May 15, 2025 • 35 mins
Sometime after ten pm on April 21, 2006, 21-year-old college student Nina Ingram was brutally murdered inside her apartment in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
The cause of death was ligature strangulation, and The Arkansas State Crime lab ruled the death a homicide. Despite the fact that detectives interviewed dozens of Nina’s friends, coworkers and her significant other, they had no viable suspects for years.
The Fayetteville Police Department considered this a cold case, their only unsolved one at the time since the 1970s. But then in 2012 they arrested and charged 26-year-old Rico Tavarous Cohn with Nina’s murder.
But the case against Rico Cohn was not as solid as it appeared to be on the surface. He spent over three years behind bars, and then, the case against him was dismissed.
Three years later in 2018, Rico filed a civil lawsuit against the Fayetteville Police Department detectives and employees at the Arkansas State Crime Lab who he alleged violated his civil rights.
This lawsuit claimed that there were several people of interest who police interviewed who were potential suspects...suspects that the lawsuit alleges were overlooked.
The person who murdered Nina has never been found. This person is still out there. Could the answers to finding Nina’s killer be there and is this person still out there?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
School of Humans.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Helen Got Murder Line actively investigates cold case murders in
an effort to raise public awareness invite witnesses to come
forward and present evidence that could potentially be further investigated
by law enforcement. While we value insights from family and
community members, their statements should not be considered evidence and
point to the challenges of verifying facts inherent in cold cases.
(01:12):
We remind listeners that everyone has presumed innocent until proven
guilty in a court of law. Nothing in the podcast
is intended to state or imply that anyone who has
not been convicted of a crime is guilty of any wrongdoing.
Thanks for listening.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Sometime after ten pm on April twenty first, two thousand
and six, twenty one year old college student Nina Ingram
was brutally murdered inside her apartment, Unit number one at
the Law Quad Complex in Fayettvile, Arkansas. The cause of
death was ligature strangulation, and the Arkansas State Crime Lab
(01:51):
ruled the death a homicide. Despite the fact that detectives
interviewed dozens of Nina's friends, co workers, and her significant other,
they had no viable suspects for years. One big question
was how did Nina's killer get access to her apartment.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
One of the theories that police.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Had early on was that Nina's killer rushed her at
her apartment door and pushed her inside when she put
her key into the door, which could explain why none
of the neighbors who police spoke to reported hearing screams
on the night of April twenty first. But Nina's door
was locked from the inside, her keys, purse, and all
(02:31):
of her belongings, including her cell phone, were with her,
and there was no sign of forced entry. She was
violently strangled, which must have taken several minutes, and yet
there was no sign of anything taken from.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Her residence or of sexual assault.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
So if Nina's killer did force their way in, that
would mean that they either locked the door behind them
or locked the door from the inside and then went
out another way, probably through the unlocked front window. But
if they did that, that would mean that they carefully
replaced the screen and pulled the window down to the
exact same spot where it was opened before. The Fayetteville
(03:12):
Police Department considered this a cold case, one of the
only unsolved cases since the nineteen seventies, but then in
twenty twelve, they arrested and charged twenty six year old
Rico Tavarius Cone with Nina's murder, but the case against
Rico Cone was not as solid as it appeared to
be on the surface. He spent over three years behind bars,
(03:34):
and then the case against him was dismissed.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Three years later.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
In twenty eighteen, Rico filed a civil lawsuit against the
Fayetteville Police Department, detectives, and employees at the Arkansas State
Crime Lab, who he alleged violated his civil rights. The
allegations made in Rico Cohne's lawsuit are obviously only one
side of this story, but it is a completely different
(03:59):
story than the one that has been put out, at
least so far, by the fate of a police department.
The lawsuit claims that there were several people of interests
who police interviewed over the years, people who were, according
to the lawsuit, potential suspects. The lawsuit alleges that these
potential suspects were overlooked. This case is still unsolved. The
(04:23):
person who murdered Nina Ingram has never been arrested or charged,
so this person is still out there and we have
access to part of this case file through a Foyer request.
Could the clues to the killer's identity be in this
case file?
Speaker 1 (04:41):
I'm Catherine Townsend.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Over the past five years of making my true crime podcast,
Helen Gone, I've learned that there's no such thing as
a small town where.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Murder never happens.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
I have received hundreds of messages from people all around
the country asking for help with an unsolved murder that's
affected them, their families, and their communities. If you have
a case you'd like me and my team to look into,
you can reach out to us at our Helen Gone
Murder Line at six seven eight seven four four six
one four or five. That's six seven eight seven four
(05:11):
four six one four or five, or you can send
us a message on Instagram at Helen Gonepod. This is
Helen Gone Murder Line. Rico's lawsuit, and again this claim
(06:06):
is just one side of the story, alleged that multiple
and credible direct reports and evidence had been submitted to
the Fayetful Police Department and other law enforcement agencies over
the years, but the lawsuit alleges that detectives ignored this evidence. Instead,
they laser focused on Rico and quote missed multiple opportunities
(06:26):
to investigate and perhaps actually solve this unsolved crime end quote,
So they were chasing what the lawsuit called a wrongful
and unconstitutional conviction against Rico. The lawsuit alleges that the
arrest warrant was obtained under fraudulent pretenses because the police
claimed they had three independent witnesses, but in fact, the
(06:48):
lawsuit pointed out all they had was a single person,
Randy Applewhite, because the second person Brenda case was a
friend of Randy's and she was repeating what Randy told her. Now,
the arrest warrant claimed that there was a third person,
an ex girlfriend of Rigo's named Kathleen Slaughter. The warrant
stated that Kathleen had shared intimate details about Nina's homicide
(07:10):
with detectives, but the lawsuit said.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
That information was incorrect.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
The lawsuit says that this third person was quote never
specifically or sufficiently identified, and never existed at all, conclusory,
at best, fabricated at worse end quote. These are serious allegations. Basically,
the lawsuit claimed that the police attempted to get an
(07:37):
arrest warrant, but the prosecuting attorney would not grant that
warrant because the evidence was insufficient. So the lawsuit stated
that after that police went back to the prosecuting attorney
with essentially exactly the same evidence, but now there were
three people instead of just one, and this time the
warrant was granted. Rico's attorney, Tony Pirani, claimed that on Wednesday,
(08:02):
January TEWOD twenty fourteen, he and the rest of the
defense team met with Detective Carlton, the lead detective on
this case, Detective Brooks, and the prosecuting attorney and his
chief deputy at the Fayeteville Police Department. They were there
to review the physical evidence still in the police department's possession.
Their purpose there was to figure out the current status
(08:24):
of all DNA testing, to figure out what had been tested,
what the results were, and what the communication was between
the Fayetful Police Department and the Arkansas State Crime Lab
regarding this case. Two days later, Rico's attorneys had another
meeting with personnel at the Arkansas State Crime Lab. Now,
the lawsuit states that during this meeting they realized there
(08:46):
were irregularities in the testing and procedures in this case.
They said some pieces of evidence in Nina's case had
not been properly labeled or tested, and that safeguards had
been failed in regards to DNA tape lifts that were
done from Nina's clothing. On April twenty six, twenty twelve,
(09:06):
Officer Carlton called Brenda Case later labeled Confidential Informant IE
in the search warrant documents, She told defendant Carlton that
her friend Randy Applewhite had a detailed account of the
Nina Ingram homicide allegedly from Rico Cone.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Now.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
Rico Cone allegedly told Randy that he was at the
Law Couad apartments to buy marijuana, that he saw Nina
in the parking lot, and that he hit on her,
and that Nina turned him down. Brenda Kay said that
Randy told her Rico came back later and went to
Nina's apartment, using the excuse that he needed to borrow something.
He knocked on the door, Nina opened the door and
(09:45):
then tried to shut it, but it failed to close
all the way, and at that point Rico entered Nina's
apartment and strangled her to death. So Randy Applewhite became
Confidential Informant number two. But Rico's lawsuit claims that Randy's
story did change over time, and that the second time
that Detective Carlton spoke to Randy, on May first, twenty twelve, quote,
(10:08):
she had already significantly changed her own reported timeline, substantially
altering her earlier story, which should have given an early
clue that something was amiss end quote. The lawsuit also
alleges that Detective Carlton helped Randy apple White financially, that
he encouraged her to contact crime stoppers so she could
(10:28):
collect the cash reward if she continued to cooperate, which
she did, and the lawsuit claimed that Detective Carlton, in
what they called a highly unusual move, destroyed his own
investigative field notes. Rico's defense attorneys were preparing for his trial,
so they contacted Randy apple White, and on December seventeenth,
twenty thirteen, according to the lawsuit, when Rico's legal team
(10:52):
spoke to Randy, she told them she did not believe
that Rico was guilty of the murder. The civil lawsuit
also claimed that Randy said she was quote no longer
certain exactly what, if anything, she recalled Rico, ever having
said regarding any alleged involvement in the Ingram homicide, and
that she wanted no part in a criminal prosecution which
(11:14):
could potentially see Rico convicted of capital murder and sentenced
to death end quote. The lawsuit alleges that on several
occasions that Detective Carlton gave Randy apple White money, including
thirty five dollars in gas money on May third, twenty twelve,
and also a hotel room that he booked for her
(11:35):
and her children for two nights at the Clarion Inn
for one hundred and twenty four dollars and fifty eight cents. Now,
this apparently happened after Detective Carlton got a call from
Randy apple White alleging that Rico had assaulted her. After
that incident, they did DNA testing on Randy's shirt and
they found no match to Rico Cone. During this time,
(11:56):
detectives were doing a deep dive into Rico Cone's history
and his employment record. They were conducting follow up calls
and visits with current and former residents of the Law
Quad apartments.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
While this was going on.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
On May fourteenth, twenty twelve, Rico Cone got wind of
the police investigation against him, and that's when, according to
his attorney, He decided to voluntarily talk to police because,
according to the civil lawsuit, Rico wanted to be cleared.
At this interview, police gave Rico a doctor pepper to
drink after he said he was thirsty. Then Detective Carlton
(12:34):
told Rico that they had taken a DNA sample from
that doctor Pepper camp and that they had matched the
DNA on it to a DNA sample taken from the
crime scene, meaning the detective told Rico that Rico had
been inside Nina Ingram's apartment. This, however, was not true.
I want to point out by the way that we
(12:54):
can't know the inner workings of Detective Carlton's mind at
this point, but it is not illegal for detectives to
light to suspects. Often it's encouraged. I've actually taken the
read Interrogation seminar as part of my private investigator training.
That's the same one the police take, and in that
seminar they actually teach you how to lie. But Rico
(13:15):
Cone's civil lawsuit alleges that the police didn't stop there.
The lawsuit alleges that not only was the case against
Rico Cone weaked to nonexistent, but that the judge who
issued the search warrant, and the public were actually being misled.
They were being told that Rico Cone was the only
Bible suspect, But in fact, as we got into last week,
(13:37):
Rico Cone was not the only man questioned, and there's
nothing about Rico Cone in the case by up to
the year two thousand and eight, at least nothing that's
been publicly released via FOI request. I could not find
any mention of Rigo Cone in the pieces of the
case file that we were given, though again we can't
be sure that we have every document because much later
(14:01):
after the case against Rigo Cone was dismissed, Rico Cone's
entire criminal case was sealed by a judge. There is
no mention of Rico Cone's name in connection with the
Nina Ingram case anywhere in the Arkansas court system. After that,
Nina's case went cold again. And while of course we
can't know for sure what was happening behind the scenes
(14:23):
of the investigation, publicly, the statements made by police appeared
to indicate they believed they did have the right person,
but they did not have enough evidence to prosecute Rigo Cone.
They had one year to refile charges, but they never did,
which means Nina's killer was.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Still out there.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
One of the things that police were trying to figure
out early on was was this a random attack or
someone whom Nina knew, because even though everyone they talked
to said Nina was this super nice person and they
couldn't imagine anyone would want to hurt her, the fact
is someone did brutally strangle her, and her cell phone
was in her pocket, She had no defensive wounds on
(15:15):
her hands, and she was not sexually assaulted. Also, her
purse was found near her body with money inside it,
and nothing obvious was taken from her apartment, so, at
least on the surface, the motive did not appear to
be robbery or sexual assault. And I keep coming back
to the locked door because I believe it could.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
Be a crucial clue.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
When Nina's brother, Noah and his roommate Chad got to
her apartment the day her body was found, the door
was double locked. Her brother had to crawl in through
an open window next to the door, then he unlocked
the regular.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Lock and the dead bowl.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
So if the killer left through the door, how did
they lock it behind themselves?
Speaker 1 (15:58):
Police asked several people about.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Nina's keys, including Nina's boyfriend, Josh Stewart.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
We talked to Josh.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
He said that he met Nina in March of two
thousand and five when they started working at the same Walmart.
They started dating later that summer.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
There's a new store that's being open and Rogers Arkansas.
We were helping you get that store set up and
so met her at that time, but we didn't start
dating more over the summer. By midsummer May of late summer,
say I was bye. We started dating, So we didn't
date for very long. At the most seven eight months
(16:34):
we were seeing each other exclusively. You know, we have
started talking about getting the place together because we spend
our time together. Anyway, She spent a lot of time
at my apartment changedly move along grade.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
Josh said that he did not have a key to
her apartment, and even though she had a key to
his place, and even though they regularly switch vehicles, He
said they did this because he had to commute for work.
He worried that his older truck wouldn't make it all
the way to Bentonville, so on the days he had
to make that drive, Nina would lend him her two
thousand and two Toyota Corolla.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
Josh told detectives he.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
Had not actually been inside Nina's apartment for a couple
of months. Their routine was she would get off work,
usually shower, and then come to his place to hang out.
Sometimes they would go out when she came to his place.
Sometimes she would stay over there. Sometimes she would go
back home, but he pretty much never stayed at her place.
He also told detectives that Nina often felt he would
(17:31):
get angry with her if she didn't stay over. In
two thousand and six, Josh told detectives that his relationship
with Nina had been going great. He said Nina planned
to move in with him when her lease was up.
He said she was easy going and they got along
super well, that they came from similar hard working family backgrounds,
and that they had shared values. They were both working
(17:52):
their way through college. He said, I was going to
marry that girl. He cried as he told detectives quote,
it's the best relationship that I've ever had. Police asked
about the keys several times. Josh clarified that his truck
keys were on a removable ring, so when they swapped vehicles.
He said he would take the truck keys on their
(18:13):
little silver ring and give them to Nina and vice versa,
so that allowed them to swap vehicle keys without swapping
the entire key ring. Police also asked Josh if Nina
had noticed anything at work or at home if there
was anyone who would want to hurt her. Josh said
not at work, but he said Nina had told him
about some guys at her apartment complex who were cat
(18:36):
calling her. He told detectives this happened five days before
Nina's murder on Easter Sunday, April sixteenth, two thousand and six.
While Josh said he hadn't been inside Nina's apartment in months,
he said he had waited for Nina in the parking
lot of her complex on Easter Sunday, April sixteenth, two
thousand and six. He said on that day, both he
and Nina had the day off. He said they hung
(18:58):
out together and went to Walmart to buy some stuff.
After that, they swung by her apartment complex so she
could run inside and change before they went out to eat.
Josh said that while he was waiting for Nina in
the law Quad parking lot, he noticed two or three
young men, who he had described a police as young
male kids aged fourteen to fifteen years old, and at
(19:18):
least one of them driving a truck. He said that
Nina had told him on that day that one of
these guys had been cat calling her and called her
a bitch, and that he had considered confronting them but didn't.
Speaker 4 (19:31):
She guys just said something to me, and I'm like, well,
whe they say, she's whether he was hollering at me
and trying to get come talk to them, and I
just ignored them. And she's kind of shaken up by
that enough to mention it to me, and I, well,
do we need the same thing? And she was like, well,
now they drove off, so it was from like a vehicle.
She just kind of shook it off, and you know,
(19:53):
I don't know, it's not that big deal. Let's just
move on. That's the only time that I recall her
being uncomfortable about anybody in the complex.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
Later, Rico's defense team talked to Josh as well. He
told them that the mental image he had in his
head from that day was that it could have been
a couple of white guys and that they were definitely
younger than him.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
And Nina.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
Another former law squad resident named Catherine Austin, who lived
in apartment number eighty two, told police on April seventeenth,
two thousand and seven, that around the time of the murder,
there were four men. She described them as clean cut,
white males hanging around in that parking lot in a
white four door pickup truck. Catherine said two of these
guys came up to her apartment door and asked her
(20:35):
what her name was. She said that this made her
very uncomfortable because they invaded her personal space.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Again.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
According to the lawsuit, there were several potential people of
interests who the suit claimed should have been thoroughly investigated.
The lawsuit alleges that the lead detective, Scott Carlton, when
he took over the investigation, very quickly became totally focused
on Rico Cone, and that Detective Carlton was quote exhibiting
clear signs of cognitive bias, repeatedly assisted Josh in matching
(21:05):
up his answers with his prior statements by telling him
what an excellent job he was doing and even providing
him with a transcript of his prior statement with highlighted portions,
and it was only after that happened that Josh then
changed his statement back to having been present in the
parking lot end quote. The lawsuit alleged there was really
no evidence, physical or otherwise against Rico Cone, but there
(21:29):
were pieces of evidence that could have pointed to other
people of interest.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
There was the text message. Josh told police.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
That Nina had communicated with someone online prior to leaving
his residence. On April twenty first, two thousand and six,
detective found a text message on Nina's cell phone from
a contact listed as Joey. The message read quote I
see be careful, be one hundred percent see ya end quote.
But that person Joey was never identified in the case file.
(21:59):
So who was Joey? Was he the last.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
Person who Nina messaged? What did he mean by be careful?
Speaker 3 (22:06):
Was this just a random occurrence or could it be
a clue. Several potential pieces of evidence were sent to
the Arkansas State Crime Lab, including Nina's clothes that she
was wearing, plus other items of clothing including jeans, towels,
and socks, the dead bolt and doorknob from the front door,
a small black elastic cord with a white button that
(22:28):
was found under the bed, Nina's betting, and the black
leather belt that was found in the kitchen trash can.
They also found other items, including a Valentine's card that
was from Josh and a poem that Nina had written
to her mom. The lawsuit mentions the fact that the
DNA evidence collection procedures were much less advanced in two
thousand and six than they are today. The training of
(22:50):
law enforcement and the procedures at the Arkansas State Crime
Lab were also not what they are today. This would
become a crucial component of Rico's lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Another question that we had when.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
Reviewing this case file were who were the men whom
Nina was seen talking to at her apartment complex in
the days before her death. Detectives talked to a neighbor
of Nina's who said she saw Nina sitting on a
bench in her apartment building on April twentieth, two thousand
and six, the day before she was murdered. Nina was
talking to a white male described as having slightly bigger
(23:27):
than medium builled, with blondish brown hair and a pasty
white complexion, approximately five foot eight to five foot ten
inches tall. The neighbor told police she had seen Nina
come home with a similar looking mail on multiple prior
occasions after dark. Now remember, Nina's boyfriend, Josh, told police
that he had not been inside Nina's apartment in months. However,
(23:50):
he did say he had been in the parking lot
a few days before her murder. This neighbor also said
that she saw Nina that same week with another different
white male with lighter brown hair and a medium build
between five foot ten and five foot eleven inches tall,
that the two of them had walked together to Nina's apartment,
standing very close with the white male than following Nina
(24:11):
into the apartment. This could have been Nina's brother or
another friend, but this information, to our knowledge, was never
followed up on in the police file. Another question we
had was could someone have been stalking Nina. Police did
talk to a friend of Nina's named Samantha Stevens. She
said Nina had told her in the past that someone
(24:33):
had been stalking her at her apartment and following her around,
but there are no more details about this in the
case file, including when they had this conversation and how
recently it happened.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
It just as in the.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
Past, the Fayetteville police department asked the FBI to get
involved with Nina's case, and they did. In March of
two thousand and seven, Detective John Gentry of the Faetful
Police Department worked with a crime analyst named Tom Dover
of the Behavioral Analysis Unit of the FBI as part
of the Violent Criminal Apprehension Program or VISCAP. They prepared
(25:06):
and generated a criminal investigative analysis of the Nini Ingram homicide,
including a very detailed profile of potential suspects. So ViCAP
has a few different functions. One of them is the
one that most of us have seen in the movies
where the FBI criminal profiler comes in. They have a
big marker board with a bunch of unsolved homicides on it.
(25:27):
They analyze major violent crimes and can link cases based
on behavioral and geographical similarities. Basically, they find patterns, but
ViCAP also looks at individual cases and from the information
in the case file. By examining the crime scene, they
can give a profile of the unsub short for unknown
subject or unidentified subject. This is meant to help local
(25:48):
law enforcement narrow down their search. On April sixteenth, two
thousand and seven, the FBI gave the profile that they
produced to the FFUL Police Department. The VISCAP profile was
pretty much the opposite of ricocone. The VISCAT profile stated
that Nina's killer was likely a Caucasian male, familiar and
(26:08):
comfortable in the area, and that they were likely living
in or near Fayette, Arkansas. In terms of the man
being Caucasian, that would track with the initial interviews, not
one single person mentioned a person of color as hanging
around the apartment building. So, in addition to believing that
the killer was local and not a transient, the VISCAP
profile stated that they believed the evidence suggested that the
(26:32):
killer knew Nina and may have had an intimate relationship
with her, and that they were familiar with her schedule. Again,
this is the opposite of ricocone. He was a stranger
to Nina. To the witness Randy Applewhite story, Rico only
saw her briefly and attacked her because he just happened
to see her coming home. The FBI stated that Nina's killer,
(26:54):
according to the profile they provided quote, knew his or
her proximity to her would not cause her alarm end quote,
So they believed that Nina's killer was someone who if
she saw them in line at Taco Bell or hanging
out at Walmart, or maybe even in her apartment complex,
maybe would not be immediately freaked out and shut the
(27:15):
door in their face. The VISCAT profile suggested that Nina
and the offender may have gotten into some kind of
a conflict in the past, but they believed that it
was likely that the offender had been nice to her
in the run up to the killing. So the FBI
seemed to think that this murder was something the killer
had planned out fairly carefully. And this next part of
(27:38):
the FBI's report is interesting. Quoted in court documents, it read,
quote offender may have been excessively nice to the victim
in the time preceding the homicide, in hopes this behavior
would deflect law enforcement's attention away from him after the homicide.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
End quote.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
The final note was that the offender may have executed
a well constructed plan in committing the homicide, so the
profiler believed this was not a random attack, and finally,
the profiler believed the offender was likely satisfied that the
victim is dead. The VISCAT profile also stated that the
(28:18):
offender was quote likely monitoring this case through the media,
and may have already been contacted by law enforcement regarding
the incident.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
So they were looking for someone.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
Who knew Nina, who maybe had been rejected by her,
who was potentially inserting themselves into her case to help
law enforcement, and who may be monitoring the case through
the media.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
Now.
Speaker 3 (28:41):
The lawsuit stated that none of those details matched Rico Cone,
but almost all of them matched the person that the
lawsuit called person of interest A Josh and another person
the person they called person of interest B. Based on
(29:09):
the FBI's assessment of Nina's case, Rico Cone did not
fit the profile of her killer. The lawsuit alleged that
the lead detective, Scott Carlton, and his colleagues were quote
seeking solely to obtain a conviction and close out a
politically difficult case, without regard to where the facts or
evidence may lead end quote. The lawsuit also accused the
(29:31):
lead detective and his colleagues of conspiring with the Arkansas
State Crime Lab to hide or manipulate evidence and intentionally
and deliberately misleading both the Office of the Prosecutor Attorney
and the general public about the relative strengths and weaknesses
of what the lawsuit called an improper, illegitimate, and unconstitutional case.
(29:53):
The lawsuit mentioned someone else who they called person of
interest B. Now, this person is not named in the lawsuit,
but by comparing the civil lawsuit to the part of
the case file that we have access to, this person
appears to match the description of a man named Jarvis Harper.
Jarvis was someone who first came up in the case
(30:14):
file in two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
On August fifth, two thousand and eight.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Officers from the Fayetable Police Department went to a residence
where a woman was requesting help to obtain an order
of protection.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
The woman's name was Nicki Perry.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
She wanted the restraining order against her boyfriend, twenty nine
year old Jarvis Harper. She told officers that she and
Jarvis had been living together for about five years. She
said that he was a quote controlling individual who monitors
her every move end quote. She said Jarvis had a
camera inside the house. She said he installed it there
to track her. She claimed that it recorded twenty four
(30:48):
hours a day. She said she was afraid of turning
the camera off because Jarvis allegedly had a bad temper.
Nicki also said Jarvis had done something to the back door,
basically disabled it so she couldn't get out of the
apartment the back way, meaning Nicki told officers that she
would always have to go through the front door to
leave the apartment. Jarvis, also, according to Nicki, asked her
(31:09):
to change her name and start going by the name
Lindsey Knight, which she said she agreed to do. The
latest incident that led to her calling the police had
actually started three days before. She said that on that day,
on April second, two thousand and eight, that Jarvis had
tied her hands together with black drawstring cords that he
(31:30):
took out of a pair of athletic shorts. Nicki said
that he left her tied up for half the day,
starting at around two pm. She said, while she was
tied up, Jarvis sat on top of her and held
his Bretta nine milimi a pistol to her head, demanding
to know the truth about her activity. Apparently he believed
she had been lying to him. Nikki said that she
(31:52):
complied because she was terrified. She said she had been
too afraid to call the police. On the police report,
it noted detectives took away the drawstring cords from the
athletic shorts as evidence. But there was something else at
that residence. In the living room, Jarvis had a framed
photo of Nina Ingram. It was the same photo that
had been passed out to Walmart employees after Nina died,
(32:15):
and in fact, Jarvis worked with Nina at the Sixth
Street Walmart. But Jarvis, apparently, according to the lawsuit, didn't
actually get the photo that way. In fact, Rico's lawsuit
claims that Jarvis wanted a way to remember Nina, so
he went and tracked down the photo from another employee.
The lawsuit claimed Jarvis was not aware that the framed
(32:38):
photograph of Nina Ingram that he had on his wall
was the same one they handed out at Walmart. Police
later questioned Nikki about this photo. Nicki said when she
had asked about the photo of Nina, Jarvis told her
the photo was there because Nina was a friend of his,
and also he was good friends with her boyfriend, Josh.
Jarvis told her that he had worked with Nina at
(32:59):
Walmart and that he quote was pretty sure he knows
who did it, meaning knows who killed Nina, but that
it could not be proven. So we have a person
with a definite connection to Nina Ingram, someone who worked
with her and her boyfriend, who was accused of choking
his girlfriend with the cord of his athletic shorts, and
who allegedly exhibited violent behavior. We know that, according to
(33:22):
the autopsy report, Nina was strangled with an object that
was between one sixteenth of an inch and one eighth
of an inch wide, and that the murder weapon was
never found. In addition to the photographs of Nina on
the wall, Jarvis also had photographs of other women in
a filing cabinet next to his computer. Nicki told police
(33:43):
Jarvist told her one of the women was a missing person,
but did not give her any more details about that woman,
about the case, or where or when the woman supposedly
went missing. Nicki told police she didn't remember a lot
of details about the files she saw inside Jarvis's office,
other than the fact that she said the name McMillan
was written on the bottom front of one of those photos.
(34:07):
Nicki said that again, besides Nina, who she had specifically
asked about, she did not know who any of these
other women were. Police also talked to Nicki's mother, Susie
Susie told detectives that Jarvis was a martial arts expert,
that he had various martial arts weapons and guns and
ninja items in the home, and that he was quote
as self proclaimed ninja and black belt end quote. Jarvis
(34:31):
confirmed to police that he did practice martial arts. Police
searched the bedroom and remove some items, including a black
scheme mask. Next week, We're going to hear more from
Nina's boyfriend at the time, Josh, about his relationship with Dina,
his relationship with Jarvis, and his theories on the case.
We're also going to try to figure out who the
(34:54):
other women were on Jarvis's wall. I'm Katherine Townsend. This
is Helen Gone Murder Line. Helen Gone Murder Line is
a production of School of Humans and iHeart Podcasts. It's
written and narrated by me Katherine Townsend and produced by
Gabby Watts. Special thanks to Amy Tubbs for her research
(35:15):
assistance and James Wheaton for legal review. Noah camer mixed
and scored this episode. Our theme song is by Ben Salep.
Executive producers are Virginia Prescott, Brandon Barr, and LC Crowley.
Listen to Helen Gone ad free by subscribing to the
iHeart True Crime Plus.
Speaker 1 (35:30):
Channel on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 3 (35:32):
If you were interested in seeing documents and materials from
the case, you can follow the show on Instagram.
Speaker 1 (35:38):
At ellen gonpot.
Speaker 3 (35:39):
If you have a case you'd like me and my
team to look into, you can reach out to a
at our Hellngong Murder Line at six seven eight seven
four four six one four five. That's six seven eight
seven four four six one four five.
Speaker 1 (35:57):
School of Humans
School of Humans.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Helen Got Murder Line actively investigates cold case murders in
an effort to raise public awareness invite witnesses to come
forward and present evidence that could potentially be further investigated
by law enforcement. While we value insights from family and
community members, their statements should not be considered evidence and
point to the challenges of verifying facts inherent in cold cases.
(01:12):
We remind listeners that everyone has presumed innocent until proven
guilty in a court of law. Nothing in the podcast
is intended to state or imply that anyone who has
not been convicted of a crime is guilty of any wrongdoing.
Thanks for listening.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Sometime after ten pm on April twenty first, two thousand
and six, twenty one year old college student Nina Ingram
was brutally murdered inside her apartment, Unit number one at
the Law Quad Complex in Fayettvile, Arkansas. The cause of
death was ligature strangulation, and the Arkansas State Crime Lab
(01:51):
ruled the death a homicide. Despite the fact that detectives
interviewed dozens of Nina's friends, co workers, and her significant other,
they had no viable suspects for years. One big question
was how did Nina's killer get access to her apartment.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
One of the theories that police.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Had early on was that Nina's killer rushed her at
her apartment door and pushed her inside when she put
her key into the door, which could explain why none
of the neighbors who police spoke to reported hearing screams
on the night of April twenty first. But Nina's door
was locked from the inside, her keys, purse, and all
(02:31):
of her belongings, including her cell phone, were with her,
and there was no sign of forced entry. She was
violently strangled, which must have taken several minutes, and yet
there was no sign of anything taken from.
Speaker 1 (02:43):
Her residence or of sexual assault.
Speaker 3 (02:47):
So if Nina's killer did force their way in, that
would mean that they either locked the door behind them
or locked the door from the inside and then went
out another way, probably through the unlocked front window. But
if they did that, that would mean that they carefully
replaced the screen and pulled the window down to the
exact same spot where it was opened before. The Fayetteville
(03:12):
Police Department considered this a cold case, one of the
only unsolved cases since the nineteen seventies, but then in
twenty twelve, they arrested and charged twenty six year old
Rico Tavarius Cone with Nina's murder, but the case against
Rico Cone was not as solid as it appeared to
be on the surface. He spent over three years behind bars,
(03:34):
and then the case against him was dismissed.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
Three years later.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
In twenty eighteen, Rico filed a civil lawsuit against the
Fayetteville Police Department, detectives, and employees at the Arkansas State
Crime Lab, who he alleged violated his civil rights. The
allegations made in Rico Cohne's lawsuit are obviously only one
side of this story, but it is a completely different
(03:59):
story than the one that has been put out, at
least so far, by the fate of a police department.
The lawsuit claims that there were several people of interests
who police interviewed over the years, people who were, according
to the lawsuit, potential suspects. The lawsuit alleges that these
potential suspects were overlooked. This case is still unsolved. The
(04:23):
person who murdered Nina Ingram has never been arrested or charged,
so this person is still out there and we have
access to part of this case file through a Foyer request.
Could the clues to the killer's identity be in this
case file?
Speaker 1 (04:41):
I'm Catherine Townsend.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Over the past five years of making my true crime podcast,
Helen Gone, I've learned that there's no such thing as
a small town where.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Murder never happens.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
I have received hundreds of messages from people all around
the country asking for help with an unsolved murder that's
affected them, their families, and their communities. If you have
a case you'd like me and my team to look into,
you can reach out to us at our Helen Gone
Murder Line at six seven eight seven four four six
one four or five. That's six seven eight seven four
(05:11):
four six one four or five, or you can send
us a message on Instagram at Helen Gonepod. This is
Helen Gone Murder Line. Rico's lawsuit, and again this claim
(06:06):
is just one side of the story, alleged that multiple
and credible direct reports and evidence had been submitted to
the Fayetful Police Department and other law enforcement agencies over
the years, but the lawsuit alleges that detectives ignored this evidence. Instead,
they laser focused on Rico and quote missed multiple opportunities
(06:26):
to investigate and perhaps actually solve this unsolved crime end quote,
So they were chasing what the lawsuit called a wrongful
and unconstitutional conviction against Rico. The lawsuit alleges that the
arrest warrant was obtained under fraudulent pretenses because the police
claimed they had three independent witnesses, but in fact, the
(06:48):
lawsuit pointed out all they had was a single person,
Randy Applewhite, because the second person Brenda case was a
friend of Randy's and she was repeating what Randy told her. Now,
the arrest warrant claimed that there was a third person,
an ex girlfriend of Rigo's named Kathleen Slaughter. The warrant
stated that Kathleen had shared intimate details about Nina's homicide
(07:10):
with detectives, but the lawsuit said.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
That information was incorrect.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
The lawsuit says that this third person was quote never
specifically or sufficiently identified, and never existed at all, conclusory,
at best, fabricated at worse end quote. These are serious allegations. Basically,
the lawsuit claimed that the police attempted to get an
(07:37):
arrest warrant, but the prosecuting attorney would not grant that
warrant because the evidence was insufficient. So the lawsuit stated
that after that police went back to the prosecuting attorney
with essentially exactly the same evidence, but now there were
three people instead of just one, and this time the
warrant was granted. Rico's attorney, Tony Pirani, claimed that on Wednesday,
(08:02):
January TEWOD twenty fourteen, he and the rest of the
defense team met with Detective Carlton, the lead detective on
this case, Detective Brooks, and the prosecuting attorney and his
chief deputy at the Fayeteville Police Department. They were there
to review the physical evidence still in the police department's possession.
Their purpose there was to figure out the current status
(08:24):
of all DNA testing, to figure out what had been tested,
what the results were, and what the communication was between
the Fayetful Police Department and the Arkansas State Crime Lab
regarding this case. Two days later, Rico's attorneys had another
meeting with personnel at the Arkansas State Crime Lab. Now,
the lawsuit states that during this meeting they realized there
(08:46):
were irregularities in the testing and procedures in this case.
They said some pieces of evidence in Nina's case had
not been properly labeled or tested, and that safeguards had
been failed in regards to DNA tape lifts that were
done from Nina's clothing. On April twenty six, twenty twelve,
(09:06):
Officer Carlton called Brenda Case later labeled Confidential Informant IE
in the search warrant documents, She told defendant Carlton that
her friend Randy Applewhite had a detailed account of the
Nina Ingram homicide allegedly from Rico Cone.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
Now.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
Rico Cone allegedly told Randy that he was at the
Law Couad apartments to buy marijuana, that he saw Nina
in the parking lot, and that he hit on her,
and that Nina turned him down. Brenda Kay said that
Randy told her Rico came back later and went to
Nina's apartment, using the excuse that he needed to borrow something.
He knocked on the door, Nina opened the door and
(09:45):
then tried to shut it, but it failed to close
all the way, and at that point Rico entered Nina's
apartment and strangled her to death. So Randy Applewhite became
Confidential Informant number two. But Rico's lawsuit claims that Randy's
story did change over time, and that the second time
that Detective Carlton spoke to Randy, on May first, twenty twelve, quote,
(10:08):
she had already significantly changed her own reported timeline, substantially
altering her earlier story, which should have given an early
clue that something was amiss end quote. The lawsuit also
alleges that Detective Carlton helped Randy apple White financially, that
he encouraged her to contact crime stoppers so she could
(10:28):
collect the cash reward if she continued to cooperate, which
she did, and the lawsuit claimed that Detective Carlton, in
what they called a highly unusual move, destroyed his own
investigative field notes. Rico's defense attorneys were preparing for his trial,
so they contacted Randy apple White, and on December seventeenth,
twenty thirteen, according to the lawsuit, when Rico's legal team
(10:52):
spoke to Randy, she told them she did not believe
that Rico was guilty of the murder. The civil lawsuit
also claimed that Randy said she was quote no longer
certain exactly what, if anything, she recalled Rico, ever having
said regarding any alleged involvement in the Ingram homicide, and
that she wanted no part in a criminal prosecution which
(11:14):
could potentially see Rico convicted of capital murder and sentenced
to death end quote. The lawsuit alleges that on several
occasions that Detective Carlton gave Randy apple White money, including
thirty five dollars in gas money on May third, twenty twelve,
and also a hotel room that he booked for her
(11:35):
and her children for two nights at the Clarion Inn
for one hundred and twenty four dollars and fifty eight cents. Now,
this apparently happened after Detective Carlton got a call from
Randy apple White alleging that Rico had assaulted her. After
that incident, they did DNA testing on Randy's shirt and
they found no match to Rico Cone. During this time,
(11:56):
detectives were doing a deep dive into Rico Cone's history
and his employment record. They were conducting follow up calls
and visits with current and former residents of the Law
Quad apartments.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
While this was going on.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
On May fourteenth, twenty twelve, Rico Cone got wind of
the police investigation against him, and that's when, according to
his attorney, He decided to voluntarily talk to police because,
according to the civil lawsuit, Rico wanted to be cleared.
At this interview, police gave Rico a doctor pepper to
drink after he said he was thirsty. Then Detective Carlton
(12:34):
told Rico that they had taken a DNA sample from
that doctor Pepper camp and that they had matched the
DNA on it to a DNA sample taken from the
crime scene, meaning the detective told Rico that Rico had
been inside Nina Ingram's apartment. This, however, was not true.
I want to point out by the way that we
(12:54):
can't know the inner workings of Detective Carlton's mind at
this point, but it is not illegal for detectives to
light to suspects. Often it's encouraged. I've actually taken the
read Interrogation seminar as part of my private investigator training.
That's the same one the police take, and in that
seminar they actually teach you how to lie. But Rico
(13:15):
Cone's civil lawsuit alleges that the police didn't stop there.
The lawsuit alleges that not only was the case against
Rico Cone weaked to nonexistent, but that the judge who
issued the search warrant, and the public were actually being misled.
They were being told that Rico Cone was the only
Bible suspect, But in fact, as we got into last week,
(13:37):
Rico Cone was not the only man questioned, and there's
nothing about Rico Cone in the case by up to
the year two thousand and eight, at least nothing that's
been publicly released via FOI request. I could not find
any mention of Rigo Cone in the pieces of the
case file that we were given, though again we can't
be sure that we have every document because much later
(14:01):
after the case against Rigo Cone was dismissed, Rico Cone's
entire criminal case was sealed by a judge. There is
no mention of Rico Cone's name in connection with the
Nina Ingram case anywhere in the Arkansas court system. After that,
Nina's case went cold again. And while of course we
can't know for sure what was happening behind the scenes
(14:23):
of the investigation, publicly, the statements made by police appeared
to indicate they believed they did have the right person,
but they did not have enough evidence to prosecute Rigo Cone.
They had one year to refile charges, but they never did,
which means Nina's killer was.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Still out there.
Speaker 3 (14:53):
One of the things that police were trying to figure
out early on was was this a random attack or
someone whom Nina knew, because even though everyone they talked
to said Nina was this super nice person and they
couldn't imagine anyone would want to hurt her, the fact
is someone did brutally strangle her, and her cell phone
was in her pocket, She had no defensive wounds on
(15:15):
her hands, and she was not sexually assaulted. Also, her
purse was found near her body with money inside it,
and nothing obvious was taken from her apartment, so, at
least on the surface, the motive did not appear to
be robbery or sexual assault. And I keep coming back
to the locked door because I believe it could.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
Be a crucial clue.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
When Nina's brother, Noah and his roommate Chad got to
her apartment the day her body was found, the door
was double locked. Her brother had to crawl in through
an open window next to the door, then he unlocked
the regular.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Lock and the dead bowl.
Speaker 3 (15:51):
So if the killer left through the door, how did
they lock it behind themselves?
Speaker 1 (15:58):
Police asked several people about.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Nina's keys, including Nina's boyfriend, Josh Stewart.
Speaker 1 (16:04):
We talked to Josh.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
He said that he met Nina in March of two
thousand and five when they started working at the same Walmart.
They started dating later that summer.
Speaker 4 (16:14):
There's a new store that's being open and Rogers Arkansas.
We were helping you get that store set up and
so met her at that time, but we didn't start
dating more over the summer. By midsummer May of late summer,
say I was bye. We started dating, So we didn't
date for very long. At the most seven eight months
(16:34):
we were seeing each other exclusively. You know, we have
started talking about getting the place together because we spend
our time together. Anyway, She spent a lot of time
at my apartment changedly move along grade.
Speaker 3 (16:46):
Josh said that he did not have a key to
her apartment, and even though she had a key to
his place, and even though they regularly switch vehicles, He
said they did this because he had to commute for work.
He worried that his older truck wouldn't make it all
the way to Bentonville, so on the days he had
to make that drive, Nina would lend him her two
thousand and two Toyota Corolla.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
Josh told detectives he.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
Had not actually been inside Nina's apartment for a couple
of months. Their routine was she would get off work,
usually shower, and then come to his place to hang out.
Sometimes they would go out when she came to his place.
Sometimes she would stay over there. Sometimes she would go
back home, but he pretty much never stayed at her place.
He also told detectives that Nina often felt he would
(17:31):
get angry with her if she didn't stay over. In
two thousand and six, Josh told detectives that his relationship
with Nina had been going great. He said Nina planned
to move in with him when her lease was up.
He said she was easy going and they got along
super well, that they came from similar hard working family backgrounds,
and that they had shared values. They were both working
(17:52):
their way through college. He said, I was going to
marry that girl. He cried as he told detectives quote,
it's the best relationship that I've ever had. Police asked
about the keys several times. Josh clarified that his truck
keys were on a removable ring, so when they swapped vehicles.
He said he would take the truck keys on their
(18:13):
little silver ring and give them to Nina and vice versa,
so that allowed them to swap vehicle keys without swapping
the entire key ring. Police also asked Josh if Nina
had noticed anything at work or at home if there
was anyone who would want to hurt her. Josh said
not at work, but he said Nina had told him
about some guys at her apartment complex who were cat
(18:36):
calling her. He told detectives this happened five days before
Nina's murder on Easter Sunday, April sixteenth, two thousand and six.
While Josh said he hadn't been inside Nina's apartment in months,
he said he had waited for Nina in the parking
lot of her complex on Easter Sunday, April sixteenth, two
thousand and six. He said on that day, both he
and Nina had the day off. He said they hung
(18:58):
out together and went to Walmart to buy some stuff.
After that, they swung by her apartment complex so she
could run inside and change before they went out to eat.
Josh said that while he was waiting for Nina in
the law Quad parking lot, he noticed two or three
young men, who he had described a police as young
male kids aged fourteen to fifteen years old, and at
(19:18):
least one of them driving a truck. He said that
Nina had told him on that day that one of
these guys had been cat calling her and called her
a bitch, and that he had considered confronting them but didn't.
Speaker 4 (19:31):
She guys just said something to me, and I'm like, well,
whe they say, she's whether he was hollering at me
and trying to get come talk to them, and I
just ignored them. And she's kind of shaken up by
that enough to mention it to me, and I, well,
do we need the same thing? And she was like, well,
now they drove off, so it was from like a vehicle.
She just kind of shook it off, and you know,
(19:53):
I don't know, it's not that big deal. Let's just
move on. That's the only time that I recall her
being uncomfortable about anybody in the complex.
Speaker 3 (20:01):
Later, Rico's defense team talked to Josh as well. He
told them that the mental image he had in his
head from that day was that it could have been
a couple of white guys and that they were definitely
younger than him.
Speaker 1 (20:12):
And Nina.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
Another former law squad resident named Catherine Austin, who lived
in apartment number eighty two, told police on April seventeenth,
two thousand and seven, that around the time of the murder,
there were four men. She described them as clean cut,
white males hanging around in that parking lot in a
white four door pickup truck. Catherine said two of these
guys came up to her apartment door and asked her
(20:35):
what her name was. She said that this made her
very uncomfortable because they invaded her personal space.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
Again.
Speaker 3 (20:43):
According to the lawsuit, there were several potential people of
interests who the suit claimed should have been thoroughly investigated.
The lawsuit alleges that the lead detective, Scott Carlton, when
he took over the investigation, very quickly became totally focused
on Rico Cone, and that Detective Carlton was quote exhibiting
clear signs of cognitive bias, repeatedly assisted Josh in matching
(21:05):
up his answers with his prior statements by telling him
what an excellent job he was doing and even providing
him with a transcript of his prior statement with highlighted portions,
and it was only after that happened that Josh then
changed his statement back to having been present in the
parking lot end quote. The lawsuit alleged there was really
no evidence, physical or otherwise against Rico Cone, but there
(21:29):
were pieces of evidence that could have pointed to other
people of interest.
Speaker 1 (21:34):
There was the text message. Josh told police.
Speaker 3 (21:36):
That Nina had communicated with someone online prior to leaving
his residence. On April twenty first, two thousand and six,
detective found a text message on Nina's cell phone from
a contact listed as Joey. The message read quote I
see be careful, be one hundred percent see ya end quote.
But that person Joey was never identified in the case file.
(21:59):
So who was Joey? Was he the last.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
Person who Nina messaged? What did he mean by be careful?
Speaker 3 (22:06):
Was this just a random occurrence or could it be
a clue. Several potential pieces of evidence were sent to
the Arkansas State Crime Lab, including Nina's clothes that she
was wearing, plus other items of clothing including jeans, towels,
and socks, the dead bolt and doorknob from the front door,
a small black elastic cord with a white button that
(22:28):
was found under the bed, Nina's betting, and the black
leather belt that was found in the kitchen trash can.
They also found other items, including a Valentine's card that
was from Josh and a poem that Nina had written
to her mom. The lawsuit mentions the fact that the
DNA evidence collection procedures were much less advanced in two
thousand and six than they are today. The training of
(22:50):
law enforcement and the procedures at the Arkansas State Crime
Lab were also not what they are today. This would
become a crucial component of Rico's lawsuit.
Speaker 1 (23:03):
Another question that we had when.
Speaker 3 (23:05):
Reviewing this case file were who were the men whom
Nina was seen talking to at her apartment complex in
the days before her death. Detectives talked to a neighbor
of Nina's who said she saw Nina sitting on a
bench in her apartment building on April twentieth, two thousand
and six, the day before she was murdered. Nina was
talking to a white male described as having slightly bigger
(23:27):
than medium builled, with blondish brown hair and a pasty
white complexion, approximately five foot eight to five foot ten
inches tall. The neighbor told police she had seen Nina
come home with a similar looking mail on multiple prior
occasions after dark. Now remember, Nina's boyfriend, Josh, told police
that he had not been inside Nina's apartment in months. However,
(23:50):
he did say he had been in the parking lot
a few days before her murder. This neighbor also said
that she saw Nina that same week with another different
white male with lighter brown hair and a medium build
between five foot ten and five foot eleven inches tall,
that the two of them had walked together to Nina's apartment,
standing very close with the white male than following Nina
(24:11):
into the apartment. This could have been Nina's brother or
another friend, but this information, to our knowledge, was never
followed up on in the police file. Another question we
had was could someone have been stalking Nina. Police did
talk to a friend of Nina's named Samantha Stevens. She
said Nina had told her in the past that someone
(24:33):
had been stalking her at her apartment and following her around,
but there are no more details about this in the
case file, including when they had this conversation and how
recently it happened.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
It just as in the.
Speaker 3 (24:44):
Past, the Fayetteville police department asked the FBI to get
involved with Nina's case, and they did. In March of
two thousand and seven, Detective John Gentry of the Faetful
Police Department worked with a crime analyst named Tom Dover
of the Behavioral Analysis Unit of the FBI as part
of the Violent Criminal Apprehension Program or VISCAP. They prepared
(25:06):
and generated a criminal investigative analysis of the Nini Ingram homicide,
including a very detailed profile of potential suspects. So ViCAP
has a few different functions. One of them is the
one that most of us have seen in the movies
where the FBI criminal profiler comes in. They have a
big marker board with a bunch of unsolved homicides on it.
(25:27):
They analyze major violent crimes and can link cases based
on behavioral and geographical similarities. Basically, they find patterns, but
ViCAP also looks at individual cases and from the information
in the case file. By examining the crime scene, they
can give a profile of the unsub short for unknown
subject or unidentified subject. This is meant to help local
(25:48):
law enforcement narrow down their search. On April sixteenth, two
thousand and seven, the FBI gave the profile that they
produced to the FFUL Police Department. The VISCAP profile was
pretty much the opposite of ricocone. The VISCAT profile stated
that Nina's killer was likely a Caucasian male, familiar and
(26:08):
comfortable in the area, and that they were likely living
in or near Fayette, Arkansas. In terms of the man
being Caucasian, that would track with the initial interviews, not
one single person mentioned a person of color as hanging
around the apartment building. So, in addition to believing that
the killer was local and not a transient, the VISCAP
profile stated that they believed the evidence suggested that the
(26:32):
killer knew Nina and may have had an intimate relationship
with her, and that they were familiar with her schedule. Again,
this is the opposite of ricocone. He was a stranger
to Nina. To the witness Randy Applewhite story, Rico only
saw her briefly and attacked her because he just happened
to see her coming home. The FBI stated that Nina's killer,
(26:54):
according to the profile they provided quote, knew his or
her proximity to her would not cause her alarm end quote,
So they believed that Nina's killer was someone who if
she saw them in line at Taco Bell or hanging
out at Walmart, or maybe even in her apartment complex,
maybe would not be immediately freaked out and shut the
(27:15):
door in their face. The VISCAT profile suggested that Nina
and the offender may have gotten into some kind of
a conflict in the past, but they believed that it
was likely that the offender had been nice to her
in the run up to the killing. So the FBI
seemed to think that this murder was something the killer
had planned out fairly carefully. And this next part of
(27:38):
the FBI's report is interesting. Quoted in court documents, it read,
quote offender may have been excessively nice to the victim
in the time preceding the homicide, in hopes this behavior
would deflect law enforcement's attention away from him after the homicide.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
End quote.
Speaker 3 (27:54):
The final note was that the offender may have executed
a well constructed plan in committing the homicide, so the
profiler believed this was not a random attack, and finally,
the profiler believed the offender was likely satisfied that the
victim is dead. The VISCAT profile also stated that the
(28:18):
offender was quote likely monitoring this case through the media,
and may have already been contacted by law enforcement regarding
the incident.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
So they were looking for someone.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
Who knew Nina, who maybe had been rejected by her,
who was potentially inserting themselves into her case to help
law enforcement, and who may be monitoring the case through
the media.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
Now.
Speaker 3 (28:41):
The lawsuit stated that none of those details matched Rico Cone,
but almost all of them matched the person that the
lawsuit called person of interest A Josh and another person
the person they called person of interest B. Based on
(29:09):
the FBI's assessment of Nina's case, Rico Cone did not
fit the profile of her killer. The lawsuit alleged that
the lead detective, Scott Carlton, and his colleagues were quote
seeking solely to obtain a conviction and close out a
politically difficult case, without regard to where the facts or
evidence may lead end quote. The lawsuit also accused the
(29:31):
lead detective and his colleagues of conspiring with the Arkansas
State Crime Lab to hide or manipulate evidence and intentionally
and deliberately misleading both the Office of the Prosecutor Attorney
and the general public about the relative strengths and weaknesses
of what the lawsuit called an improper, illegitimate, and unconstitutional case.
(29:53):
The lawsuit mentioned someone else who they called person of
interest B. Now, this person is not named in the lawsuit,
but by comparing the civil lawsuit to the part of
the case file that we have access to, this person
appears to match the description of a man named Jarvis Harper.
Jarvis was someone who first came up in the case
(30:14):
file in two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1 (30:15):
On August fifth, two thousand and eight.
Speaker 3 (30:17):
Officers from the Fayetable Police Department went to a residence
where a woman was requesting help to obtain an order
of protection.
Speaker 1 (30:23):
The woman's name was Nicki Perry.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
She wanted the restraining order against her boyfriend, twenty nine
year old Jarvis Harper. She told officers that she and
Jarvis had been living together for about five years. She
said that he was a quote controlling individual who monitors
her every move end quote. She said Jarvis had a
camera inside the house. She said he installed it there
to track her. She claimed that it recorded twenty four
(30:48):
hours a day. She said she was afraid of turning
the camera off because Jarvis allegedly had a bad temper.
Nicki also said Jarvis had done something to the back door,
basically disabled it so she couldn't get out of the
apartment the back way, meaning Nicki told officers that she
would always have to go through the front door to
leave the apartment. Jarvis, also, according to Nicki, asked her
(31:09):
to change her name and start going by the name
Lindsey Knight, which she said she agreed to do. The
latest incident that led to her calling the police had
actually started three days before. She said that on that day,
on April second, two thousand and eight, that Jarvis had
tied her hands together with black drawstring cords that he
(31:30):
took out of a pair of athletic shorts. Nicki said
that he left her tied up for half the day,
starting at around two pm. She said, while she was
tied up, Jarvis sat on top of her and held
his Bretta nine milimi a pistol to her head, demanding
to know the truth about her activity. Apparently he believed
she had been lying to him. Nikki said that she
(31:52):
complied because she was terrified. She said she had been
too afraid to call the police. On the police report,
it noted detectives took away the drawstring cords from the
athletic shorts as evidence. But there was something else at
that residence. In the living room, Jarvis had a framed
photo of Nina Ingram. It was the same photo that
had been passed out to Walmart employees after Nina died,
(32:15):
and in fact, Jarvis worked with Nina at the Sixth
Street Walmart. But Jarvis, apparently, according to the lawsuit, didn't
actually get the photo that way. In fact, Rico's lawsuit
claims that Jarvis wanted a way to remember Nina, so
he went and tracked down the photo from another employee.
The lawsuit claimed Jarvis was not aware that the framed
(32:38):
photograph of Nina Ingram that he had on his wall
was the same one they handed out at Walmart. Police
later questioned Nikki about this photo. Nicki said when she
had asked about the photo of Nina, Jarvis told her
the photo was there because Nina was a friend of his,
and also he was good friends with her boyfriend, Josh.
Jarvis told her that he had worked with Nina at
(32:59):
Walmart and that he quote was pretty sure he knows
who did it, meaning knows who killed Nina, but that
it could not be proven. So we have a person
with a definite connection to Nina Ingram, someone who worked
with her and her boyfriend, who was accused of choking
his girlfriend with the cord of his athletic shorts, and
who allegedly exhibited violent behavior. We know that, according to
(33:22):
the autopsy report, Nina was strangled with an object that
was between one sixteenth of an inch and one eighth
of an inch wide, and that the murder weapon was
never found. In addition to the photographs of Nina on
the wall, Jarvis also had photographs of other women in
a filing cabinet next to his computer. Nicki told police
(33:43):
Jarvist told her one of the women was a missing person,
but did not give her any more details about that woman,
about the case, or where or when the woman supposedly
went missing. Nicki told police she didn't remember a lot
of details about the files she saw inside Jarvis's office,
other than the fact that she said the name McMillan
was written on the bottom front of one of those photos.
(34:07):
Nicki said that again, besides Nina, who she had specifically
asked about, she did not know who any of these
other women were. Police also talked to Nicki's mother, Susie
Susie told detectives that Jarvis was a martial arts expert,
that he had various martial arts weapons and guns and
ninja items in the home, and that he was quote
as self proclaimed ninja and black belt end quote. Jarvis
(34:31):
confirmed to police that he did practice martial arts. Police
searched the bedroom and remove some items, including a black
scheme mask. Next week, We're going to hear more from
Nina's boyfriend at the time, Josh, about his relationship with Dina,
his relationship with Jarvis, and his theories on the case.
We're also going to try to figure out who the
(34:54):
other women were on Jarvis's wall. I'm Katherine Townsend. This
is Helen Gone Murder Line. Helen Gone Murder Line is
a production of School of Humans and iHeart Podcasts. It's
written and narrated by me Katherine Townsend and produced by
Gabby Watts. Special thanks to Amy Tubbs for her research
(35:15):
assistance and James Wheaton for legal review. Noah camer mixed
and scored this episode. Our theme song is by Ben Salep.
Executive producers are Virginia Prescott, Brandon Barr, and LC Crowley.
Listen to Helen Gone ad free by subscribing to the
iHeart True Crime Plus.
Speaker 1 (35:30):
Channel on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 3 (35:32):
If you were interested in seeing documents and materials from
the case, you can follow the show on Instagram.
Speaker 1 (35:38):
At ellen gonpot.
Speaker 3 (35:39):
If you have a case you'd like me and my
team to look into, you can reach out to a
at our Hellngong Murder Line at six seven eight seven
four four six one four five. That's six seven eight
seven four four six one four five.
Speaker 1 (35:57):
School of Humans
Hell and Gone News
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.