0:04:39.041 --> 0:04:39.561
<v Speaker 3>case file?

0:04:41.161 --> 0:04:42.200
<v Speaker 1>I'm Catherine Townsend.

0:04:42.521 --> 0:04:45.400
<v Speaker 3>Over the past five years of making my true crime podcast,

0:04:45.440 --> 0:04:48.441
<v Speaker 3>Helen Gone, I've learned that there's no such thing as

0:04:48.481 --> 0:04:49.561
<v Speaker 3>a small town where.

0:04:49.481 --> 0:04:50.681
<v Speaker 1>Murder never happens.

0:04:51.281 --> 0:04:54.001
<v Speaker 3>I have received hundreds of messages from people all around

0:04:54.001 --> 0:04:56.721
<v Speaker 3>the country asking for help with an unsolved murder that's

0:04:56.721 --> 0:05:00.801
<v Speaker 3>affected them, their families, and their communities. If you have

0:05:00.881 --> 0:05:02.801
<v Speaker 3>a case you'd like me and my team to look into,

0:05:03.201 --> 0:05:04.961
<v Speaker 3>you can reach out to us at our Helen Gone

0:05:05.001 --> 0:05:08.521
<v Speaker 3>Murder Line at six seven eight seven four four six

0:05:08.681 --> 0:05:11.561
<v Speaker 3>one four or five. That's six seven eight seven four

0:05:11.641 --> 0:05:15.081
<v Speaker 3>four six one four or five, or you can send

0:05:15.161 --> 0:05:19.521
<v Speaker 3>us a message on Instagram at Helen Gonepod. This is

0:05:19.601 --> 0:06:06.001
<v Speaker 3>Helen Gone Murder Line. Rico's lawsuit, and again this claim

0:06:06.161 --> 0:06:09.401
<v Speaker 3>is just one side of the story, alleged that multiple

0:06:09.481 --> 0:06:12.721
<v Speaker 3>and credible direct reports and evidence had been submitted to

0:06:12.721 --> 0:06:16.041
<v Speaker 3>the Fayetful Police Department and other law enforcement agencies over

0:06:16.081 --> 0:06:22.041
<v Speaker 3>the years, but the lawsuit alleges that detectives ignored this evidence. Instead,

0:06:22.321 --> 0:06:26.841
<v Speaker 3>they laser focused on Rico and quote missed multiple opportunities

0:06:26.841 --> 0:06:31.521
<v Speaker 3>to investigate and perhaps actually solve this unsolved crime end quote,

0:06:31.801 --> 0:06:34.921
<v Speaker 3>So they were chasing what the lawsuit called a wrongful

0:06:35.001 --> 0:06:39.881
<v Speaker 3>and unconstitutional conviction against Rico. The lawsuit alleges that the

0:06:40.001 --> 0:06:44.921
<v Speaker 3>arrest warrant was obtained under fraudulent pretenses because the police

0:06:44.961 --> 0:06:48.681
<v Speaker 3>claimed they had three independent witnesses, but in fact, the

0:06:48.761 --> 0:06:51.641
<v Speaker 3>lawsuit pointed out all they had was a single person,

0:06:51.761 --> 0:06:55.161
<v Speaker 3>Randy Applewhite, because the second person Brenda case was a

0:06:55.201 --> 0:06:59.281
<v Speaker 3>friend of Randy's and she was repeating what Randy told her. Now,

0:06:59.441 --> 0:07:01.761
<v Speaker 3>the arrest warrant claimed that there was a third person,

0:07:01.921 --> 0:07:05.801
<v Speaker 3>an ex girlfriend of Rigo's named Kathleen Slaughter. The warrant

0:07:05.881 --> 0:07:10.721
<v Speaker 3>stated that Kathleen had shared intimate details about Nina's homicide

0:07:10.761 --> 0:07:13.401
<v Speaker 3>with detectives, but the lawsuit said.

0:07:13.161 --> 0:07:14.801
<v Speaker 1>That information was incorrect.

0:07:15.401 --> 0:07:19.481
<v Speaker 3>The lawsuit says that this third person was quote never

0:07:19.561 --> 0:07:24.721
<v Speaker 3>specifically or sufficiently identified, and never existed at all, conclusory,

0:07:24.721 --> 0:07:32.441
<v Speaker 3>at best, fabricated at worse end quote. These are serious allegations. Basically,

0:07:32.561 --> 0:07:36.921
<v Speaker 3>the lawsuit claimed that the police attempted to get an

0:07:37.001 --> 0:07:40.961
<v Speaker 3>arrest warrant, but the prosecuting attorney would not grant that

0:07:41.001 --> 0:07:45.921
<v Speaker 3>warrant because the evidence was insufficient. So the lawsuit stated

0:07:46.161 --> 0:07:49.441
<v Speaker 3>that after that police went back to the prosecuting attorney

0:07:49.761 --> 0:07:53.321
<v Speaker 3>with essentially exactly the same evidence, but now there were

0:07:53.361 --> 0:07:56.681
<v Speaker 3>three people instead of just one, and this time the

0:07:56.721 --> 0:08:02.641
<v Speaker 3>warrant was granted. Rico's attorney, Tony Pirani, claimed that on Wednesday,

0:08:02.761 --> 0:08:06.121
<v Speaker 3>January TEWOD twenty fourteen, he and the rest of the

0:08:06.161 --> 0:08:09.721
<v Speaker 3>defense team met with Detective Carlton, the lead detective on

0:08:09.721 --> 0:08:13.361
<v Speaker 3>this case, Detective Brooks, and the prosecuting attorney and his

0:08:13.441 --> 0:08:16.761
<v Speaker 3>chief deputy at the Fayeteville Police Department. They were there

0:08:16.881 --> 0:08:20.321
<v Speaker 3>to review the physical evidence still in the police department's possession.

0:08:21.081 --> 0:08:24.481
<v Speaker 3>Their purpose there was to figure out the current status

0:08:24.481 --> 0:08:28.001
<v Speaker 3>of all DNA testing, to figure out what had been tested,

0:08:28.481 --> 0:08:32.001
<v Speaker 3>what the results were, and what the communication was between

0:08:32.001 --> 0:08:34.961
<v Speaker 3>the Fayetful Police Department and the Arkansas State Crime Lab

0:08:35.001 --> 0:08:39.401
<v Speaker 3>regarding this case. Two days later, Rico's attorneys had another

0:08:39.441 --> 0:08:43.081
<v Speaker 3>meeting with personnel at the Arkansas State Crime Lab. Now,

0:08:43.121 --> 0:08:46.721
<v Speaker 3>the lawsuit states that during this meeting they realized there

0:08:46.761 --> 0:08:50.361
<v Speaker 3>were irregularities in the testing and procedures in this case.

0:08:51.121 --> 0:08:53.961
<v Speaker 3>They said some pieces of evidence in Nina's case had

0:08:54.001 --> 0:08:58.641
<v Speaker 3>not been properly labeled or tested, and that safeguards had

0:08:58.680 --> 0:09:02.121
<v Speaker 3>been failed in regards to DNA tape lifts that were

0:09:02.160 --> 0:09:06.601
<v Speaker 3>done from Nina's clothing. On April twenty six, twenty twelve,

0:09:06.920 --> 0:09:11.521
<v Speaker 3>Officer Carlton called Brenda Case later labeled Confidential Informant IE

0:09:11.680 --> 0:09:15.080
<v Speaker 3>in the search warrant documents, She told defendant Carlton that

0:09:15.160 --> 0:09:18.361
<v Speaker 3>her friend Randy Applewhite had a detailed account of the

0:09:18.441 --> 0:09:22.321
<v Speaker 3>Nina Ingram homicide allegedly from Rico Cone.

0:09:22.401 --> 0:09:22.721
<v Speaker 1>Now.

0:09:22.961 --> 0:09:26.160
<v Speaker 3>Rico Cone allegedly told Randy that he was at the

0:09:26.241 --> 0:09:29.201
<v Speaker 3>Law Couad apartments to buy marijuana, that he saw Nina

0:09:29.241 --> 0:09:31.001
<v Speaker 3>in the parking lot, and that he hit on her,

0:09:31.441 --> 0:09:34.881
<v Speaker 3>and that Nina turned him down. Brenda Kay said that

0:09:35.280 --> 0:09:38.721
<v Speaker 3>Randy told her Rico came back later and went to

0:09:38.841 --> 0:09:42.081
<v Speaker 3>Nina's apartment, using the excuse that he needed to borrow something.

0:09:42.601 --> 0:09:45.241
<v Speaker 3>He knocked on the door, Nina opened the door and

0:09:45.280 --> 0:09:47.321
<v Speaker 3>then tried to shut it, but it failed to close

0:09:47.361 --> 0:09:49.961
<v Speaker 3>all the way, and at that point Rico entered Nina's

0:09:49.961 --> 0:09:54.280
<v Speaker 3>apartment and strangled her to death. So Randy Applewhite became

0:09:54.361 --> 0:09:59.960
<v Speaker 3>Confidential Informant number two. But Rico's lawsuit claims that Randy's

0:09:59.961 --> 0:10:03.561
<v Speaker 3>story did change over time, and that the second time

0:10:03.641 --> 0:10:08.160
<v Speaker 3>that Detective Carlton spoke to Randy, on May first, twenty twelve, quote,

0:10:08.441 --> 0:10:12.921
<v Speaker 3>she had already significantly changed her own reported timeline, substantially

0:10:12.961 --> 0:10:16.121
<v Speaker 3>altering her earlier story, which should have given an early

0:10:16.161 --> 0:10:20.521
<v Speaker 3>clue that something was amiss end quote. The lawsuit also

0:10:20.721 --> 0:10:25.841
<v Speaker 3>alleges that Detective Carlton helped Randy apple White financially, that

0:10:26.001 --> 0:10:28.521
<v Speaker 3>he encouraged her to contact crime stoppers so she could

0:10:28.521 --> 0:10:31.361
<v Speaker 3>collect the cash reward if she continued to cooperate, which

0:10:31.361 --> 0:10:35.361
<v Speaker 3>she did, and the lawsuit claimed that Detective Carlton, in

0:10:35.441 --> 0:10:39.081
<v Speaker 3>what they called a highly unusual move, destroyed his own

0:10:39.121 --> 0:10:44.441
<v Speaker 3>investigative field notes. Rico's defense attorneys were preparing for his trial,

0:10:44.961 --> 0:10:48.481
<v Speaker 3>so they contacted Randy apple White, and on December seventeenth,

0:10:48.521 --> 0:10:52.041
<v Speaker 3>twenty thirteen, according to the lawsuit, when Rico's legal team

0:10:52.121 --> 0:10:55.601
<v Speaker 3>spoke to Randy, she told them she did not believe

0:10:55.681 --> 0:10:58.961
<v Speaker 3>that Rico was guilty of the murder. The civil lawsuit

0:10:59.001 --> 0:11:02.761
<v Speaker 3>also claimed that Randy said she was quote no longer

0:11:02.801 --> 0:11:07.280
<v Speaker 3>certain exactly what, if anything, she recalled Rico, ever having

0:11:07.321 --> 0:11:10.961
<v Speaker 3>said regarding any alleged involvement in the Ingram homicide, and

0:11:11.001 --> 0:11:14.161
<v Speaker 3>that she wanted no part in a criminal prosecution which

0:11:14.201 --> 0:11:18.721
<v Speaker 3>could potentially see Rico convicted of capital murder and sentenced

0:11:18.801 --> 0:11:24.521
<v Speaker 3>to death end quote. The lawsuit alleges that on several

0:11:24.561 --> 0:11:29.121
<v Speaker 3>occasions that Detective Carlton gave Randy apple White money, including

0:11:29.201 --> 0:11:32.161
<v Speaker 3>thirty five dollars in gas money on May third, twenty twelve,

0:11:32.481 --> 0:11:35.081
<v Speaker 3>and also a hotel room that he booked for her

0:11:35.121 --> 0:11:37.601
<v Speaker 3>and her children for two nights at the Clarion Inn

0:11:37.721 --> 0:11:40.841
<v Speaker 3>for one hundred and twenty four dollars and fifty eight cents. Now,

0:11:40.881 --> 0:11:44.321
<v Speaker 3>this apparently happened after Detective Carlton got a call from

0:11:44.401 --> 0:11:48.161
<v Speaker 3>Randy apple White alleging that Rico had assaulted her. After

0:11:48.201 --> 0:11:52.361
<v Speaker 3>that incident, they did DNA testing on Randy's shirt and

0:11:52.441 --> 0:11:56.441
<v Speaker 3>they found no match to Rico Cone. During this time,

0:11:56.521 --> 0:12:00.201
<v Speaker 3>detectives were doing a deep dive into Rico Cone's history

0:12:00.481 --> 0:12:04.121
<v Speaker 3>and his employment record. They were conducting follow up calls

0:12:04.121 --> 0:12:07.121
<v Speaker 3>and visits with current and former residents of the Law

0:12:07.161 --> 0:12:08.721
<v Speaker 3>Quad apartments.

0:12:09.921 --> 0:12:11.401
<v Speaker 1>While this was going on.

0:12:11.401 --> 0:12:15.681
<v Speaker 3>On May fourteenth, twenty twelve, Rico Cone got wind of

0:12:15.721 --> 0:12:18.961
<v Speaker 3>the police investigation against him, and that's when, according to

0:12:19.001 --> 0:12:23.321
<v Speaker 3>his attorney, He decided to voluntarily talk to police because,

0:12:23.401 --> 0:12:26.521
<v Speaker 3>according to the civil lawsuit, Rico wanted to be cleared.

0:12:27.481 --> 0:12:30.841
<v Speaker 3>At this interview, police gave Rico a doctor pepper to

0:12:30.921 --> 0:12:34.521
<v Speaker 3>drink after he said he was thirsty. Then Detective Carlton

0:12:34.601 --> 0:12:37.961
<v Speaker 3>told Rico that they had taken a DNA sample from

0:12:37.961 --> 0:12:41.241
<v Speaker 3>that doctor Pepper camp and that they had matched the

0:12:41.321 --> 0:12:43.800
<v Speaker 3>DNA on it to a DNA sample taken from the

0:12:43.841 --> 0:12:48.121
<v Speaker 3>crime scene, meaning the detective told Rico that Rico had

0:12:48.161 --> 0:12:52.401
<v Speaker 3>been inside Nina Ingram's apartment. This, however, was not true.

0:12:53.041 --> 0:12:54.761
<v Speaker 3>I want to point out by the way that we

0:12:54.921 --> 0:12:58.521
<v Speaker 3>can't know the inner workings of Detective Carlton's mind at

0:12:58.521 --> 0:13:01.641
<v Speaker 3>this point, but it is not illegal for detectives to

0:13:01.721 --> 0:13:06.081
<v Speaker 3>light to suspects. Often it's encouraged. I've actually taken the

0:13:06.201 --> 0:13:09.361
<v Speaker 3>read Interrogation seminar as part of my private investigator training.

0:13:09.801 --> 0:13:12.081
<v Speaker 3>That's the same one the police take, and in that

0:13:12.241 --> 0:13:15.721
<v Speaker 3>seminar they actually teach you how to lie. But Rico

0:13:15.841 --> 0:13:20.161
<v Speaker 3>Cone's civil lawsuit alleges that the police didn't stop there.

0:13:20.681 --> 0:13:23.641
<v Speaker 3>The lawsuit alleges that not only was the case against

0:13:23.721 --> 0:13:26.721
<v Speaker 3>Rico Cone weaked to nonexistent, but that the judge who

0:13:26.761 --> 0:13:30.001
<v Speaker 3>issued the search warrant, and the public were actually being misled.

0:13:30.561 --> 0:13:33.920
<v Speaker 3>They were being told that Rico Cone was the only

0:13:34.001 --> 0:13:37.401
<v Speaker 3>Bible suspect, But in fact, as we got into last week,

0:13:37.961 --> 0:13:41.361
<v Speaker 3>Rico Cone was not the only man questioned, and there's

0:13:41.481 --> 0:13:44.081
<v Speaker 3>nothing about Rico Cone in the case by up to

0:13:44.081 --> 0:13:47.001
<v Speaker 3>the year two thousand and eight, at least nothing that's

0:13:47.041 --> 0:13:51.481
<v Speaker 3>been publicly released via FOI request. I could not find

0:13:51.561 --> 0:13:54.121
<v Speaker 3>any mention of Rigo Cone in the pieces of the

0:13:54.161 --> 0:13:57.441
<v Speaker 3>case file that we were given, though again we can't

0:13:57.481 --> 0:14:00.481
<v Speaker 3>be sure that we have every document because much later

0:14:01.041 --> 0:14:05.321
<v Speaker 3>after the case against Rigo Cone was dismissed, Rico Cone's

0:14:05.521 --> 0:14:09.281
<v Speaker 3>entire criminal case was sealed by a judge. There is

0:14:09.401 --> 0:14:12.280
<v Speaker 3>no mention of Rico Cone's name in connection with the

0:14:12.361 --> 0:14:16.881
<v Speaker 3>Nina Ingram case anywhere in the Arkansas court system. After that,

0:14:17.401 --> 0:14:20.681
<v Speaker 3>Nina's case went cold again. And while of course we

0:14:20.761 --> 0:14:23.401
<v Speaker 3>can't know for sure what was happening behind the scenes

0:14:23.441 --> 0:14:27.921
<v Speaker 3>of the investigation, publicly, the statements made by police appeared

0:14:27.921 --> 0:14:30.561
<v Speaker 3>to indicate they believed they did have the right person,

0:14:31.241 --> 0:14:35.161
<v Speaker 3>but they did not have enough evidence to prosecute Rigo Cone.

0:14:35.241 --> 0:14:38.361
<v Speaker 3>They had one year to refile charges, but they never did,

0:14:39.081 --> 0:14:41.441
<v Speaker 3>which means Nina's killer was.

0:14:41.401 --> 0:14:42.361
<v Speaker 1>Still out there.

0:14:53.401 --> 0:14:55.641
<v Speaker 3>One of the things that police were trying to figure

0:14:55.641 --> 0:14:59.081
<v Speaker 3>out early on was was this a random attack or

0:14:59.081 --> 0:15:02.681
<v Speaker 3>someone whom Nina knew, because even though everyone they talked

0:15:02.681 --> 0:15:05.641
<v Speaker 3>to said Nina was this super nice person and they

0:15:05.681 --> 0:15:08.561
<v Speaker 3>couldn't imagine anyone would want to hurt her, the fact

0:15:08.681 --> 0:15:12.561
<v Speaker 3>is someone did brutally strangle her, and her cell phone

0:15:12.641 --> 0:15:15.081
<v Speaker 3>was in her pocket, She had no defensive wounds on

0:15:15.121 --> 0:15:19.041
<v Speaker 3>her hands, and she was not sexually assaulted. Also, her

0:15:19.081 --> 0:15:22.001
<v Speaker 3>purse was found near her body with money inside it,

0:15:22.081 --> 0:15:25.921
<v Speaker 3>and nothing obvious was taken from her apartment, so, at

0:15:26.001 --> 0:15:28.681
<v Speaker 3>least on the surface, the motive did not appear to

0:15:28.681 --> 0:15:32.561
<v Speaker 3>be robbery or sexual assault. And I keep coming back

0:15:32.601 --> 0:15:35.241
<v Speaker 3>to the locked door because I believe it could.

0:15:35.041 --> 0:15:36.201
<v Speaker 1>Be a crucial clue.

0:15:36.721 --> 0:15:40.361
<v Speaker 3>When Nina's brother, Noah and his roommate Chad got to

0:15:40.401 --> 0:15:43.001
<v Speaker 3>her apartment the day her body was found, the door

0:15:43.081 --> 0:15:45.761
<v Speaker 3>was double locked. Her brother had to crawl in through

0:15:45.761 --> 0:15:48.681
<v Speaker 3>an open window next to the door, then he unlocked

0:15:48.721 --> 0:15:49.641
<v Speaker 3>the regular.

0:15:49.281 --> 0:15:50.481
<v Speaker 1>Lock and the dead bowl.

0:15:51.601 --> 0:15:54.881
<v Speaker 3>So if the killer left through the door, how did

0:15:54.881 --> 0:15:56.521
<v Speaker 3>they lock it behind themselves?

0:15:58.481 --> 0:16:00.601
<v Speaker 1>Police asked several people about.

0:16:00.441 --> 0:16:03.521
<v Speaker 3>Nina's keys, including Nina's boyfriend, Josh Stewart.

0:16:04.361 --> 0:16:05.561
<v Speaker 1>We talked to Josh.

0:16:05.801 --> 0:16:07.761
<v Speaker 3>He said that he met Nina in March of two

0:16:07.801 --> 0:16:10.881
<v Speaker 3>thousand and five when they started working at the same Walmart.

0:16:11.321 --> 0:16:13.361
<v Speaker 3>They started dating later that summer.

0:16:14.201 --> 0:16:17.281
<v Speaker 4>There's a new store that's being open and Rogers Arkansas.

0:16:17.321 --> 0:16:20.521
<v Speaker 4>We were helping you get that store set up and

0:16:20.601 --> 0:16:24.801
<v Speaker 4>so met her at that time, but we didn't start

0:16:24.881 --> 0:16:28.841
<v Speaker 4>dating more over the summer. By midsummer May of late summer,

0:16:28.921 --> 0:16:30.641
<v Speaker 4>say I was bye. We started dating, So we didn't

0:16:30.681 --> 0:16:34.281
<v Speaker 4>date for very long. At the most seven eight months

0:16:34.601 --> 0:16:37.441
<v Speaker 4>we were seeing each other exclusively. You know, we have

0:16:37.561 --> 0:16:39.881
<v Speaker 4>started talking about getting the place together because we spend

0:16:39.921 --> 0:16:42.201
<v Speaker 4>our time together. Anyway, She spent a lot of time

0:16:42.241 --> 0:16:46.041
<v Speaker 4>at my apartment changedly move along grade.

0:16:46.481 --> 0:16:48.321
<v Speaker 3>Josh said that he did not have a key to

0:16:48.361 --> 0:16:50.681
<v Speaker 3>her apartment, and even though she had a key to

0:16:50.721 --> 0:16:53.841
<v Speaker 3>his place, and even though they regularly switch vehicles, He

0:16:53.961 --> 0:16:56.641
<v Speaker 3>said they did this because he had to commute for work.

0:16:57.081 --> 0:16:59.401
<v Speaker 3>He worried that his older truck wouldn't make it all

0:16:59.401 --> 0:17:01.561
<v Speaker 3>the way to Bentonville, so on the days he had

0:17:01.561 --> 0:17:04.361
<v Speaker 3>to make that drive, Nina would lend him her two

0:17:04.360 --> 0:17:06.001
<v Speaker 3>thousand and two Toyota Corolla.

0:17:06.961 --> 0:17:08.641
<v Speaker 1>Josh told detectives he.

0:17:08.600 --> 0:17:11.281
<v Speaker 3>Had not actually been inside Nina's apartment for a couple

0:17:11.281 --> 0:17:14.281
<v Speaker 3>of months. Their routine was she would get off work,

0:17:14.441 --> 0:17:17.001
<v Speaker 3>usually shower, and then come to his place to hang out.

0:17:17.360 --> 0:17:20.801
<v Speaker 3>Sometimes they would go out when she came to his place.

0:17:21.161 --> 0:17:23.761
<v Speaker 3>Sometimes she would stay over there. Sometimes she would go

0:17:23.801 --> 0:17:27.281
<v Speaker 3>back home, but he pretty much never stayed at her place.

0:17:28.201 --> 0:17:31.681
<v Speaker 3>He also told detectives that Nina often felt he would

0:17:31.681 --> 0:17:35.041
<v Speaker 3>get angry with her if she didn't stay over. In

0:17:35.080 --> 0:17:38.281
<v Speaker 3>two thousand and six, Josh told detectives that his relationship

0:17:38.321 --> 0:17:41.641
<v Speaker 3>with Nina had been going great. He said Nina planned

0:17:41.681 --> 0:17:43.401
<v Speaker 3>to move in with him when her lease was up.

0:17:43.801 --> 0:17:45.960
<v Speaker 3>He said she was easy going and they got along

0:17:46.041 --> 0:17:49.600
<v Speaker 3>super well, that they came from similar hard working family backgrounds,

0:17:49.801 --> 0:17:52.761
<v Speaker 3>and that they had shared values. They were both working

0:17:52.761 --> 0:17:55.801
<v Speaker 3>their way through college. He said, I was going to

0:17:55.840 --> 0:17:59.481
<v Speaker 3>marry that girl. He cried as he told detectives quote,

0:17:59.721 --> 0:18:04.921
<v Speaker 3>it's the best relationship that I've ever had. Police asked

0:18:04.961 --> 0:18:08.641
<v Speaker 3>about the keys several times. Josh clarified that his truck

0:18:08.721 --> 0:18:11.721
<v Speaker 3>keys were on a removable ring, so when they swapped vehicles.

0:18:12.001 --> 0:18:13.801
<v Speaker 3>He said he would take the truck keys on their

0:18:13.840 --> 0:18:16.680
<v Speaker 3>little silver ring and give them to Nina and vice versa,

0:18:16.840 --> 0:18:20.241
<v Speaker 3>so that allowed them to swap vehicle keys without swapping

0:18:20.281 --> 0:18:24.161
<v Speaker 3>the entire key ring. Police also asked Josh if Nina

0:18:24.201 --> 0:18:27.241
<v Speaker 3>had noticed anything at work or at home if there

0:18:27.281 --> 0:18:30.161
<v Speaker 3>was anyone who would want to hurt her. Josh said

0:18:30.201 --> 0:18:33.361
<v Speaker 3>not at work, but he said Nina had told him

0:18:33.401 --> 0:18:36.201
<v Speaker 3>about some guys at her apartment complex who were cat

0:18:36.241 --> 0:18:39.961
<v Speaker 3>calling her. He told detectives this happened five days before

0:18:40.080 --> 0:18:43.481
<v Speaker 3>Nina's murder on Easter Sunday, April sixteenth, two thousand and six.

0:18:44.161 --> 0:18:47.080
<v Speaker 3>While Josh said he hadn't been inside Nina's apartment in months,

0:18:47.441 --> 0:18:49.640
<v Speaker 3>he said he had waited for Nina in the parking

0:18:49.641 --> 0:18:53.081
<v Speaker 3>lot of her complex on Easter Sunday, April sixteenth, two

0:18:53.121 --> 0:18:55.961
<v Speaker 3>thousand and six. He said on that day, both he

0:18:56.001 --> 0:18:58.361
<v Speaker 3>and Nina had the day off. He said they hung

0:18:58.361 --> 0:19:00.761
<v Speaker 3>out together and went to Walmart to buy some stuff.

0:19:01.161 --> 0:19:04.241
<v Speaker 3>After that, they swung by her apartment complex so she

0:19:04.281 --> 0:19:06.681
<v Speaker 3>could run inside and change before they went out to eat.

0:19:07.641 --> 0:19:09.920
<v Speaker 3>Josh said that while he was waiting for Nina in

0:19:09.921 --> 0:19:12.881
<v Speaker 3>the law Quad parking lot, he noticed two or three

0:19:12.961 --> 0:19:15.561
<v Speaker 3>young men, who he had described a police as young

0:19:15.641 --> 0:19:18.840
<v Speaker 3>male kids aged fourteen to fifteen years old, and at

0:19:18.921 --> 0:19:22.001
<v Speaker 3>least one of them driving a truck. He said that

0:19:22.121 --> 0:19:24.921
<v Speaker 3>Nina had told him on that day that one of

0:19:24.961 --> 0:19:27.080
<v Speaker 3>these guys had been cat calling her and called her

0:19:27.121 --> 0:19:30.321
<v Speaker 3>a bitch, and that he had considered confronting them but didn't.

0:19:31.361 --> 0:19:33.801
<v Speaker 4>She guys just said something to me, and I'm like, well,

0:19:33.961 --> 0:19:35.920
<v Speaker 4>whe they say, she's whether he was hollering at me

0:19:35.921 --> 0:19:37.961
<v Speaker 4>and trying to get come talk to them, and I

0:19:38.121 --> 0:19:40.561
<v Speaker 4>just ignored them. And she's kind of shaken up by

0:19:40.561 --> 0:19:43.441
<v Speaker 4>that enough to mention it to me, and I, well,

0:19:44.001 --> 0:19:46.361
<v Speaker 4>do we need the same thing? And she was like, well,

0:19:46.361 --> 0:19:49.801
<v Speaker 4>now they drove off, so it was from like a vehicle.

0:19:50.840 --> 0:19:52.801
<v Speaker 4>She just kind of shook it off, and you know,

0:19:53.080 --> 0:19:54.640
<v Speaker 4>I don't know, it's not that big deal. Let's just

0:19:54.681 --> 0:19:58.001
<v Speaker 4>move on. That's the only time that I recall her

0:19:58.161 --> 0:20:00.641
<v Speaker 4>being uncomfortable about anybody in the complex.

0:20:01.721 --> 0:20:05.160
<v Speaker 3>Later, Rico's defense team talked to Josh as well. He

0:20:05.281 --> 0:20:07.440
<v Speaker 3>told them that the mental image he had in his

0:20:07.441 --> 0:20:09.360
<v Speaker 3>head from that day was that it could have been

0:20:09.401 --> 0:20:11.761
<v Speaker 3>a couple of white guys and that they were definitely

0:20:11.840 --> 0:20:12.721
<v Speaker 3>younger than him.

0:20:12.801 --> 0:20:13.321
<v Speaker 1>And Nina.

0:20:14.161 --> 0:20:17.441
<v Speaker 3>Another former law squad resident named Catherine Austin, who lived

0:20:17.481 --> 0:20:21.080
<v Speaker 3>in apartment number eighty two, told police on April seventeenth,

0:20:21.080 --> 0:20:23.481
<v Speaker 3>two thousand and seven, that around the time of the murder,

0:20:23.521 --> 0:20:26.641
<v Speaker 3>there were four men. She described them as clean cut,

0:20:26.681 --> 0:20:29.640
<v Speaker 3>white males hanging around in that parking lot in a

0:20:29.681 --> 0:20:33.281
<v Speaker 3>white four door pickup truck. Catherine said two of these

0:20:33.281 --> 0:20:35.400
<v Speaker 3>guys came up to her apartment door and asked her

0:20:35.401 --> 0:20:38.441
<v Speaker 3>what her name was. She said that this made her

0:20:38.601 --> 0:20:41.440
<v Speaker 3>very uncomfortable because they invaded her personal space.

0:20:42.441 --> 0:20:42.801
<v Speaker 1>Again.

0:20:43.001 --> 0:20:46.241
<v Speaker 3>According to the lawsuit, there were several potential people of

0:20:46.281 --> 0:20:49.201
<v Speaker 3>interests who the suit claimed should have been thoroughly investigated.

0:20:49.801 --> 0:20:52.961
<v Speaker 3>The lawsuit alleges that the lead detective, Scott Carlton, when

0:20:52.961 --> 0:20:57.161
<v Speaker 3>he took over the investigation, very quickly became totally focused

0:20:57.201 --> 0:21:01.281
<v Speaker 3>on Rico Cone, and that Detective Carlton was quote exhibiting

0:21:01.321 --> 0:21:05.521
<v Speaker 3>clear signs of cognitive bias, repeatedly assisted Josh in matching

0:21:05.561 --> 0:21:08.041
<v Speaker 3>up his answers with his prior statements by telling him

0:21:08.041 --> 0:21:10.801
<v Speaker 3>what an excellent job he was doing and even providing

0:21:10.881 --> 0:21:14.121
<v Speaker 3>him with a transcript of his prior statement with highlighted portions,

0:21:14.441 --> 0:21:17.001
<v Speaker 3>and it was only after that happened that Josh then

0:21:17.121 --> 0:21:19.920
<v Speaker 3>changed his statement back to having been present in the

0:21:19.961 --> 0:21:24.641
<v Speaker 3>parking lot end quote. The lawsuit alleged there was really

0:21:24.641 --> 0:21:29.361
<v Speaker 3>no evidence, physical or otherwise against Rico Cone, but there

0:21:29.481 --> 0:21:32.601
<v Speaker 3>were pieces of evidence that could have pointed to other

0:21:32.641 --> 0:21:33.441
<v Speaker 3>people of interest.

0:21:34.241 --> 0:21:37.281
<v Speaker 1>There was the text message. Josh told police.

0:21:36.921 --> 0:21:40.241
<v Speaker 3>That Nina had communicated with someone online prior to leaving

0:21:40.281 --> 0:21:42.561
<v Speaker 3>his residence. On April twenty first, two thousand and six,

0:21:43.201 --> 0:21:46.521
<v Speaker 3>detective found a text message on Nina's cell phone from

0:21:46.561 --> 0:21:50.281
<v Speaker 3>a contact listed as Joey. The message read quote I

0:21:50.401 --> 0:21:53.880
<v Speaker 3>see be careful, be one hundred percent see ya end quote.

0:21:54.361 --> 0:21:58.481
<v Speaker 3>But that person Joey was never identified in the case file.

0:21:59.041 --> 0:22:02.161
<v Speaker 3>So who was Joey? Was he the last.

0:22:01.881 --> 0:22:05.481
<v Speaker 1>Person who Nina messaged? What did he mean by be careful?

0:22:06.361 --> 0:22:09.001
<v Speaker 3>Was this just a random occurrence or could it be

0:22:09.041 --> 0:22:13.801
<v Speaker 3>a clue. Several potential pieces of evidence were sent to

0:22:13.840 --> 0:22:17.360
<v Speaker 3>the Arkansas State Crime Lab, including Nina's clothes that she

0:22:17.481 --> 0:22:22.161
<v Speaker 3>was wearing, plus other items of clothing including jeans, towels,

0:22:22.201 --> 0:22:25.281
<v Speaker 3>and socks, the dead bolt and doorknob from the front door,

0:22:25.761 --> 0:22:28.561
<v Speaker 3>a small black elastic cord with a white button that

0:22:28.601 --> 0:22:31.361
<v Speaker 3>was found under the bed, Nina's betting, and the black

0:22:31.481 --> 0:22:33.441
<v Speaker 3>leather belt that was found in the kitchen trash can.

0:22:34.001 --> 0:22:37.241
<v Speaker 3>They also found other items, including a Valentine's card that

0:22:37.281 --> 0:22:39.761
<v Speaker 3>was from Josh and a poem that Nina had written

0:22:39.761 --> 0:22:43.241
<v Speaker 3>to her mom. The lawsuit mentions the fact that the

0:22:43.321 --> 0:22:47.721
<v Speaker 3>DNA evidence collection procedures were much less advanced in two

0:22:47.761 --> 0:22:50.641
<v Speaker 3>thousand and six than they are today. The training of

0:22:50.721 --> 0:22:53.481
<v Speaker 3>law enforcement and the procedures at the Arkansas State Crime

0:22:53.601 --> 0:22:58.481
<v Speaker 3>Lab were also not what they are today. This would

0:22:58.561 --> 0:23:02.001
<v Speaker 3>become a crucial component of Rico's lawsuit.

0:23:03.521 --> 0:23:05.241
<v Speaker 1>Another question that we had when.

0:23:05.080 --> 0:23:08.641
<v Speaker 3>Reviewing this case file were who were the men whom

0:23:08.681 --> 0:23:11.761
<v Speaker 3>Nina was seen talking to at her apartment complex in

0:23:11.801 --> 0:23:15.401
<v Speaker 3>the days before her death. Detectives talked to a neighbor

0:23:15.441 --> 0:23:18.080
<v Speaker 3>of Nina's who said she saw Nina sitting on a

0:23:18.080 --> 0:23:20.561
<v Speaker 3>bench in her apartment building on April twentieth, two thousand

0:23:20.561 --> 0:23:23.880
<v Speaker 3>and six, the day before she was murdered. Nina was

0:23:23.921 --> 0:23:27.521
<v Speaker 3>talking to a white male described as having slightly bigger

0:23:27.521 --> 0:23:30.161
<v Speaker 3>than medium builled, with blondish brown hair and a pasty

0:23:30.201 --> 0:23:33.881
<v Speaker 3>white complexion, approximately five foot eight to five foot ten

0:23:33.961 --> 0:23:37.201
<v Speaker 3>inches tall. The neighbor told police she had seen Nina

0:23:37.241 --> 0:23:40.241
<v Speaker 3>come home with a similar looking mail on multiple prior

0:23:40.241 --> 0:23:45.761
<v Speaker 3>occasions after dark. Now remember, Nina's boyfriend, Josh, told police

0:23:46.161 --> 0:23:50.801
<v Speaker 3>that he had not been inside Nina's apartment in months. However,

0:23:50.921 --> 0:23:52.961
<v Speaker 3>he did say he had been in the parking lot

0:23:53.001 --> 0:23:56.761
<v Speaker 3>a few days before her murder. This neighbor also said

0:23:56.801 --> 0:23:59.721
<v Speaker 3>that she saw Nina that same week with another different

0:23:59.721 --> 0:24:02.201
<v Speaker 3>white male with lighter brown hair and a medium build

0:24:02.401 --> 0:24:05.001
<v Speaker 3>between five foot ten and five foot eleven inches tall,

0:24:05.481 --> 0:24:08.041
<v Speaker 3>that the two of them had walked together to Nina's apartment,

0:24:08.481 --> 0:24:11.681
<v Speaker 3>standing very close with the white male than following Nina

0:24:11.681 --> 0:24:15.640
<v Speaker 3>into the apartment. This could have been Nina's brother or

0:24:15.681 --> 0:24:19.481
<v Speaker 3>another friend, but this information, to our knowledge, was never

0:24:19.601 --> 0:24:23.001
<v Speaker 3>followed up on in the police file. Another question we

0:24:23.080 --> 0:24:27.201
<v Speaker 3>had was could someone have been stalking Nina. Police did

0:24:27.281 --> 0:24:30.160
<v Speaker 3>talk to a friend of Nina's named Samantha Stevens. She

0:24:30.401 --> 0:24:33.281
<v Speaker 3>said Nina had told her in the past that someone

0:24:33.401 --> 0:24:36.200
<v Speaker 3>had been stalking her at her apartment and following her around,

0:24:36.601 --> 0:24:38.441
<v Speaker 3>but there are no more details about this in the

0:24:38.481 --> 0:24:41.761
<v Speaker 3>case file, including when they had this conversation and how

0:24:41.840 --> 0:24:42.841
<v Speaker 3>recently it happened.

0:24:43.201 --> 0:24:44.641
<v Speaker 1>It just as in the.

0:24:44.561 --> 0:24:48.601
<v Speaker 3>Past, the Fayetteville police department asked the FBI to get

0:24:48.601 --> 0:24:51.080
<v Speaker 3>involved with Nina's case, and they did. In March of

0:24:51.080 --> 0:24:54.641
<v Speaker 3>two thousand and seven, Detective John Gentry of the Faetful

0:24:54.681 --> 0:24:58.041
<v Speaker 3>Police Department worked with a crime analyst named Tom Dover

0:24:58.241 --> 0:25:02.561
<v Speaker 3>of the Behavioral Analysis Unit of the FBI as part

0:25:02.641 --> 0:25:06.801
<v Speaker 3>of the Violent Criminal Apprehension Program or VISCAP. They prepared

0:25:06.881 --> 0:25:11.001
<v Speaker 3>and generated a criminal investigative analysis of the Nini Ingram homicide,

0:25:11.241 --> 0:25:17.201
<v Speaker 3>including a very detailed profile of potential suspects. So ViCAP

0:25:17.281 --> 0:25:19.761
<v Speaker 3>has a few different functions. One of them is the

0:25:19.761 --> 0:25:21.281
<v Speaker 3>one that most of us have seen in the movies

0:25:21.321 --> 0:25:24.080
<v Speaker 3>where the FBI criminal profiler comes in. They have a

0:25:24.080 --> 0:25:26.761
<v Speaker 3>big marker board with a bunch of unsolved homicides on it.

0:25:27.121 --> 0:25:30.801
<v Speaker 3>They analyze major violent crimes and can link cases based

0:25:30.840 --> 0:25:35.281
<v Speaker 3>on behavioral and geographical similarities. Basically, they find patterns, but

0:25:35.441 --> 0:25:39.201
<v Speaker 3>ViCAP also looks at individual cases and from the information

0:25:39.281 --> 0:25:41.921
<v Speaker 3>in the case file. By examining the crime scene, they

0:25:41.921 --> 0:25:44.561
<v Speaker 3>can give a profile of the unsub short for unknown

0:25:44.601 --> 0:25:47.961
<v Speaker 3>subject or unidentified subject. This is meant to help local

0:25:48.041 --> 0:25:51.841
<v Speaker 3>law enforcement narrow down their search. On April sixteenth, two

0:25:51.881 --> 0:25:55.201
<v Speaker 3>thousand and seven, the FBI gave the profile that they

0:25:55.281 --> 0:25:59.880
<v Speaker 3>produced to the FFUL Police Department. The VISCAP profile was

0:26:00.041 --> 0:26:04.201
<v Speaker 3>pretty much the opposite of ricocone. The VISCAT profile stated

0:26:04.241 --> 0:26:08.160
<v Speaker 3>that Nina's killer was likely a Caucasian male, familiar and

0:26:08.201 --> 0:26:10.600
<v Speaker 3>comfortable in the area, and that they were likely living

0:26:10.641 --> 0:26:14.761
<v Speaker 3>in or near Fayette, Arkansas. In terms of the man

0:26:14.801 --> 0:26:18.201
<v Speaker 3>being Caucasian, that would track with the initial interviews, not

0:26:18.361 --> 0:26:21.561
<v Speaker 3>one single person mentioned a person of color as hanging

0:26:21.601 --> 0:26:24.880
<v Speaker 3>around the apartment building. So, in addition to believing that

0:26:24.921 --> 0:26:27.801
<v Speaker 3>the killer was local and not a transient, the VISCAP

0:26:27.881 --> 0:26:32.120
<v Speaker 3>profile stated that they believed the evidence suggested that the

0:26:32.241 --> 0:26:35.281
<v Speaker 3>killer knew Nina and may have had an intimate relationship

0:26:35.321 --> 0:26:39.080
<v Speaker 3>with her, and that they were familiar with her schedule. Again,

0:26:39.321 --> 0:26:42.321
<v Speaker 3>this is the opposite of ricocone. He was a stranger

0:26:42.321 --> 0:26:46.961
<v Speaker 3>to Nina. To the witness Randy Applewhite story, Rico only

0:26:47.001 --> 0:26:50.481
<v Speaker 3>saw her briefly and attacked her because he just happened

0:26:50.481 --> 0:26:54.321
<v Speaker 3>to see her coming home. The FBI stated that Nina's killer,

0:26:54.481 --> 0:26:58.281
<v Speaker 3>according to the profile they provided quote, knew his or

0:26:58.321 --> 0:27:02.400
<v Speaker 3>her proximity to her would not cause her alarm end quote,

0:27:02.481 --> 0:27:06.001
<v Speaker 3>So they believed that Nina's killer was someone who if

0:27:06.041 --> 0:27:08.161
<v Speaker 3>she saw them in line at Taco Bell or hanging

0:27:08.201 --> 0:27:11.201
<v Speaker 3>out at Walmart, or maybe even in her apartment complex,

0:27:11.840 --> 0:27:15.561
<v Speaker 3>maybe would not be immediately freaked out and shut the

0:27:15.601 --> 0:27:19.600
<v Speaker 3>door in their face. The VISCAT profile suggested that Nina

0:27:19.641 --> 0:27:21.961
<v Speaker 3>and the offender may have gotten into some kind of

0:27:21.961 --> 0:27:25.640
<v Speaker 3>a conflict in the past, but they believed that it

0:27:25.681 --> 0:27:28.201
<v Speaker 3>was likely that the offender had been nice to her

0:27:28.321 --> 0:27:31.121
<v Speaker 3>in the run up to the killing. So the FBI

0:27:31.561 --> 0:27:34.600
<v Speaker 3>seemed to think that this murder was something the killer

0:27:34.641 --> 0:27:38.041
<v Speaker 3>had planned out fairly carefully. And this next part of

0:27:38.121 --> 0:27:41.801
<v Speaker 3>the FBI's report is interesting. Quoted in court documents, it read,

0:27:41.840 --> 0:27:45.640
<v Speaker 3>quote offender may have been excessively nice to the victim

0:27:45.641 --> 0:27:48.921
<v Speaker 3>in the time preceding the homicide, in hopes this behavior

0:27:48.961 --> 0:27:53.120
<v Speaker 3>would deflect law enforcement's attention away from him after the homicide.

0:27:53.441 --> 0:27:54.601
<v Speaker 1>End quote.

0:27:54.801 --> 0:27:58.521
<v Speaker 3>The final note was that the offender may have executed

0:27:58.521 --> 0:28:01.681
<v Speaker 3>a well constructed plan in committing the homicide, so the

0:28:01.721 --> 0:28:05.361
<v Speaker 3>profiler believed this was not a random attack, and finally,

0:28:06.121 --> 0:28:10.001
<v Speaker 3>the profiler believed the offender was likely satisfied that the

0:28:10.080 --> 0:28:18.120
<v Speaker 3>victim is dead. The VISCAT profile also stated that the

0:28:18.161 --> 0:28:22.721
<v Speaker 3>offender was quote likely monitoring this case through the media,

0:28:22.801 --> 0:28:25.961
<v Speaker 3>and may have already been contacted by law enforcement regarding

0:28:25.961 --> 0:28:26.441
<v Speaker 3>the incident.

0:28:27.361 --> 0:28:29.600
<v Speaker 1>So they were looking for someone.

0:28:29.361 --> 0:28:32.241
<v Speaker 3>Who knew Nina, who maybe had been rejected by her,

0:28:32.681 --> 0:28:35.841
<v Speaker 3>who was potentially inserting themselves into her case to help

0:28:35.961 --> 0:28:39.841
<v Speaker 3>law enforcement, and who may be monitoring the case through

0:28:39.921 --> 0:28:40.321
<v Speaker 3>the media.

0:28:41.361 --> 0:28:41.561
<v Speaker 1>Now.

0:28:41.601 --> 0:28:45.961
<v Speaker 3>The lawsuit stated that none of those details matched Rico Cone,

0:28:46.361 --> 0:28:49.681
<v Speaker 3>but almost all of them matched the person that the

0:28:49.761 --> 0:28:54.121
<v Speaker 3>lawsuit called person of interest A Josh and another person

0:28:54.601 --> 0:29:09.681
<v Speaker 3>the person they called person of interest B. Based on

0:29:09.721 --> 0:29:13.241
<v Speaker 3>the FBI's assessment of Nina's case, Rico Cone did not

0:29:13.481 --> 0:29:17.481
<v Speaker 3>fit the profile of her killer. The lawsuit alleged that

0:29:17.521 --> 0:29:20.761
<v Speaker 3>the lead detective, Scott Carlton, and his colleagues were quote

0:29:21.001 --> 0:29:23.721
<v Speaker 3>seeking solely to obtain a conviction and close out a

0:29:23.761 --> 0:29:26.961
<v Speaker 3>politically difficult case, without regard to where the facts or

0:29:27.001 --> 0:29:31.801
<v Speaker 3>evidence may lead end quote. The lawsuit also accused the

0:29:31.881 --> 0:29:35.361
<v Speaker 3>lead detective and his colleagues of conspiring with the Arkansas

0:29:35.401 --> 0:29:39.961
<v Speaker 3>State Crime Lab to hide or manipulate evidence and intentionally

0:29:40.001 --> 0:29:44.361
<v Speaker 3>and deliberately misleading both the Office of the Prosecutor Attorney

0:29:44.641 --> 0:29:48.041
<v Speaker 3>and the general public about the relative strengths and weaknesses

0:29:48.081 --> 0:29:52.721
<v Speaker 3>of what the lawsuit called an improper, illegitimate, and unconstitutional case.

0:29:53.801 --> 0:29:56.961
<v Speaker 3>The lawsuit mentioned someone else who they called person of

0:29:57.001 --> 0:30:00.721
<v Speaker 3>interest B. Now, this person is not named in the lawsuit,

0:30:01.201 --> 0:30:03.441
<v Speaker 3>but by comparing the civil lawsuit to the part of

0:30:03.481 --> 0:30:06.441
<v Speaker 3>the case file that we have access to, this person

0:30:06.561 --> 0:30:10.440
<v Speaker 3>appears to match the description of a man named Jarvis Harper.

0:30:11.241 --> 0:30:13.961
<v Speaker 3>Jarvis was someone who first came up in the case

0:30:14.001 --> 0:30:15.161
<v Speaker 3>file in two thousand and eight.

0:30:15.721 --> 0:30:17.281
<v Speaker 1>On August fifth, two thousand and eight.

0:30:17.521 --> 0:30:20.321
<v Speaker 3>Officers from the Fayetable Police Department went to a residence

0:30:20.321 --> 0:30:22.761
<v Speaker 3>where a woman was requesting help to obtain an order

0:30:22.761 --> 0:30:23.281
<v Speaker 3>of protection.

0:30:23.841 --> 0:30:25.441
<v Speaker 1>The woman's name was Nicki Perry.

0:30:26.041 --> 0:30:28.761
<v Speaker 3>She wanted the restraining order against her boyfriend, twenty nine

0:30:28.801 --> 0:30:32.361
<v Speaker 3>year old Jarvis Harper. She told officers that she and

0:30:32.481 --> 0:30:35.481
<v Speaker 3>Jarvis had been living together for about five years. She

0:30:35.601 --> 0:30:39.161
<v Speaker 3>said that he was a quote controlling individual who monitors

0:30:39.201 --> 0:30:42.721
<v Speaker 3>her every move end quote. She said Jarvis had a

0:30:42.761 --> 0:30:45.521
<v Speaker 3>camera inside the house. She said he installed it there

0:30:45.561 --> 0:30:48.241
<v Speaker 3>to track her. She claimed that it recorded twenty four

0:30:48.281 --> 0:30:50.681
<v Speaker 3>hours a day. She said she was afraid of turning

0:30:50.681 --> 0:30:53.561
<v Speaker 3>the camera off because Jarvis allegedly had a bad temper.

0:30:54.241 --> 0:30:57.601
<v Speaker 3>Nicki also said Jarvis had done something to the back door,

0:30:57.681 --> 0:30:59.601
<v Speaker 3>basically disabled it so she couldn't get out of the

0:30:59.601 --> 0:31:03.361
<v Speaker 3>apartment the back way, meaning Nicki told officers that she

0:31:03.361 --> 0:31:05.121
<v Speaker 3>would always have to go through the front door to

0:31:05.201 --> 0:31:09.321
<v Speaker 3>leave the apartment. Jarvis, also, according to Nicki, asked her

0:31:09.401 --> 0:31:11.721
<v Speaker 3>to change her name and start going by the name

0:31:12.001 --> 0:31:17.081
<v Speaker 3>Lindsey Knight, which she said she agreed to do. The

0:31:17.201 --> 0:31:19.761
<v Speaker 3>latest incident that led to her calling the police had

0:31:19.801 --> 0:31:23.521
<v Speaker 3>actually started three days before. She said that on that day,

0:31:23.721 --> 0:31:26.961
<v Speaker 3>on April second, two thousand and eight, that Jarvis had

0:31:27.001 --> 0:31:30.281
<v Speaker 3>tied her hands together with black drawstring cords that he

0:31:30.281 --> 0:31:33.241
<v Speaker 3>took out of a pair of athletic shorts. Nicki said

0:31:33.241 --> 0:31:35.401
<v Speaker 3>that he left her tied up for half the day,

0:31:35.801 --> 0:31:39.001
<v Speaker 3>starting at around two pm. She said, while she was

0:31:39.041 --> 0:31:42.441
<v Speaker 3>tied up, Jarvis sat on top of her and held

0:31:42.481 --> 0:31:46.001
<v Speaker 3>his Bretta nine milimi a pistol to her head, demanding

0:31:46.001 --> 0:31:49.601
<v Speaker 3>to know the truth about her activity. Apparently he believed

0:31:49.641 --> 0:31:52.241
<v Speaker 3>she had been lying to him. Nikki said that she

0:31:52.321 --> 0:31:54.881
<v Speaker 3>complied because she was terrified. She said she had been

0:31:54.921 --> 0:31:57.921
<v Speaker 3>too afraid to call the police. On the police report,

0:31:57.961 --> 0:32:01.281
<v Speaker 3>it noted detectives took away the drawstring cords from the

0:32:01.281 --> 0:32:04.481
<v Speaker 3>athletic shorts as evidence. But there was something else at

0:32:04.481 --> 0:32:08.281
<v Speaker 3>that residence. In the living room, Jarvis had a framed

0:32:08.321 --> 0:32:11.801
<v Speaker 3>photo of Nina Ingram. It was the same photo that

0:32:11.841 --> 0:32:14.761
<v Speaker 3>had been passed out to Walmart employees after Nina died,

0:32:15.161 --> 0:32:18.761
<v Speaker 3>and in fact, Jarvis worked with Nina at the Sixth

0:32:18.761 --> 0:32:23.641
<v Speaker 3>Street Walmart. But Jarvis, apparently, according to the lawsuit, didn't

0:32:23.641 --> 0:32:27.201
<v Speaker 3>actually get the photo that way. In fact, Rico's lawsuit

0:32:27.241 --> 0:32:31.081
<v Speaker 3>claims that Jarvis wanted a way to remember Nina, so

0:32:31.241 --> 0:32:34.161
<v Speaker 3>he went and tracked down the photo from another employee.

0:32:34.521 --> 0:32:38.121
<v Speaker 3>The lawsuit claimed Jarvis was not aware that the framed

0:32:38.121 --> 0:32:40.721
<v Speaker 3>photograph of Nina Ingram that he had on his wall

0:32:41.121 --> 0:32:44.241
<v Speaker 3>was the same one they handed out at Walmart. Police

0:32:44.321 --> 0:32:48.281
<v Speaker 3>later questioned Nikki about this photo. Nicki said when she

0:32:48.401 --> 0:32:51.041
<v Speaker 3>had asked about the photo of Nina, Jarvis told her

0:32:51.081 --> 0:32:53.281
<v Speaker 3>the photo was there because Nina was a friend of his,

0:32:53.641 --> 0:32:56.601
<v Speaker 3>and also he was good friends with her boyfriend, Josh.

0:32:57.161 --> 0:32:59.721
<v Speaker 3>Jarvis told her that he had worked with Nina at

0:32:59.761 --> 0:33:02.961
<v Speaker 3>Walmart and that he quote was pretty sure he knows

0:33:03.001 --> 0:33:05.641
<v Speaker 3>who did it, meaning knows who killed Nina, but that

0:33:05.681 --> 0:33:09.521
<v Speaker 3>it could not be proven. So we have a person

0:33:09.561 --> 0:33:12.641
<v Speaker 3>with a definite connection to Nina Ingram, someone who worked

0:33:12.641 --> 0:33:15.361
<v Speaker 3>with her and her boyfriend, who was accused of choking

0:33:15.401 --> 0:33:18.161
<v Speaker 3>his girlfriend with the cord of his athletic shorts, and

0:33:18.641 --> 0:33:22.561
<v Speaker 3>who allegedly exhibited violent behavior. We know that, according to

0:33:22.601 --> 0:33:26.401
<v Speaker 3>the autopsy report, Nina was strangled with an object that

0:33:26.481 --> 0:33:28.961
<v Speaker 3>was between one sixteenth of an inch and one eighth

0:33:29.001 --> 0:33:31.641
<v Speaker 3>of an inch wide, and that the murder weapon was

0:33:31.681 --> 0:33:35.761
<v Speaker 3>never found. In addition to the photographs of Nina on

0:33:35.841 --> 0:33:39.321
<v Speaker 3>the wall, Jarvis also had photographs of other women in

0:33:39.361 --> 0:33:43.281
<v Speaker 3>a filing cabinet next to his computer. Nicki told police

0:33:43.801 --> 0:33:46.521
<v Speaker 3>Jarvist told her one of the women was a missing person,

0:33:46.921 --> 0:33:49.441
<v Speaker 3>but did not give her any more details about that woman,

0:33:49.761 --> 0:33:53.081
<v Speaker 3>about the case, or where or when the woman supposedly

0:33:53.081 --> 0:33:56.841
<v Speaker 3>went missing. Nicki told police she didn't remember a lot

0:33:56.881 --> 0:33:59.881
<v Speaker 3>of details about the files she saw inside Jarvis's office,

0:34:00.241 --> 0:34:03.001
<v Speaker 3>other than the fact that she said the name McMillan

0:34:03.521 --> 0:34:06.201
<v Speaker 3>was written on the bottom front of one of those photos.

0:34:07.001 --> 0:34:10.200
<v Speaker 3>Nicki said that again, besides Nina, who she had specifically

0:34:10.241 --> 0:34:13.440
<v Speaker 3>asked about, she did not know who any of these

0:34:13.440 --> 0:34:17.321
<v Speaker 3>other women were. Police also talked to Nicki's mother, Susie

0:34:17.681 --> 0:34:20.641
<v Speaker 3>Susie told detectives that Jarvis was a martial arts expert,

0:34:20.881 --> 0:34:23.241
<v Speaker 3>that he had various martial arts weapons and guns and

0:34:23.321 --> 0:34:26.121
<v Speaker 3>ninja items in the home, and that he was quote

0:34:26.281 --> 0:34:30.960
<v Speaker 3>as self proclaimed ninja and black belt end quote. Jarvis

0:34:31.000 --> 0:34:35.361
<v Speaker 3>confirmed to police that he did practice martial arts. Police

0:34:35.361 --> 0:34:38.440
<v Speaker 3>searched the bedroom and remove some items, including a black

0:34:38.480 --> 0:34:42.361
<v Speaker 3>scheme mask. Next week, We're going to hear more from

0:34:42.440 --> 0:34:46.041
<v Speaker 3>Nina's boyfriend at the time, Josh, about his relationship with Dina,

0:34:46.480 --> 0:34:50.041
<v Speaker 3>his relationship with Jarvis, and his theories on the case.

0:34:50.881 --> 0:34:54.161
<v Speaker 3>We're also going to try to figure out who the

0:34:54.281 --> 0:35:00.201
<v Speaker 3>other women were on Jarvis's wall. I'm Katherine Townsend. This

0:35:00.281 --> 0:35:05.520
<v Speaker 3>is Helen Gone Murder Line. Helen Gone Murder Line is

0:35:05.521 --> 0:35:08.480
<v Speaker 3>a production of School of Humans and iHeart Podcasts. It's

0:35:08.481 --> 0:35:11.560
<v Speaker 3>written and narrated by me Katherine Townsend and produced by

0:35:11.601 --> 0:35:15.121
<v Speaker 3>Gabby Watts. Special thanks to Amy Tubbs for her research

0:35:15.161 --> 0:35:19.080
<v Speaker 3>assistance and James Wheaton for legal review. Noah camer mixed

0:35:19.081 --> 0:35:22.001
<v Speaker 3>and scored this episode. Our theme song is by Ben Salep.

0:35:22.521 --> 0:35:26.481
<v Speaker 3>Executive producers are Virginia Prescott, Brandon Barr, and LC Crowley.

0:35:27.081 --> 0:35:29.641
<v Speaker 3>Listen to Helen Gone ad free by subscribing to the

0:35:29.681 --> 0:35:31.081
<v Speaker 3>iHeart True Crime Plus.

0:35:30.960 --> 0:35:32.361
<v Speaker 1>Channel on Apple Podcasts.

0:35:32.641 --> 0:35:35.361
<v Speaker 3>If you were interested in seeing documents and materials from

0:35:35.401 --> 0:35:38.921
<v Speaker 3>the case, you can follow the show on Instagram.

0:35:38.201 --> 0:35:39.520
<v Speaker 1>At ellen gonpot.

0:35:39.960 --> 0:35:41.641
<v Speaker 3>If you have a case you'd like me and my

0:35:41.681 --> 0:35:43.601
<v Speaker 3>team to look into, you can reach out to a

0:35:43.881 --> 0:35:47.161
<v Speaker 3>at our Hellngong Murder Line at six seven eight seven

0:35:47.201 --> 0:35:50.560
<v Speaker 3>four four six one four five. That's six seven eight

0:35:50.761 --> 0:35:53.080
<v Speaker 3>seven four four six one four five.

0:35:57.201 --> 0:35:58.361
<v Speaker 1>School of Humans