March 25, 2024 • 47 mins
The last years of Christina Sanoubane’s short life were filled with violence and ended in tragedy. She was brutally murdered just days after moving into a new apartment with her toddler-aged son, seeking a fresh start. In her final days, Christina encountered three men who shared a history of violence against women. One was convicted of her murder, but a hasty investigation has left his guilt up for debate. Is Christina’s killer in prison where he belongs, or did the real perpetrator get away with murder at the cost of another man’s freedom?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:22):
Hello and welcome to the Criminal Discourse Podcast.
I'm Wendy and I'm Trish.
We have another fascinatingepisode for you today.
We're actually going back toCedar Rapids, iowa, where we
were in November when Trishcovered the case of Michelle
Martinko.
She was an 18-year-old studentwho was murdered in the Westdale
Mall parking lot aroundChristmas 1979.
(00:44):
And, trish, I understand youactually have a little update
about this case.
I do.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
It's the update to the update.
So I had mentioned in aprevious episode that human
remains were found in ruralDelaware County and it was
believed at the time that thesecould possibly be the remains of
Brian Burns, who was the cousinof Jerry Burns, who went
missing on the anniversary ofMichelle Martinko's death, and
Jerry Burns, of course, was theman convicted of her murder.
(01:11):
These remains were found onNovember 5th by some pheasant
hunters.
Those remains were removed tothe Iowa State Medical
Examiner's Office forIdentification and they have
been confirmed to be those ofBrian Burns.
Now, that's all they're sayingright now.
They haven't released any otherinformation in terms of how he
died, so we'll have to wait andsee, but it has been confirmed
(01:32):
that these are the remains ofBrian Burns, who is the cousin
of Jerry Burns, who went missingon the anniversary of Michelle
Martinko's death back in 2013.
And, of course, jerry Burns wasconvicted of murdering Michelle
Martinko.
That's the latest.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
So today's case is actually one I found, not
because I wanted to go.
I wasn't looking to go back toCedar Rapids necessarily Happy
that I'm back there but I foundit from a forensic files episode
in 2010, kind of well known,because they apprehended the
killer from a big toe print thatwas left in a particularly
fresh hamburger bun found at thecrime scene.
(02:08):
So the episode was called purebread murder One of those kind
of funny episodes.
The case is not funny.
It's sad, of course, but as Iresearched the case, I found
there's a lot more to it thanyou know as usual, the narrative
that we all know and love fromthe forensic files episode.
So hopefully we learn a lottoday.
There's a lot of interestingtwists and turns.
So, trish, I'm excited to seewhat you think by the end of
(02:30):
this and throughout, andlisteners, I would love to hear,
too, what you guys think asyou're listening to this and if
you think that the police got itright on this one.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Okay well, we know there are so many true crime
podcasts out there to choosefrom and only so many hours in
the day, and we want to take amoment to say we truly
appreciate you choosing tolisten to us.
If you want to join thediscourse, you can reach out to
us on our website,criminaldiscoursepodcastcom, or
on social media, or on Facebook,instagram, youtube, at
criminaldispod andcriminaldiscoursepodcast.
(02:59):
And one last thing the viewsand opinions discussed on
criminal discourse podcast arejust that our views and opinions
.
Everyone is presumed innocentuntil convicted in the court of
law.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
This is the case of Christina Sanubane, and the last
years of her short life werefilled with violence and ended
in tragedy.
She was brutally murdered justdays after moving into a new
apartment with her toddler ageson, seeking a fresh start.
In her final days, christinaencountered three men who shared
a history of violence againstwomen.
(03:32):
One was convicted of her murder, but a hasty investigation has
left his guilt up for debate.
Is Christina's killer in prison, where he belongs, or did the
real perpetrator get away withmurder at the cost of another
man's freedom Spoiler?
I'm not going to say exactly.
I don't think there's enoughinformation to say, yes, the
police did it wrong, the wrongguys in jail, but I do think
(03:53):
there's a lot of questions thatcome up here.
So now again we're going toCedar Rapids, iowa, and that
Westdale Mall location whereMichelle Martinko was killed is
just like two and a half milesfrom Christina Sanubane's murder
.
Christina was also bornNovember 1979.
So just like a month before ithappened.
Since Trish recentlyhighlighted this location, I'll
(04:15):
just remind you guys that CedarRapids is the second most
populated city in Iowa.
It had about 120,000 residentsin 2000 when Christina's case
takes place and, for reference,it's located in the eastern
portion of Iowa, about 240 milesdue west of Chicago.
Christina's story actuallybegins with the thousands of
refugees who fled Laos in 1975when communists took control of
(04:40):
their country.
Iowa sponsored 1500 refugees,including Christina's parents,
praseth and Linda Sanubane.
They settled in Des Moines andhad their first child, a
daughter named Catherine, in1978.
And then Christina was born ayear later, on November 21, 1979
.
Praseth, their father, died inFebruary of 1982, when the girls
(05:01):
were still toddlers and Lindawas just 20 years old.
So Linda moved to Cedar Rapidsand she eventually married a man
named Lee Huang.
Christina's step sisterAngelina and stepbrother
Frederick followed.
Christina started dating herfellow classmate, jacob Crossen
in 1996, when they were both 16.
Christina's intense feelingsfor Jacob might have contributed
(05:24):
to why she started using drugswith him at this time, but that
included things like cocaine,weed and meth.
Weed is one thing, but thecocaine and meth was a lot more
concerning.
That's next level.
Jacob physically abusedChristina, but she told her
concerned family and friendsthat she couldn't leave the man
that she loved.
By age 17, christina moved intoa friend's home and away from
(05:46):
her parents' disapproval.
Her friend's mother, normaHoffpauer, remembered Jacob
getting into a fight with herdaughter about drugs.
While Christina still livedthere, norma banned Jacob from
her home, but it didn't stoptheir relationship.
Christina dropped out of highschool during her senior year
after becoming pregnant andmoved in with Jacob.
Their son, corbin, was born inOctober 1998.
(06:09):
Jacob was twice charged andconvicted of assaulting
Christina.
The first time was aroundChristmas of 1998, so this is
when she had a littletwo-month-old, corbin.
Jacob shot at Christina's facewith a pellet gun.
Now these are weapons that areused for shooting like and
killing squirrels, rabbits,small game like that, target
practicing, yeah.
A year and a half later,christina suffered an assault
(06:31):
that left her with a four-inchcut on her forearm and small
cuts to her throat.
She told co-workers who noticedher injuries that quote Jacob
was trying to kill me.
Now Christina worked as awaitress and then at a
convenience store and as atelemarketer after Corbin was
born.
This is when she's still ateenager.
One of her former supervisor,sandy Smith, said Christina
(06:51):
regularly came to work withvisible injuries such as bruises
and scratch marks.
Whenever Sandy inquired aboutthe marks, christina told her
Jacob beat me up again.
Another co-worker recalledseeing Christina with a swollen
eye, swollen cut lip and injuredhand.
Now, in 2000, this is shortlyafter, like a couple months
after Jacob had cut her throat,christina broke up with him and
(07:13):
moved out.
That was seemingly the laststraw.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
And for these incidences, these two at least
that are documented, did heserve jail time probation
something.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
It didn't appear.
So no, I couldn't find that.
He does have a record, but it'sjust for a DUI.
So I don't believe there is asmall blurb in the newspaper
about the pellet gun incident,but that's the only one.
She told a co-worker after shemoved out that Jacob was
extremely upset and he respondedby telling her your dead meat.
(07:44):
Christina's family encouragedher to move back in with them,
but she refused.
They described her ashardworking and independent, but
they called her, you know,still young and innocent, at
just 20 years old, and they feltlike that was a combination
that made her vulnerable tobeing taken advantage of.
They weren't shocked thatChristina wanted to strike out
on her own, because she alwayswanted to prove herself and go
(08:06):
her own way.
Her older sister, catherine,described Christina as a fighter
.
She said her little apartment,car and job meant her freedom,
her individuality and, most ofall, her independence.
She wanted to show everyone shecould take care of her
responsibilities.
I really get the sense, too,that she felt like you know,
whether it was Jacob or her son,these are decisions that I made
(08:27):
and I'm going to takeresponsibility for it.
I'm not going to make itanybody else's problem.
And Christina was determined toprovide a safer home for her
son and focus on her goals ofbecoming a television journalist
or a fashion designer.
The first step she took wasmoving into the front apartment
of a duplex at 818 10th StreetSouthwest and that happened on
Thursday, august 31st 2000,.
(08:48):
Just before Labor Day weekend,norma Hoffpauer's boyfriend,
todd Hale, agreed to help moveChristina in with his pickup
truck and Christina offered him$25 for helping her.
When Christina and Todd arrivedat the duplex they met neighbor
Tamika Sanders who lived in therear apartment.
She volunteered her partner, 29year old Carlos Robinson, to
help Todd move the heavierfurniture.
(09:10):
They accepted his help andCarlos made several trips in and
out of Christina's apartment.
That day Carlos and Tamikalived at the duplex with their
four children, a boy and threegirls ages three to eight years
old, and they were there foralmost a year.
After moving up from Waterloo,about an hour away, carlos had
just started training for asteady telecom job after working
(09:30):
two part time jobs at asecurity firm and a nearby
convenience store.
Neighbors described him withwords like you know, he's a
sweet family man and they saidhe never demonstrated anger
during Christina's first fewdays at the duplex.
She relied on Carlos and Tamika, her neighbors, for help
getting settled in.
One time she used their phoneto order pizza, for example.
Although Christina had beenlooking for a fresh start, jacob
(09:53):
was not ready to let go.
A neighbor recalled seeing ared car similar to the one he
drove parked at the duplex atime or two after she moved in.
Christina also told Todd Halethe guy who helped her moved in
that Jacob came to her apartment, fought with her and punched a
hole in the wall before leaving.
Now Todd returned to Christina'saround 11 30am on Monday
(10:14):
September 4th to collect that$25 that she promised him.
Christina never came to thedoor but Todd said he could hear
her TV blaring inside.
He looked for Christina througha window and he said he saw
these crumpled up blankets onher bed and that made him think
that she was still asleep.
Corbin, her son, was crying butTodd assumed Christina would
wake up and take care of himshortly.
(10:34):
He left after several minuteswith plans to return later.
Now Carlos and Tamika, theneighbors, were gone with their
kids most of that Monday it's aholiday.
When they returned that eveningthey heard Corbin crying
continuously next door.
So Carlos went over around sixo'clock that evening to check on
him and Christina.
Carlos's knocks also wentunanswered and he could see
(10:55):
Corbin crying through a windowas well.
Todd returned a few minuteslater to find Carlos outside
Christina's apartment, unable toget her to answer the door.
Now this is almost seven hoursafter he was last there checking
.
Todd decided to gain entrythrough a front window and
that's when he quickly came uponChristina's semi-clothed body
lying face down in her bathtubbearing lifeless, surrounded by
(11:18):
blood stains.
So he grabbed Corbin, he ranback outside and he shouted for
someone to call 911.
Carlos was there, so he madethe call and he told the
dispatcher.
This is the quote from the 911call and he's responding to the
questions.
I'd like to report a death.
I'd like to report a death.
The guy said she was dead.
I don't know.
I don't know my neighbor, shedoes drugs.
(11:39):
When police arrived, theydetermined that Christina was
already deceased.
They interviewed Todd, carlosand Tamika.
At the scene, carlos toldofficers that he helped
Christina move in, but he didn'tknow what happened to her.
Investigators quickly theorizedthat Christina knew her killer
because there were no signs offorced entry.
Christina's sandals were foundin the middle of her kitchen
(11:59):
floor, along with two of her ownteeth and a broken piece of a
frying pan handle.
The rest of the frying pan itbelonged to was missing.
Now they describe this as likethe collar that holds the handle
and the pan piece together,like the middle piece.
Police believe Christina'sattacker used that frying pan to
strike her with such force thatit caused her teeth to fall out
(12:22):
and the frying pan to break.
Trails of bare footprints, manyof which were difficult to see
with the naked eye, were foundthroughout Christina's apartment
.
Some were quote inter-bangledwith drops of Christina's blood.
So this is the first thing.
If you've watched the forensicfiles episode, they kind of lead
you to believe that there'sbloody footprints all over the
apartment and that's not thecase.
(12:42):
They're footprints that youcan't really see and there's
drops of blood with them.
They're not bloody footprintsthat you would think.
Like a killer leaves a bloodytrail.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
Oh, even her son.
Her son was walking Correct.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
The rich detail in all of these footprints.
It was completely unique to theperson who left them and as
good as fingerprints foridentification that I didn't
know your footprints, they canget you as much as your
fingerprints can.
A rusty colored ring in thebathtub.
Christina Layden indicated thatit had been filled with water
while she bled out, but haddrained.
By the time police discoveredher, there was a bloody, partial
(13:17):
palm print on the bathroom sinkand strangely fresh hamburger
buns were strewn all over thebathroom floor.
It looked like someone opened abag of buns and shook them out.
One of the buns retained apartial bare footprint,
including the big toe with ridgedetail.
Now police recovered the bagclip but never found the bag,
(13:38):
and when I first heard this Ithought you know, corbin was in
this apartment alone for almosta day with his mom.
He might have taken thehamburger buns to the bathroom
asking her to cook, but it is alittle suspicious that they
never found the bag.
An autopsy later determined thatChristina suffered what they
called a brutal assault, withmultiple puncture wounds to her
neck and face resulting inmassive blood loss.
(13:59):
The mortal wound was, quote adeep cut to the right side of
her throat that cut across thecarotid artery and her windpipe.
There wasn't enough blood leftin her body to conduct a
traditional toxicology exam andinvestigators opted not to have
a drug test done on her organtissue.
Did they ever say why?
Well, we're going to find outshortly that there's a lot of
(14:20):
tests that they just chose notto do, and they used words like
no, it wasn't an extra legalloophole or it wasn't necessary.
We had everything we needed, andthis is one of those cases.
Before stabbing her,christina's killer struck her
repeatedly around her face andhead with a blunt object.
We assume that this is thefrying pan.
An x-ray also revealed that apellet from Jacobs assault in
(14:43):
1998 was still lodged inChristina's face.
It's kind of like between hereye and the bridge of her nose.
Christina's time of death wasestimated to be between 9pm
Sunday and 3am Monday, so a bigsix hour window of time there.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
And.
Monday was the Labor Dayholiday.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
And I don't.
I don't think this is aninternational, I think this is
just America.
So this is Monday, people areoff of work, usually it's the
end of summer, celebrations,holiday weekend, a lot of stuff
going on.
Now expert opinions differwhether there was evidence of
sexual assault.
The official autopsy says therewas no evidence of sexual
assault, and I know there'scontroversy with that because
(15:22):
it's it's like what kind ofinjury rises to the level of?
You know that was an assaultversus consensual sex.
But the official autopsyresults were that she was not
raped.
However, there was spermrecovered from a vaginal swab
and that sperm contained twomale DNA profiles.
There was a major contributorfrom the night Christina died
and then a minor contributorthat they think was from a few
(15:44):
days prior.
Now, whatever happened thatnight, christina's son, corbin,
just a month shy of his secondbirthday, was there to witness
it all.
He was alone with his mother'sbody until six o'clock the
following evening.
Now Christina's mother, linda.
She planned to visit her andsee the apartment for the first
time on Tuesday and instead shereceived that news that her
daughter was murdered and tookin her traumatized grandson
(16:05):
Monday night.
Considering how Christina'skiller left Corbin behind in
that horrific scene.
Linda said that's a monster'sheart, an inhuman heart.
Even 10 years later, the impactof Christina's murder had a
devastating impact on her mother.
Now Linda said this is in theforensic files episode.
I believe that other parents,their children, got killed or
(16:25):
murdered and they move on intheir life, but me, I don't know
why, I can't.
I can't go outside.
It hurts me and it hits me allthe time that I miss Christina
so bad.
Now Christina Sona Bain'sex-boyfriend, jacob Croson.
He's the obvious prime suspectfrom the beginning.
I mean a couple months beforethis happened, he cut her throat
and told her you're dead meat.
(16:46):
A few days before he had analibi for most of Sunday night.
But there are windows of timethat aren't accounted for within
her estimated time of death.
Several witnesses, includingcasual acquaintances, came
forward to confirm that Jacobwas with them that night,
hopping between bars,restaurants and residences until
about 4am on Monday.
(17:06):
Police also wanted toinvestigate 35 year old Todd
Hale, who found Christina's body.
The nature of the attack seemedpersonal and Todd considered
Christina a friend from when shelived with his girlfriend,
norma Hofpower.
Some of Todd's actions werealso suspicious, especially the
skill with which he broke intoChristina's apartment.
They even mentioned the policethat the window he broke into
(17:29):
not only did he get in and outreally fast, but there was a
dresser with a lot of littleitems on it and he was able to
kind of sneak in withoutdisturbing anything and they
just thought it was creepy.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Or he knew Right, like how to.
I was when you mentioned he wasthere in the morning to collect
his $25 and he couldn't get in.
I'm curious why he came backthat night Like did he try to
call Christina?
Did they look at the phone logs?
Like why would you just showback up seven hours later and
then say, oh, I'm going to trythe window now Just because
someone's there now, right?
Speaker 1 (17:59):
I don't think they did ever check the phone cards
and they did mention in theforensic files episode, though
being very suspicious of youknow he's.
This is how he got.
Maybe this is how he got in tokill her.
Why there's no sign of forcedentry, because look at how good
he is at this.
However, norma gave Todd analibi.
She said Todd was with her allnight Sunday until he left for
(18:20):
Christina's late Monday morning.
Investigators became moresuspicious of Christina's
next-door neighbor, carlosRobinson, after they theorized
that all those bare footprintsthey found at the crime scene
that they belong to her killerand that meant her killer lived
nearby, because why else wouldhe be barefoot?
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Well, and I take it, they ruled out those footprints
against Christina's yes, okay,and her son yes.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Now Carlos's partner, tamika Sanders.
She was visiting her sister inWaterloo overnight on Sunday.
That leaves Carlos home alonewith his children, at the duplex
and without a solid alibi.
Police asked all three men toprovide footprints, palm prints,
fingerprints, dna samples forcomparison to crime scene
evidence.
They also executed searchwarrants for Jacobs and Carlos's
(19:06):
residents and vehicles.
So they kind of got.
These are my two prime suspectsnow.
Although Jacob was the primeprime suspect, he was not
investigated to the extent youmight expect.
For example, cedar Rapidspolice never checked Jacobs cell
phone records when they foundstained clothing in his truck.
They never collected theclothing or had it analyzed,
(19:27):
because they did a lighting teston the scene and it didn't
indicate that the stains wereblood.
Christina's body was found onMonday evening and by Tuesday
morning police had matchedCarlos's footprints to the ones
found in her apartment, and thatincludes the partial print in
that hamburger bun found in herbathroom and other prints that
were again quote intermingledwith drops of Christina's blood.
(19:49):
Cedar Rapids police stoppedinvestigating Jacob and Todd as
suspects because they felt quotethere was no need to talk with
other people once the footprinthad been matched to Robinson.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Did they ever?
Speaker 1 (20:01):
match the bloody palm print.
Later they did yes, also toCarlos.
That one's a little bit more,but for whatever reason, even in
the forensic files episode theyreally especially the hamburger
bun print Like this is the one.
Now Carlos was re-interviewedTuesday morning, so this is the
morning after all of thishappened.
He again denied being inChristina's apartment except to
(20:23):
help her move in, and heconfirmed that he was barefoot
at that time and that's adetailed Todd remembered to like
yeah, he helped us move in andhis bare feet.
Forensic experts agree that,quote his footprints could have
remained on the uncarpetedsurfaces of the floor for three
days or more and, quote bloodcould have fallen on the floor
before or after the footprintwas made.
(20:45):
The interviewing officer saidCarlos changed his story when
confronted with the fact thathis footprints matched those
found at the crime scene.
They say now Carlos explainedthat he became concerned after
he heard bumping noises comingfrom Christina's apartment
Sunday night.
He went next door toinvestigate and let himself in
when Christina didn't answer.
(21:05):
How did he let himself in this?
I do not know.
He did not have a key.
To my understanding.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Was the door unlocked and he just let himself in.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
This is my assumption that the door was unlocked,
because some of this is comingfrom articles, you know,
summarizing what he said.
So there's not that like hardand fast you know.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Trans to the detail.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
Yes, exactly the transcript.
Once again, you know whenCarlos goes to check on these
noises, he says he's barefoot.
So this is just a dude whowalks everywhere barefoot.
He eventually found Christina,he says, laying on her bathroom
floor with her back against thebathtub.
She appeared unconscious and adark foamy substance was slowly
falling from her mouth.
So not in the tub, no throatslit.
(21:46):
And he also says it's reallydark.
Carlos said he was so startledby what he saw that he slipped
and caught himself on her sink.
Now this is possibly to explainthe bloody palm print which I
think at this point he didn'tknow about.
There was liquid on the floorwhich he says could have been
blood, could have been water, Idon't know.
There was liquid and that's whyhe slipped.
But again, her apartment wascompletely dark so he couldn't
(22:07):
tell for sure what anything was.
In a panic he ran back to hisapartment, said he smoked a
little weed to calm down and hedecided not to call 911 at that
point because he wanted to avoidinvolvement with the police.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
But he had to have heard Corbin crying the whole,
even the next day, if he didthis Sunday night.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
I don't know what time they left on Monday morning
.
I assume they left to go pickup his wife and Waterloo and go
spend time with their family.
I don't know what time Corbinwent to bed.
You know he might have gone tobed before his mom was killed.
He could be asleep, sure.
I'm just not sure.
You would think, though, thisis very suspicious.
Even if he's telling completelythe truth, that's suspicious
behavior.
(22:47):
Now, this is the statement thata single police officer, the
only one who interviewed Carlosthat day typed up, and Carlos
refused to sign it.
During the more than eight hourinterrogation that resulted in
this statement, officers at theCedar Rapids Police Station
ignored multiple requests fromtwo defense attorneys who
attempted to contact Carlos andinstructed police to stop
(23:10):
questioning him.
More than one judge would laterdefend the police department's
actions, noting that theattorneys were reaching out on
behalf of Carlos's family andCarlos never asked for an
attorney himself.
They were not required to tellCarlos that attorneys were
trying to reach him.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
That is technically true, it's technically true, but
he needed to say, hey, I'd likean attorney.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
For all of our listeners.
If you ever find yourself inthis situation, ask for an
attorney.
It is technically legally true.
It just doesn't sit right in myheart.
Sure, there is also debate overwhether police properly
mirandized Carlos during thistime.
The interviewing officer saidhe verbally read Carlos his
Miranda rights, but only afterconfronting him with the
(23:51):
footprint evidence.
So the logic here is you knowhe voluntarily agreed to come
for an interview.
He wasn't a suspect until, youknow, around 9 am when we got
the footprint match.
Then he became a suspect.
Then it was an interrogation,so then we read him his Miranda
rights.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
But usually don't they get them.
They read it to them, but thenthey also give them a written
statement to read and sign thatit was given to them.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
And Carlos never signed the form acknowledging
those rights.
So, and because it was justthat one officer, there's debate
of it's.
He said, she said, and webelieve the officer, because
he's an officer of the law.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
was this interrogation taped?
Usually they'll be videotapedaudiotape.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
There were portions taped, but I don't know that it
all had audio.
So dicey, dicey, dicey.
Carlos Robinson was arrested atthe conclusion of this
interview and this is within 24hours of calling 911 to report
the discovery of ChristinaSanobane's body.
He was charged with firstdegree murder and held over for
trial on $500,000 bond.
(24:53):
I want to point out to that hisattorney argued he would.
He would be in jail for 14months waiting for trial, and
his attorney argued for you knowat least.
I don't know what all thenegotiations usually are with
bond and bail, but they wantedat least like, let us put up 10%
so he can be at home with hisfamily.
He's not a flight risk.
They never allowed for anything.
They kept it at $500,000 thewhole time.
Police theorize that Carlosused the opportunity of his
(25:17):
partner, tamika being out oftown visiting her sister to go
over to Christina's house andmake a sexual advance toward her
.
They think that she rejectedhim and kicked him out.
And that's when Carlos becameenraged and hit Christina with
one of her frying pans, knockingher unconscious.
He dragged her to the bathroom.
They think that he raped herand if she was unconscious it's
possible that that could be whythere's not as much evidence of
(25:39):
a sexual assault.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Maybe no, but that's not what the evidence showed and
that's not what the and I'm notsaying he didn't, I'm just
saying you have to base it onfact, Like that's your theory.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
But there's no fact to back that up.
There's no fact.
They also said things like theposition of her body in the
bathtub is what made them thinkthat it was a sexual assault,
but she was closed anyway.
Afterward, whether whether heraped her or not, he placed her
in the bathtub, cut her throat,fill the tub with water to try
to hide physical evidence.
Afterward they think Carlosreturned to the kitchen looking
(26:11):
for something to carry themurder weapons out in.
To avoid leading a blood trail,carlos settled on the hamburger
bag, leaving the buns scatteredon Christina's bathroom floor.
After he opened it, policethink Carlos disposed of the
murder weapons immediately andthey have never been recovered.
They've never found the sharpinstrument used to cut her up.
They've never found the fryingpan pieces.
(26:31):
They also theorized that hecould have been motivated to
murder Christina out of fearthat Tamika would find out about
his infidelity or anger overbeing rejected by Christina and
because Christina you know, ifhe did rape her, she could have
identified him after the fact,if she survived, did he?
Speaker 2 (26:47):
have any history of cheating on Tamika.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
He's got a history that we'll get into soon, but
not necessarily of infidelitythat I know of.
Carlos's neighbors were shockedby the announcement.
They said it was quote so outof character for him and not
reflective of the quiet, helpful, hardworking man that they knew
.
But you know a lot of peoplesay that when somebody gets
popped for a crime.
When Carlos's father, timothyRobinson, learned of his son's
(27:11):
arrest he said quote it was likea death in the family.
His mother, pam, insisted ourson is not the monster, he is
still walking around out theresomewhere.
This was not Carlos's firstencounter with law enforcement.
Here's where it gets evendicier.
In 1993, carlos pled guilty toassaulting Tamika, his partner
and the mother of his children,and was placed on one year of
(27:33):
self-probation.
During an argument, carlospushed Tamika into a door,
causing her to hit her head.
In 1995, carlos was sentencedto 90 days in prison after he
choked Tamika.
He attacked her when she triedto stop him from hitting their
two-year-old son with a belt.
Carlos's trial wouldn't beginfor more than a year and in the
meantime forensic analysisdetermined that Carlos was the
(27:54):
major contributor of the spermevidence, meaning he either had
sex with Cristina or raped herthe night she died.
The second sperm sample, theminor contributor from a few
days prior, didn't match Carlos,jacob or Todd, and it has never
been identified or compared toanyone else.
That doesn't sit right with meeither.
The bloody, partial palm printon Christina's bathroom sink
(28:18):
also belonged to Carlos.
During a search of hisapartment, police recovered the
clothing Carlos wore the nightChristina died, remember they
found Jacob's clothing too, butthey never brought it in for
testing.
They did find on Carlos's shirtthree spots of blood.
One had Christina's andCarlos's DNA and two contained
Carlos's DNA.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Only Did Carlos have after they arrested him, did he
have any scratches, bruises,cuts on him?
None that were noted.
Speaker 1 (28:47):
Now the murder trial against Carlos Robinson began
the Monday after Thanksgiving.
This was one week afterChristina Sondabane's 22nd
birthday.
The local newspaper published abirthday message from
Christina's mother.
Happy birthday to you,christina.
Why was your life so short?
Like a song ended too quick.
Since you've been gone, I'vecried for you every day, no
(29:08):
matter what.
It will never be the sameanymore, christina.
You're always in my heart andnothing gets us apart.
Love you, mom and your family.
When Carlos took the stand attrial, he refuted the forensic
evidence against him as onlyproof of him being in the
apartment, not that he assaultedor killed Christina.
Carlos testified to anotherversion of events Now.
(29:28):
He claimed that he went toChristina's apartment around 8
pm because she asked him toshare his weed with her.
Carlos says they smokedtogether and then had consensual
sex.
During their second round ofintercourse Carlos heard a knock
and a man's voice atChristina's door so he left
quickly and this was around 9 pm, so I assumed through a back or
a side door of the apartment.
(29:49):
A little later, carlos said heheard thumping from Christina's
apartment that he first thoughtwas his kid's rough housing.
He went to go yell at them anddiscovered that it wasn't them,
it was coming from her place.
Shortly after that Carlos rodehis bike to a nearby convenience
store to purchase candy andbeer.
Candy for the kids, beer forhim, you know?
I hope so.
Hope not beer for the kids.
Around 10 pm he called TamikaAgain, she was visiting her
(30:12):
sister in Waterloo, so he's justcalling to check in and she
told him to check on Christinabecause of the noises.
When Carlos found Christina'sbody he said quote I had no idea
what was going on in there, Ididn't want to stick around and
see.
He apologized on the stand toChristina's family who were in
the courtroom, for not calling9-1-1 right away and he cited
(30:32):
his fear of Tamika finding outthat he cheated and he was
afraid of being framed forwhatever had happened.
Carlos insisted that Christinawas not in the tub and her
throat wasn't cut when he foundher, and that was between 10 pm
30 and 11 pm that Sunday night.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
He said she looked unconscious.
Does he know that for sure?
Speaker 1 (30:51):
that she wasn't dead.
No, he said he never touchedher body.
How did he get?
Speaker 2 (30:55):
the blood on his hands then.
That left the bloody palm print.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
So I think the theory with that for him is there was
already blood on her on the sinkand he just grabbed it when he
fell.
Carlos admitted that he withheldinformation from police at
first and he insisted that thetyped statement being used
against him wasn't what he toldthe interrogating officer and
that's why he refused to sign it.
Of course police said well, youknow that's a really convenient
(31:20):
tactic, isn't it?
His attorney said, quote hedidn't tell police the whole
story, but everything he toldthem was true.
Of course a defense attorney isgoing to say that.
Now Todd Hale was also grilledabout quote inconsistencies and
omissions in his statements topolice.
So Carlos is not the only onewho's been inconsistent in not
telling the police everything.
(31:41):
For example, there was adeposition taken several months
after Christina's murder and inthat Todd revealed Carlos
offered him and Christina weedwhen they moved in, so sort of
solidifying this idea thatCarlos and Christina were
smoking weed together.
Todd explained his changingstatements as a result of shock
from discovering Christina'sbody.
Like Carlos and Christina'sex-boyfriend, todd also has a
(32:05):
history of violence againstwomen.
In 1989, todd knocked themother of his four-month-old son
to the floor, struck herrepeatedly in the face, kneaded
her in the ribs and choked her.
He pled guilty to simpleassault and paid $100 fine.
In 1991, he assaulted her again.
Those charges were dismissed.
In 1993, he faced more assaultcharges after he threw a glass
(32:29):
of milk in his own mother's face, tossed her to the ground and
kicked her repeatedly.
Those charges were alsodismissed.
Todd's last assault charge wasin 1995 when he threatened
another man with a knife duringa fight.
It's one of several drunkimbrals that he ended up in.
Todd's most serious sentencing,probation and really short
(32:49):
prison stints came from hisnumerous DUI offenses throughout
the years, not for theseassaults.
The most obvious suspect,though, of course, was
Christina's volatileex-boyfriend, jacob Crossan, and
Carlos's primary defense tacticwas to implicate him in
Christina's murder.
Remember, christina moved toher apartment to escape Jacob's
violence.
He threatened Christina whenshe moved out, and then he
(33:12):
tracked her down and confrontedher at her new residence.
Remember, just a couple monthsbefore that summer he cut her
throat and that's how she died.
A co-worker from theconvenience store where she
worked a shift on the Sunday shedied just hours before her
murder testified that Jacobvisited Christina at work that
day.
The defense called multiplewitnesses to testify about
(33:32):
Jacob's severe and prolongedabuse of Christina over about
four years, from age 16 right upuntil the days before her
murder.
One witness, christina's formersupervisor, sandy Smith.
She actually called Carlos'sdefense attorney with
information after reading earlytrial coverage.
Police never interviewed herand she was surprised that
Jacob's abuse wasn't beingmentioned at all.
(33:55):
At least two witnessestestified that Jacob threatened
Christina's life.
While Carlos admitted that heregretted some of his actions,
his attorney emphasized that,quote he was the last in a long
line of people to fail her.
After two weeks of trialproceedings and six hours of
jury deliberation, carlosRobinson was found guilty of
first-degree murder.
He was given a mandatorysentence of life in prison
(34:17):
without parole, and he was alsorequired to pay $150,000 to
Christina Sonobane's estate and$2,000 to the crime victim's
assistance program.
Carlos insisted that quote hedid not commit this crime.
I know it, my family knows it.
Part of me knows that.
The Sonobane family knows I didnot do it.
Now I will say that they have,on the record, said you know the
(34:38):
right guys in jail for this.
He added that justice for mewill be finding the real person
who committed this ungodly crime.
Public reaction to the verdictincluded criticism of the Cedar
Rapids Police Department.
One resident wrote to the paperto say they were appalled and
frightened by the briefinvestigation and lack of
concrete evidence that resultedin a life sentence.
(34:59):
Quote shame on the policedepartment to leave so many
stones unturned.
Whether Carlos Robinson isguilty or not, the investigation
failed this community deeplyhas the jury never heard of the
concept of reasonable doubt.
In his first appeal, carlosargued that all the evidence and
statements obtained during hispolice interrogation should not
be admissible and that the trialjudge aired by overruling his
(35:22):
motion to suppress it.
By their own admission,officers were already convinced
of Carlos's guilt and it seemslike you know maybe I don't I
don't know that unlawful is theright word, but they use some
dicey tactics to secure hisarrest.
In denying Carlos's appeal, thecourt had to weigh whether
quote police deception mighthave risen to the level of a due
process violation.
(35:43):
They said it didn't.
Their opinion was that Carlosis changing narrative to explain
what they called largelycircumstantial evidence against
him, as it emerged was a clearindicator of his guilt,
regardless of what methods theinvestigators used.
In more recent years, carlos hasappealed for additional
forensic testing on specificpieces of evidence because he
(36:03):
believes the results couldidentify what he calls
Christina's real killer.
One of the prosecution's keyarguments to the jury was that
there was no evidence of anyonein that apartment other than
Carlos and Christina.
Carlos says there are itemsfrom her apartment and storage
that were never tested for DNAbecause it would lead to a
suspect other than him.
I would say that theprosecutors only partially
(36:24):
correct, because the only crimescene evidence that was matched
to a suspect was matched toCarlos.
Police collected dozens ofpersonal items from Christina's
apartment, including knives,scissors, bedding and drug
paraphernalia, along withseveral pieces of forensic
evidence in her autopsy and thecrime scene that have never been
identified.
That includes hair and fibersfrom Christina's calf and inner
(36:47):
thigh.
They were not a match to Carlosor his clothing and their
source has never been tested.
We've never gone any furtherthan to just say it's not from
Carlos.
Cedar Rapids Police defendedtheir decision not to test
certain pieces of evidencebecause quote the footprints
were more important, and not thefibers and hairs on her body,
on her body, not that othersperm sample, not you know if
(37:10):
she was doing drugs with someonein the apartment before it
happened.
Not the knives or scissors thatcould have been the murder
weapons cleaned up.
None of it, none of it.
The court agrees that not onlywould it be too costly to test
each piece of evidence now, butIowa State law won't allow
Carlos to request DNA analysisbecause DNA convicted him of a
crime.
Further, if any of the evidencewas tested and matched to
(37:33):
someone other than Carlos, thecourt says that's not enough to
overturn his guilty verdict.
He's still guilty of the crime.
It is what it is Now.
In a separate appeal, carlosasked the state to compare the
minor contributor of the secondsperm sample recovered during
her autopsy to someone hesuspects is Christina's killer.
The state has only tested itagainst Todd Hale and Jacob
(37:54):
Croson and neither were a match.
Carlos' request was denied,with the court stating that
Carlos is the only person whosuspects anyone else of killing
Christina.
Christina Sona Bain's familyagain, they believe the right
man was convicted of her murder,and her older sister, Catherine
, wants the public to know thatChristina was quote an
intelligent, strong-minded andpassionate young woman, not a
(38:17):
misguided and naive girl.
She felt that, based on trialcoverage, many people believed
Christina was a promiscuous druguser, but quote, people failed
to see she was a young, lonelywoman.
She craved acceptance, love andcompanionship and was fooled by
a monster with a friendly face.
Christina's son, corbin, movedin with his father, jacob Croson
(38:37):
, after the trial, but heremained close with his maternal
grandparents and spent a lot oftime in their home too, and
despite his past troubles otherthan a DUI in 2002, jacob has
remained off law enforcement'sradar, and the same goes for
Todd Hale, the other suspect.
His last charges stemmed from a2011 DUI.
Like most families in theirposition, the Sona Bains
(38:58):
recognize that justice willnever replace the person they
lost.
On the third anniversary of hermurder Christina's younger
sister, angelina, who was onlylike nine years old when
Christina was killed shesubmitted a memorial to the
local paper, summing up theemotions her family continues to
process.
It's been year three and no onecould see how much your death
affected me and my family.
(39:19):
We've been through so much pain, the happiness we could never
regain as we sit here and askGod why we sit here and cry,
letting time pass us by so manymemories to cherish, and those
will never perish.
For all three years you've beenmy angel from above, the one
that I'll always love.
For all my life you've beensuch a wonderful sister, mother
and daughter, and for all ofeternity you will always last in
(39:41):
our hearts.
So this is one where I don'twant to cause a ruckus saying
that the police got the wrongguy.
I don't necessarily think theydid, carlos' explanation of the
evidence is suspicious.
The fact that there is so muchevidence is suspicious, but I
cannot get over the idea thather ex-boyfriend, her violent
ex-boyfriend, cut her throat afew months before this happened.
(40:03):
The older she was, dead meatbecause she moved out, had
already found her new place andif we believe everything that
Carlos said is true, it'spossible that you know he, you
know, let's say, the knocks atthe door when they were, if they
were having consensual sex, ifthat was Jacob, and he comes in
and confronts Christina you know, now you're sleeping with
(40:24):
someone else, and then the nextthing he does is kill her.
I don't know it's.
I think.
For me the disappointment isthat the police, in my opinion,
did not investigate thisthoroughly enough to be able to
conclusively say that wedefinitely have the right person
, no question, and that'sdisappointing.
Speaker 2 (40:40):
I would say they probably could have saved
themselves some criticism bymaking sure you had a videotape
transcript of the interrogation.
You had that signeddocumentation of the Miranda
rights even from the get-go Like, hey, I'm inviting you down
here, we don't have all the databack yet, all the testing back,
but hey, I need to let you knowyour rights and go from that
(41:02):
point on.
I think that could have savedsome criticism of the police
department.
I also think you should havehad a toxicology report done on
Christina.
I get it.
Maybe there wasn't enough blood,but there's other organs in the
body to see.
Maybe that could have giventhem something in terms of was
she did.
She smoke weed, perhaps?
What was the nano level of thatthe THC content in her blood?
(41:26):
I just think if they did alittle more it would take away
some of the questions andcriticism.
Not that they don't have theright guy.
I mean, if you can give acriminal discourse life tip, if
you discover somebody in aprecarious situation because
you've gone into their apartment, whether they're unconscious or
dead, call the police rightaway, and it's better to have to
(41:46):
deal with the fact that youcheated on your spouse than to
be put away for life for murderif you didn't commit it.
Because if Carlos is innocent,then he really jammed himself up
by not calling the policebecause you were worried about
your relationship with yourgirlfriend.
Well, there's a dead body hereand a young boy, and I mean
(42:07):
there are a lot of questions.
Don't get me wrong.
I think there are three viablesuspects in this.
I would imagine he still hashis federal appeals, even though
the state court seems to haveknocked down everything.
He can now go to the federallevel with his appeals.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
Let me see here His last appeal was in 2021.
And that was the DNA sample,the minor contributor that he
wanted tested.
Speaker 2 (42:31):
Now can somebody else the heat can't because he's a
prisoner.
But can somebody else say,let's say, an innocent project
decides to take on his case.
Could they petition to havethose samples tested?
Speaker 1 (42:44):
I think that's possible.
I think there could be a pushfor at least some of the other
evidence of the crime scene,especially because and this is
key the jury's decision is whatthe court keeps coming back to.
This is not enough to overturnwhat the jury decided, however.
The prosecutor hammered home tothe jury in opening and closing
arguments.
There's no evidence of anyoneother than Carlos in this
(43:05):
apartment.
So if there is evidence of that, in my mind that's the lynchpin
.
Speaker 2 (43:11):
Even Hale who was there who helped her move in?
How is there no evidence hecrawled through the window, at
least once we know of?
How is there no evidence thathe was in the apartment?
Maybe eliminated, but I meanjust there should be evidence
that he was there and handlingthe furniture.
Speaker 1 (43:28):
And this is the other thing too.
You have all these people inthe community saying, oh, this
is not really the Carlos we knowhe was so friendly.
He was also beating up his wifeand kids.
He's not everything you thoughthe was.
So I don't think that he's apurely innocent guy.
I do think it's possible thathe did this.
There was a YouTube comment onthe forensic files video where
someone said she escaped fromone monster only to end up
(43:51):
moving right next door toanother one.
I do think it's possible thatthey definitely got the right
guy.
It's just so disappointing tosee the lack of due diligence.
It's important to go throughthe steps.
Speaker 2 (44:01):
Yes, again, they could probably do with a lot
less criticism or questioning.
They may have the correct manserving time for her murder.
Her family believes that, sothe jury believed that.
But the questions lingerbecause why didn't you take the
time to give them, as Mirandawrites, right away?
Why didn't you take the time toaudio record or video record
(44:22):
the entire interrogation?
Speaker 1 (44:24):
Check the ex-boyfriend a little bit harder
.
The one that said he wanted tokill her, the one that almost
did shot her in the face RightCheck that guy Really nailed
down his alibi that there reallywould be no in the time frame
that, yeah, he could have goneover there.
Speaker 2 (44:38):
In terms of questioning the neighbors about
seeing the red car, they saw itthere a few times.
Did they see it there thatnight?
I get it Going through thosemotions and steps.
Speaker 1 (44:47):
But for the Cedar Rapids Police Department they
did do a wonderful job withMichelle Martinko.
They did and this is notnecessarily indicative of their
entire department and hopefullyfrom this experience maybe they
learned a little bit too.
You know, the next time theyhad a case they really Make sure
you get the Miranda right sign.
Let's take that shirt in.
I know the light said there wasno blood, but let's just take
it.
Speaker 2 (45:07):
Well, if you want to learn more about today's case,
head over to our website,criminaldiscoursepodcastcom.
There you'll find detailed shownotes that Wendy put together
and all the resources she usedto bring you this episode, and
we invite you to join thediscourse and let us know your
thoughts on today's case or anyother case.
Do you have questions?
Did you think if they just dida little more and checked a few
(45:27):
more boxes, the Cedar RapidsPolice wouldn't have the
criticism or questions that theydo?
Let us know your thoughts.
Did they get the right guy?
Is Carlos, or do you believe,hey, there is possibly other
viable suspects?
Or reach out anytime and tellus about yourself or suggest a
new case for us to cover.
And if you've enjoyed thisepisode, don't forget to
subscribe on whatever platformyou're listening to us on.
(45:49):
Leave us a five-star review,tell a friend so they can join
the discourse too.
And you can also share theseepisodes.
I know on Apple Podcasts andSpotify, hit the three little
dots.
That'll bring up a menu and itsays share.
You can share it and send itdirectly to them.
So, as always, if you seesomething, know something, say
something.
Like you go into someone'sapartment and find them
(46:12):
unconscious against a bathtuband you know there's liquid on
the floor, but you don't quiteknow what it is.
But he knew when he got back tohis apartment because he had
blood on him.
Call the police, report it.
Just do it.
Just do it.
Save yourself a headache, saveany questioning, because,
honestly, what would thenarrative have been?
Well, if he did this, why wouldhe call the police and report?
Speaker 1 (46:33):
this right?
Why would he admit to cheatingon his wife, Right Wife or
girlfriend?
They said common law wife.
They'd been together for 11years.
Speaker 2 (46:41):
Would have saved him so much trouble, but you might
have that missing piece of thepuzzle it would take to solve a
crime.
So before we go, remember wewant you to stay safe out there,
we need to be kind to oneanother and we need to watch out
for one another.
So until next time, guys.
Bye, thank you.
Hello and welcome to the Criminal Discourse Podcast.
I'm Wendy and I'm Trish.
We have another fascinatingepisode for you today.
We're actually going back toCedar Rapids, iowa, where we
were in November when Trishcovered the case of Michelle
Martinko.
She was an 18-year-old studentwho was murdered in the Westdale
Mall parking lot aroundChristmas 1979.
(00:44):
And, trish, I understand youactually have a little update
about this case.
I do.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
It's the update to the update.
So I had mentioned in aprevious episode that human
remains were found in ruralDelaware County and it was
believed at the time that thesecould possibly be the remains of
Brian Burns, who was the cousinof Jerry Burns, who went
missing on the anniversary ofMichelle Martinko's death, and
Jerry Burns, of course, was theman convicted of her murder.
(01:11):
These remains were found onNovember 5th by some pheasant
hunters.
Those remains were removed tothe Iowa State Medical
Examiner's Office forIdentification and they have
been confirmed to be those ofBrian Burns.
Now, that's all they're sayingright now.
They haven't released any otherinformation in terms of how he
died, so we'll have to wait andsee, but it has been confirmed
(01:32):
that these are the remains ofBrian Burns, who is the cousin
of Jerry Burns, who went missingon the anniversary of Michelle
Martinko's death back in 2013.
And, of course, jerry Burns wasconvicted of murdering Michelle
Martinko.
That's the latest.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
So today's case is actually one I found, not
because I wanted to go.
I wasn't looking to go back toCedar Rapids necessarily Happy
that I'm back there but I foundit from a forensic files episode
in 2010, kind of well known,because they apprehended the
killer from a big toe print thatwas left in a particularly
fresh hamburger bun found at thecrime scene.
(02:08):
So the episode was called purebread murder One of those kind
of funny episodes.
The case is not funny.
It's sad, of course, but as Iresearched the case, I found
there's a lot more to it thanyou know as usual, the narrative
that we all know and love fromthe forensic files episode.
So hopefully we learn a lottoday.
There's a lot of interestingtwists and turns.
So, trish, I'm excited to seewhat you think by the end of
(02:30):
this and throughout, andlisteners, I would love to hear,
too, what you guys think asyou're listening to this and if
you think that the police got itright on this one.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Okay well, we know there are so many true crime
podcasts out there to choosefrom and only so many hours in
the day, and we want to take amoment to say we truly
appreciate you choosing tolisten to us.
If you want to join thediscourse, you can reach out to
us on our website,criminaldiscoursepodcastcom, or
on social media, or on Facebook,instagram, youtube, at
criminaldispod andcriminaldiscoursepodcast.
(02:59):
And one last thing the viewsand opinions discussed on
criminal discourse podcast arejust that our views and opinions
.
Everyone is presumed innocentuntil convicted in the court of
law.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
This is the case of Christina Sanubane, and the last
years of her short life werefilled with violence and ended
in tragedy.
She was brutally murdered justdays after moving into a new
apartment with her toddler ageson, seeking a fresh start.
In her final days, christinaencountered three men who shared
a history of violence againstwomen.
(03:32):
One was convicted of her murder, but a hasty investigation has
left his guilt up for debate.
Is Christina's killer in prison, where he belongs, or did the
real perpetrator get away withmurder at the cost of another
man's freedom Spoiler?
I'm not going to say exactly.
I don't think there's enoughinformation to say, yes, the
police did it wrong, the wrongguys in jail, but I do think
(03:53):
there's a lot of questions thatcome up here.
So now again we're going toCedar Rapids, iowa, and that
Westdale Mall location whereMichelle Martinko was killed is
just like two and a half milesfrom Christina Sanubane's murder
.
Christina was also bornNovember 1979.
So just like a month before ithappened.
Since Trish recentlyhighlighted this location, I'll
(04:15):
just remind you guys that CedarRapids is the second most
populated city in Iowa.
It had about 120,000 residentsin 2000 when Christina's case
takes place and, for reference,it's located in the eastern
portion of Iowa, about 240 milesdue west of Chicago.
Christina's story actuallybegins with the thousands of
refugees who fled Laos in 1975when communists took control of
(04:40):
their country.
Iowa sponsored 1500 refugees,including Christina's parents,
praseth and Linda Sanubane.
They settled in Des Moines andhad their first child, a
daughter named Catherine, in1978.
And then Christina was born ayear later, on November 21, 1979
.
Praseth, their father, died inFebruary of 1982, when the girls
(05:01):
were still toddlers and Lindawas just 20 years old.
So Linda moved to Cedar Rapidsand she eventually married a man
named Lee Huang.
Christina's step sisterAngelina and stepbrother
Frederick followed.
Christina started dating herfellow classmate, jacob Crossen
in 1996, when they were both 16.
Christina's intense feelingsfor Jacob might have contributed
(05:24):
to why she started using drugswith him at this time, but that
included things like cocaine,weed and meth.
Weed is one thing, but thecocaine and meth was a lot more
concerning.
That's next level.
Jacob physically abusedChristina, but she told her
concerned family and friendsthat she couldn't leave the man
that she loved.
By age 17, christina moved intoa friend's home and away from
(05:46):
her parents' disapproval.
Her friend's mother, normaHoffpauer, remembered Jacob
getting into a fight with herdaughter about drugs.
While Christina still livedthere, norma banned Jacob from
her home, but it didn't stoptheir relationship.
Christina dropped out of highschool during her senior year
after becoming pregnant andmoved in with Jacob.
Their son, corbin, was born inOctober 1998.
(06:09):
Jacob was twice charged andconvicted of assaulting
Christina.
The first time was aroundChristmas of 1998, so this is
when she had a littletwo-month-old, corbin.
Jacob shot at Christina's facewith a pellet gun.
Now these are weapons that areused for shooting like and
killing squirrels, rabbits,small game like that, target
practicing, yeah.
A year and a half later,christina suffered an assault
(06:31):
that left her with a four-inchcut on her forearm and small
cuts to her throat.
She told co-workers who noticedher injuries that quote Jacob
was trying to kill me.
Now Christina worked as awaitress and then at a
convenience store and as atelemarketer after Corbin was
born.
This is when she's still ateenager.
One of her former supervisor,sandy Smith, said Christina
(06:51):
regularly came to work withvisible injuries such as bruises
and scratch marks.
Whenever Sandy inquired aboutthe marks, christina told her
Jacob beat me up again.
Another co-worker recalledseeing Christina with a swollen
eye, swollen cut lip and injuredhand.
Now, in 2000, this is shortlyafter, like a couple months
after Jacob had cut her throat,christina broke up with him and
(07:13):
moved out.
That was seemingly the laststraw.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
And for these incidences, these two at least
that are documented, did heserve jail time probation
something.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
It didn't appear.
So no, I couldn't find that.
He does have a record, but it'sjust for a DUI.
So I don't believe there is asmall blurb in the newspaper
about the pellet gun incident,but that's the only one.
She told a co-worker after shemoved out that Jacob was
extremely upset and he respondedby telling her your dead meat.
(07:44):
Christina's family encouragedher to move back in with them,
but she refused.
They described her ashardworking and independent, but
they called her, you know,still young and innocent, at
just 20 years old, and they feltlike that was a combination
that made her vulnerable tobeing taken advantage of.
They weren't shocked thatChristina wanted to strike out
on her own, because she alwayswanted to prove herself and go
(08:06):
her own way.
Her older sister, catherine,described Christina as a fighter
.
She said her little apartment,car and job meant her freedom,
her individuality and, most ofall, her independence.
She wanted to show everyone shecould take care of her
responsibilities.
I really get the sense, too,that she felt like you know,
whether it was Jacob or her son,these are decisions that I made
(08:27):
and I'm going to takeresponsibility for it.
I'm not going to make itanybody else's problem.
And Christina was determined toprovide a safer home for her
son and focus on her goals ofbecoming a television journalist
or a fashion designer.
The first step she took wasmoving into the front apartment
of a duplex at 818 10th StreetSouthwest and that happened on
Thursday, august 31st 2000,.
(08:48):
Just before Labor Day weekend,norma Hoffpauer's boyfriend,
todd Hale, agreed to help moveChristina in with his pickup
truck and Christina offered him$25 for helping her.
When Christina and Todd arrivedat the duplex they met neighbor
Tamika Sanders who lived in therear apartment.
She volunteered her partner, 29year old Carlos Robinson, to
help Todd move the heavierfurniture.
(09:10):
They accepted his help andCarlos made several trips in and
out of Christina's apartment.
That day Carlos and Tamikalived at the duplex with their
four children, a boy and threegirls ages three to eight years
old, and they were there foralmost a year.
After moving up from Waterloo,about an hour away, carlos had
just started training for asteady telecom job after working
(09:30):
two part time jobs at asecurity firm and a nearby
convenience store.
Neighbors described him withwords like you know, he's a
sweet family man and they saidhe never demonstrated anger
during Christina's first fewdays at the duplex.
She relied on Carlos and Tamika, her neighbors, for help
getting settled in.
One time she used their phoneto order pizza, for example.
Although Christina had beenlooking for a fresh start, jacob
(09:53):
was not ready to let go.
A neighbor recalled seeing ared car similar to the one he
drove parked at the duplex atime or two after she moved in.
Christina also told Todd Halethe guy who helped her moved in
that Jacob came to her apartment, fought with her and punched a
hole in the wall before leaving.
Now Todd returned to Christina'saround 11 30am on Monday
(10:14):
September 4th to collect that$25 that she promised him.
Christina never came to thedoor but Todd said he could hear
her TV blaring inside.
He looked for Christina througha window and he said he saw
these crumpled up blankets onher bed and that made him think
that she was still asleep.
Corbin, her son, was crying butTodd assumed Christina would
wake up and take care of himshortly.
(10:34):
He left after several minuteswith plans to return later.
Now Carlos and Tamika, theneighbors, were gone with their
kids most of that Monday it's aholiday.
When they returned that eveningthey heard Corbin crying
continuously next door.
So Carlos went over around sixo'clock that evening to check on
him and Christina.
Carlos's knocks also wentunanswered and he could see
(10:55):
Corbin crying through a windowas well.
Todd returned a few minuteslater to find Carlos outside
Christina's apartment, unable toget her to answer the door.
Now this is almost seven hoursafter he was last there checking
.
Todd decided to gain entrythrough a front window and
that's when he quickly came uponChristina's semi-clothed body
lying face down in her bathtubbearing lifeless, surrounded by
(11:18):
blood stains.
So he grabbed Corbin, he ranback outside and he shouted for
someone to call 911.
Carlos was there, so he madethe call and he told the
dispatcher.
This is the quote from the 911call and he's responding to the
questions.
I'd like to report a death.
I'd like to report a death.
The guy said she was dead.
I don't know.
I don't know my neighbor, shedoes drugs.
(11:39):
When police arrived, theydetermined that Christina was
already deceased.
They interviewed Todd, carlosand Tamika.
At the scene, carlos toldofficers that he helped
Christina move in, but he didn'tknow what happened to her.
Investigators quickly theorizedthat Christina knew her killer
because there were no signs offorced entry.
Christina's sandals were foundin the middle of her kitchen
(11:59):
floor, along with two of her ownteeth and a broken piece of a
frying pan handle.
The rest of the frying pan itbelonged to was missing.
Now they describe this as likethe collar that holds the handle
and the pan piece together,like the middle piece.
Police believe Christina'sattacker used that frying pan to
strike her with such force thatit caused her teeth to fall out
(12:22):
and the frying pan to break.
Trails of bare footprints, manyof which were difficult to see
with the naked eye, were foundthroughout Christina's apartment
.
Some were quote inter-bangledwith drops of Christina's blood.
So this is the first thing.
If you've watched the forensicfiles episode, they kind of lead
you to believe that there'sbloody footprints all over the
apartment and that's not thecase.
(12:42):
They're footprints that youcan't really see and there's
drops of blood with them.
They're not bloody footprintsthat you would think.
Like a killer leaves a bloodytrail.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
Oh, even her son.
Her son was walking Correct.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
The rich detail in all of these footprints.
It was completely unique to theperson who left them and as
good as fingerprints foridentification that I didn't
know your footprints, they canget you as much as your
fingerprints can.
A rusty colored ring in thebathtub.
Christina Layden indicated thatit had been filled with water
while she bled out, but haddrained.
By the time police discoveredher, there was a bloody, partial
(13:17):
palm print on the bathroom sinkand strangely fresh hamburger
buns were strewn all over thebathroom floor.
It looked like someone opened abag of buns and shook them out.
One of the buns retained apartial bare footprint,
including the big toe with ridgedetail.
Now police recovered the bagclip but never found the bag,
(13:38):
and when I first heard this Ithought you know, corbin was in
this apartment alone for almosta day with his mom.
He might have taken thehamburger buns to the bathroom
asking her to cook, but it is alittle suspicious that they
never found the bag.
An autopsy later determined thatChristina suffered what they
called a brutal assault, withmultiple puncture wounds to her
neck and face resulting inmassive blood loss.
(13:59):
The mortal wound was, quote adeep cut to the right side of
her throat that cut across thecarotid artery and her windpipe.
There wasn't enough blood leftin her body to conduct a
traditional toxicology exam andinvestigators opted not to have
a drug test done on her organtissue.
Did they ever say why?
Well, we're going to find outshortly that there's a lot of
(14:20):
tests that they just chose notto do, and they used words like
no, it wasn't an extra legalloophole or it wasn't necessary.
We had everything we needed, andthis is one of those cases.
Before stabbing her,christina's killer struck her
repeatedly around her face andhead with a blunt object.
We assume that this is thefrying pan.
An x-ray also revealed that apellet from Jacobs assault in
(14:43):
1998 was still lodged inChristina's face.
It's kind of like between hereye and the bridge of her nose.
Christina's time of death wasestimated to be between 9pm
Sunday and 3am Monday, so a bigsix hour window of time there.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
And.
Monday was the Labor Dayholiday.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
And I don't.
I don't think this is aninternational, I think this is
just America.
So this is Monday, people areoff of work, usually it's the
end of summer, celebrations,holiday weekend, a lot of stuff
going on.
Now expert opinions differwhether there was evidence of
sexual assault.
The official autopsy says therewas no evidence of sexual
assault, and I know there'scontroversy with that because
(15:22):
it's it's like what kind ofinjury rises to the level of?
You know that was an assaultversus consensual sex.
But the official autopsyresults were that she was not
raped.
However, there was spermrecovered from a vaginal swab
and that sperm contained twomale DNA profiles.
There was a major contributorfrom the night Christina died
and then a minor contributorthat they think was from a few
(15:44):
days prior.
Now, whatever happened thatnight, christina's son, corbin,
just a month shy of his secondbirthday, was there to witness
it all.
He was alone with his mother'sbody until six o'clock the
following evening.
Now Christina's mother, linda.
She planned to visit her andsee the apartment for the first
time on Tuesday and instead shereceived that news that her
daughter was murdered and tookin her traumatized grandson
(16:05):
Monday night.
Considering how Christina'skiller left Corbin behind in
that horrific scene.
Linda said that's a monster'sheart, an inhuman heart.
Even 10 years later, the impactof Christina's murder had a
devastating impact on her mother.
Now Linda said this is in theforensic files episode.
I believe that other parents,their children, got killed or
(16:25):
murdered and they move on intheir life, but me, I don't know
why, I can't.
I can't go outside.
It hurts me and it hits me allthe time that I miss Christina
so bad.
Now Christina Sona Bain'sex-boyfriend, jacob Croson.
He's the obvious prime suspectfrom the beginning.
I mean a couple months beforethis happened, he cut her throat
and told her you're dead meat.
(16:46):
A few days before he had analibi for most of Sunday night.
But there are windows of timethat aren't accounted for within
her estimated time of death.
Several witnesses, includingcasual acquaintances, came
forward to confirm that Jacobwas with them that night,
hopping between bars,restaurants and residences until
about 4am on Monday.
(17:06):
Police also wanted toinvestigate 35 year old Todd
Hale, who found Christina's body.
The nature of the attack seemedpersonal and Todd considered
Christina a friend from when shelived with his girlfriend,
norma Hofpower.
Some of Todd's actions werealso suspicious, especially the
skill with which he broke intoChristina's apartment.
They even mentioned the policethat the window he broke into
(17:29):
not only did he get in and outreally fast, but there was a
dresser with a lot of littleitems on it and he was able to
kind of sneak in withoutdisturbing anything and they
just thought it was creepy.
Speaker 2 (17:38):
Or he knew Right, like how to.
I was when you mentioned he wasthere in the morning to collect
his $25 and he couldn't get in.
I'm curious why he came backthat night Like did he try to
call Christina?
Did they look at the phone logs?
Like why would you just showback up seven hours later and
then say, oh, I'm going to trythe window now Just because
someone's there now, right?
Speaker 1 (17:59):
I don't think they did ever check the phone cards
and they did mention in theforensic files episode, though
being very suspicious of youknow he's.
This is how he got.
Maybe this is how he got in tokill her.
Why there's no sign of forcedentry, because look at how good
he is at this.
However, norma gave Todd analibi.
She said Todd was with her allnight Sunday until he left for
(18:20):
Christina's late Monday morning.
Investigators became moresuspicious of Christina's
next-door neighbor, carlosRobinson, after they theorized
that all those bare footprintsthey found at the crime scene
that they belong to her killerand that meant her killer lived
nearby, because why else wouldhe be barefoot?
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Well, and I take it, they ruled out those footprints
against Christina's yes, okay,and her son yes.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
Now Carlos's partner, tamika Sanders.
She was visiting her sister inWaterloo overnight on Sunday.
That leaves Carlos home alonewith his children, at the duplex
and without a solid alibi.
Police asked all three men toprovide footprints, palm prints,
fingerprints, dna samples forcomparison to crime scene
evidence.
They also executed searchwarrants for Jacobs and Carlos's
(19:06):
residents and vehicles.
So they kind of got.
These are my two prime suspectsnow.
Although Jacob was the primeprime suspect, he was not
investigated to the extent youmight expect.
For example, cedar Rapidspolice never checked Jacobs cell
phone records when they foundstained clothing in his truck.
They never collected theclothing or had it analyzed,
(19:27):
because they did a lighting teston the scene and it didn't
indicate that the stains wereblood.
Christina's body was found onMonday evening and by Tuesday
morning police had matchedCarlos's footprints to the ones
found in her apartment, and thatincludes the partial print in
that hamburger bun found in herbathroom and other prints that
were again quote intermingledwith drops of Christina's blood.
(19:49):
Cedar Rapids police stoppedinvestigating Jacob and Todd as
suspects because they felt quotethere was no need to talk with
other people once the footprinthad been matched to Robinson.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Did they ever?
Speaker 1 (20:01):
match the bloody palm print.
Later they did yes, also toCarlos.
That one's a little bit more,but for whatever reason, even in
the forensic files episode theyreally especially the hamburger
bun print Like this is the one.
Now Carlos was re-interviewedTuesday morning, so this is the
morning after all of thishappened.
He again denied being inChristina's apartment except to
(20:23):
help her move in, and heconfirmed that he was barefoot
at that time and that's adetailed Todd remembered to like
yeah, he helped us move in andhis bare feet.
Forensic experts agree that,quote his footprints could have
remained on the uncarpetedsurfaces of the floor for three
days or more and, quote bloodcould have fallen on the floor
before or after the footprintwas made.
(20:45):
The interviewing officer saidCarlos changed his story when
confronted with the fact thathis footprints matched those
found at the crime scene.
They say now Carlos explainedthat he became concerned after
he heard bumping noises comingfrom Christina's apartment
Sunday night.
He went next door toinvestigate and let himself in
when Christina didn't answer.
(21:05):
How did he let himself in this?
I do not know.
He did not have a key.
To my understanding.
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Was the door unlocked and he just let himself in.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
This is my assumption that the door was unlocked,
because some of this is comingfrom articles, you know,
summarizing what he said.
So there's not that like hardand fast you know.
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Trans to the detail.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
Yes, exactly the transcript.
Once again, you know whenCarlos goes to check on these
noises, he says he's barefoot.
So this is just a dude whowalks everywhere barefoot.
He eventually found Christina,he says, laying on her bathroom
floor with her back against thebathtub.
She appeared unconscious and adark foamy substance was slowly
falling from her mouth.
So not in the tub, no throatslit.
(21:46):
And he also says it's reallydark.
Carlos said he was so startledby what he saw that he slipped
and caught himself on her sink.
Now this is possibly to explainthe bloody palm print which I
think at this point he didn'tknow about.
There was liquid on the floorwhich he says could have been
blood, could have been water, Idon't know.
There was liquid and that's whyhe slipped.
But again, her apartment wascompletely dark so he couldn't
(22:07):
tell for sure what anything was.
In a panic he ran back to hisapartment, said he smoked a
little weed to calm down and hedecided not to call 911 at that
point because he wanted to avoidinvolvement with the police.
Speaker 2 (22:20):
But he had to have heard Corbin crying the whole,
even the next day, if he didthis Sunday night.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
I don't know what time they left on Monday morning
.
I assume they left to go pickup his wife and Waterloo and go
spend time with their family.
I don't know what time Corbinwent to bed.
You know he might have gone tobed before his mom was killed.
He could be asleep, sure.
I'm just not sure.
You would think, though, thisis very suspicious.
Even if he's telling completelythe truth, that's suspicious
behavior.
(22:47):
Now, this is the statement thata single police officer, the
only one who interviewed Carlosthat day typed up, and Carlos
refused to sign it.
During the more than eight hourinterrogation that resulted in
this statement, officers at theCedar Rapids Police Station
ignored multiple requests fromtwo defense attorneys who
attempted to contact Carlos andinstructed police to stop
(23:10):
questioning him.
More than one judge would laterdefend the police department's
actions, noting that theattorneys were reaching out on
behalf of Carlos's family andCarlos never asked for an
attorney himself.
They were not required to tellCarlos that attorneys were
trying to reach him.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
That is technically true, it's technically true, but
he needed to say, hey, I'd likean attorney.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
For all of our listeners.
If you ever find yourself inthis situation, ask for an
attorney.
It is technically legally true.
It just doesn't sit right in myheart.
Sure, there is also debate overwhether police properly
mirandized Carlos during thistime.
The interviewing officer saidhe verbally read Carlos his
Miranda rights, but only afterconfronting him with the
(23:51):
footprint evidence.
So the logic here is you knowhe voluntarily agreed to come
for an interview.
He wasn't a suspect until, youknow, around 9 am when we got
the footprint match.
Then he became a suspect.
Then it was an interrogation,so then we read him his Miranda
rights.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
But usually don't they get them.
They read it to them, but thenthey also give them a written
statement to read and sign thatit was given to them.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
And Carlos never signed the form acknowledging
those rights.
So, and because it was justthat one officer, there's debate
of it's.
He said, she said, and webelieve the officer, because
he's an officer of the law.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
was this interrogation taped?
Usually they'll be videotapedaudiotape.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
There were portions taped, but I don't know that it
all had audio.
So dicey, dicey, dicey.
Carlos Robinson was arrested atthe conclusion of this
interview and this is within 24hours of calling 911 to report
the discovery of ChristinaSanobane's body.
He was charged with firstdegree murder and held over for
trial on $500,000 bond.
(24:53):
I want to point out to that hisattorney argued he would.
He would be in jail for 14months waiting for trial, and
his attorney argued for you knowat least.
I don't know what all thenegotiations usually are with
bond and bail, but they wantedat least like, let us put up 10%
so he can be at home with hisfamily.
He's not a flight risk.
They never allowed for anything.
They kept it at $500,000 thewhole time.
Police theorize that Carlosused the opportunity of his
(25:17):
partner, tamika being out oftown visiting her sister to go
over to Christina's house andmake a sexual advance toward her
.
They think that she rejectedhim and kicked him out.
And that's when Carlos becameenraged and hit Christina with
one of her frying pans, knockingher unconscious.
He dragged her to the bathroom.
They think that he raped herand if she was unconscious it's
possible that that could be whythere's not as much evidence of
(25:39):
a sexual assault.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Maybe no, but that's not what the evidence showed and
that's not what the and I'm notsaying he didn't, I'm just
saying you have to base it onfact, Like that's your theory.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
But there's no fact to back that up.
There's no fact.
They also said things like theposition of her body in the
bathtub is what made them thinkthat it was a sexual assault,
but she was closed anyway.
Afterward, whether whether heraped her or not, he placed her
in the bathtub, cut her throat,fill the tub with water to try
to hide physical evidence.
Afterward they think Carlosreturned to the kitchen looking
(26:11):
for something to carry themurder weapons out in.
To avoid leading a blood trail,carlos settled on the hamburger
bag, leaving the buns scatteredon Christina's bathroom floor.
After he opened it, policethink Carlos disposed of the
murder weapons immediately andthey have never been recovered.
They've never found the sharpinstrument used to cut her up.
They've never found the fryingpan pieces.
(26:31):
They also theorized that hecould have been motivated to
murder Christina out of fearthat Tamika would find out about
his infidelity or anger overbeing rejected by Christina and
because Christina you know, ifhe did rape her, she could have
identified him after the fact,if she survived, did he?
Speaker 2 (26:47):
have any history of cheating on Tamika.
Speaker 1 (26:49):
He's got a history that we'll get into soon, but
not necessarily of infidelitythat I know of.
Carlos's neighbors were shockedby the announcement.
They said it was quote so outof character for him and not
reflective of the quiet, helpful, hardworking man that they knew
.
But you know a lot of peoplesay that when somebody gets
popped for a crime.
When Carlos's father, timothyRobinson, learned of his son's
(27:11):
arrest he said quote it was likea death in the family.
His mother, pam, insisted ourson is not the monster, he is
still walking around out theresomewhere.
This was not Carlos's firstencounter with law enforcement.
Here's where it gets evendicier.
In 1993, carlos pled guilty toassaulting Tamika, his partner
and the mother of his children,and was placed on one year of
(27:33):
self-probation.
During an argument, carlospushed Tamika into a door,
causing her to hit her head.
In 1995, carlos was sentencedto 90 days in prison after he
choked Tamika.
He attacked her when she triedto stop him from hitting their
two-year-old son with a belt.
Carlos's trial wouldn't beginfor more than a year and in the
meantime forensic analysisdetermined that Carlos was the
(27:54):
major contributor of the spermevidence, meaning he either had
sex with Cristina or raped herthe night she died.
The second sperm sample, theminor contributor from a few
days prior, didn't match Carlos,jacob or Todd, and it has never
been identified or compared toanyone else.
That doesn't sit right with meeither.
The bloody, partial palm printon Christina's bathroom sink
(28:18):
also belonged to Carlos.
During a search of hisapartment, police recovered the
clothing Carlos wore the nightChristina died, remember they
found Jacob's clothing too, butthey never brought it in for
testing.
They did find on Carlos's shirtthree spots of blood.
One had Christina's andCarlos's DNA and two contained
Carlos's DNA.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
Only Did Carlos have after they arrested him, did he
have any scratches, bruises,cuts on him?
None that were noted.
Speaker 1 (28:47):
Now the murder trial against Carlos Robinson began
the Monday after Thanksgiving.
This was one week afterChristina Sondabane's 22nd
birthday.
The local newspaper published abirthday message from
Christina's mother.
Happy birthday to you,christina.
Why was your life so short?
Like a song ended too quick.
Since you've been gone, I'vecried for you every day, no
(29:08):
matter what.
It will never be the sameanymore, christina.
You're always in my heart andnothing gets us apart.
Love you, mom and your family.
When Carlos took the stand attrial, he refuted the forensic
evidence against him as onlyproof of him being in the
apartment, not that he assaultedor killed Christina.
Carlos testified to anotherversion of events Now.
(29:28):
He claimed that he went toChristina's apartment around 8
pm because she asked him toshare his weed with her.
Carlos says they smokedtogether and then had consensual
sex.
During their second round ofintercourse Carlos heard a knock
and a man's voice atChristina's door so he left
quickly and this was around 9 pm, so I assumed through a back or
a side door of the apartment.
(29:49):
A little later, carlos said heheard thumping from Christina's
apartment that he first thoughtwas his kid's rough housing.
He went to go yell at them anddiscovered that it wasn't them,
it was coming from her place.
Shortly after that Carlos rodehis bike to a nearby convenience
store to purchase candy andbeer.
Candy for the kids, beer forhim, you know?
I hope so.
Hope not beer for the kids.
Around 10 pm he called TamikaAgain, she was visiting her
(30:12):
sister in Waterloo, so he's justcalling to check in and she
told him to check on Christinabecause of the noises.
When Carlos found Christina'sbody he said quote I had no idea
what was going on in there, Ididn't want to stick around and
see.
He apologized on the stand toChristina's family who were in
the courtroom, for not calling9-1-1 right away and he cited
(30:32):
his fear of Tamika finding outthat he cheated and he was
afraid of being framed forwhatever had happened.
Carlos insisted that Christinawas not in the tub and her
throat wasn't cut when he foundher, and that was between 10 pm
30 and 11 pm that Sunday night.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
He said she looked unconscious.
Does he know that for sure?
Speaker 1 (30:51):
that she wasn't dead.
No, he said he never touchedher body.
How did he get?
Speaker 2 (30:55):
the blood on his hands then.
That left the bloody palm print.
Speaker 1 (30:59):
So I think the theory with that for him is there was
already blood on her on the sinkand he just grabbed it when he
fell.
Carlos admitted that he withheldinformation from police at
first and he insisted that thetyped statement being used
against him wasn't what he toldthe interrogating officer and
that's why he refused to sign it.
Of course police said well, youknow that's a really convenient
(31:20):
tactic, isn't it?
His attorney said, quote hedidn't tell police the whole
story, but everything he toldthem was true.
Of course a defense attorney isgoing to say that.
Now Todd Hale was also grilledabout quote inconsistencies and
omissions in his statements topolice.
So Carlos is not the only onewho's been inconsistent in not
telling the police everything.
(31:41):
For example, there was adeposition taken several months
after Christina's murder and inthat Todd revealed Carlos
offered him and Christina weedwhen they moved in, so sort of
solidifying this idea thatCarlos and Christina were
smoking weed together.
Todd explained his changingstatements as a result of shock
from discovering Christina'sbody.
Like Carlos and Christina'sex-boyfriend, todd also has a
(32:05):
history of violence againstwomen.
In 1989, todd knocked themother of his four-month-old son
to the floor, struck herrepeatedly in the face, kneaded
her in the ribs and choked her.
He pled guilty to simpleassault and paid $100 fine.
In 1991, he assaulted her again.
Those charges were dismissed.
In 1993, he faced more assaultcharges after he threw a glass
(32:29):
of milk in his own mother's face, tossed her to the ground and
kicked her repeatedly.
Those charges were alsodismissed.
Todd's last assault charge wasin 1995 when he threatened
another man with a knife duringa fight.
It's one of several drunkimbrals that he ended up in.
Todd's most serious sentencing,probation and really short
(32:49):
prison stints came from hisnumerous DUI offenses throughout
the years, not for theseassaults.
The most obvious suspect,though, of course, was
Christina's volatileex-boyfriend, jacob Crossan, and
Carlos's primary defense tacticwas to implicate him in
Christina's murder.
Remember, christina moved toher apartment to escape Jacob's
violence.
He threatened Christina whenshe moved out, and then he
(33:12):
tracked her down and confrontedher at her new residence.
Remember, just a couple monthsbefore that summer he cut her
throat and that's how she died.
A co-worker from theconvenience store where she
worked a shift on the Sunday shedied just hours before her
murder testified that Jacobvisited Christina at work that
day.
The defense called multiplewitnesses to testify about
(33:32):
Jacob's severe and prolongedabuse of Christina over about
four years, from age 16 right upuntil the days before her
murder.
One witness, christina's formersupervisor, sandy Smith.
She actually called Carlos'sdefense attorney with
information after reading earlytrial coverage.
Police never interviewed herand she was surprised that
Jacob's abuse wasn't beingmentioned at all.
(33:55):
At least two witnessestestified that Jacob threatened
Christina's life.
While Carlos admitted that heregretted some of his actions,
his attorney emphasized that,quote he was the last in a long
line of people to fail her.
After two weeks of trialproceedings and six hours of
jury deliberation, carlosRobinson was found guilty of
first-degree murder.
He was given a mandatorysentence of life in prison
(34:17):
without parole, and he was alsorequired to pay $150,000 to
Christina Sonobane's estate and$2,000 to the crime victim's
assistance program.
Carlos insisted that quote hedid not commit this crime.
I know it, my family knows it.
Part of me knows that.
The Sonobane family knows I didnot do it.
Now I will say that they have,on the record, said you know the
(34:38):
right guys in jail for this.
He added that justice for mewill be finding the real person
who committed this ungodly crime.
Public reaction to the verdictincluded criticism of the Cedar
Rapids Police Department.
One resident wrote to the paperto say they were appalled and
frightened by the briefinvestigation and lack of
concrete evidence that resultedin a life sentence.
(34:59):
Quote shame on the policedepartment to leave so many
stones unturned.
Whether Carlos Robinson isguilty or not, the investigation
failed this community deeplyhas the jury never heard of the
concept of reasonable doubt.
In his first appeal, carlosargued that all the evidence and
statements obtained during hispolice interrogation should not
be admissible and that the trialjudge aired by overruling his
(35:22):
motion to suppress it.
By their own admission,officers were already convinced
of Carlos's guilt and it seemslike you know maybe I don't I
don't know that unlawful is theright word, but they use some
dicey tactics to secure hisarrest.
In denying Carlos's appeal, thecourt had to weigh whether
quote police deception mighthave risen to the level of a due
process violation.
(35:43):
They said it didn't.
Their opinion was that Carlosis changing narrative to explain
what they called largelycircumstantial evidence against
him, as it emerged was a clearindicator of his guilt,
regardless of what methods theinvestigators used.
In more recent years, carlos hasappealed for additional
forensic testing on specificpieces of evidence because he
(36:03):
believes the results couldidentify what he calls
Christina's real killer.
One of the prosecution's keyarguments to the jury was that
there was no evidence of anyonein that apartment other than
Carlos and Christina.
Carlos says there are itemsfrom her apartment and storage
that were never tested for DNAbecause it would lead to a
suspect other than him.
I would say that theprosecutors only partially
(36:24):
correct, because the only crimescene evidence that was matched
to a suspect was matched toCarlos.
Police collected dozens ofpersonal items from Christina's
apartment, including knives,scissors, bedding and drug
paraphernalia, along withseveral pieces of forensic
evidence in her autopsy and thecrime scene that have never been
identified.
That includes hair and fibersfrom Christina's calf and inner
(36:47):
thigh.
They were not a match to Carlosor his clothing and their
source has never been tested.
We've never gone any furtherthan to just say it's not from
Carlos.
Cedar Rapids Police defendedtheir decision not to test
certain pieces of evidencebecause quote the footprints
were more important, and not thefibers and hairs on her body,
on her body, not that othersperm sample, not you know if
(37:10):
she was doing drugs with someonein the apartment before it
happened.
Not the knives or scissors thatcould have been the murder
weapons cleaned up.
None of it, none of it.
The court agrees that not onlywould it be too costly to test
each piece of evidence now, butIowa State law won't allow
Carlos to request DNA analysisbecause DNA convicted him of a
crime.
Further, if any of the evidencewas tested and matched to
(37:33):
someone other than Carlos, thecourt says that's not enough to
overturn his guilty verdict.
He's still guilty of the crime.
It is what it is Now.
In a separate appeal, carlosasked the state to compare the
minor contributor of the secondsperm sample recovered during
her autopsy to someone hesuspects is Christina's killer.
The state has only tested itagainst Todd Hale and Jacob
(37:54):
Croson and neither were a match.
Carlos' request was denied,with the court stating that
Carlos is the only person whosuspects anyone else of killing
Christina.
Christina Sona Bain's familyagain, they believe the right
man was convicted of her murder,and her older sister, Catherine
, wants the public to know thatChristina was quote an
intelligent, strong-minded andpassionate young woman, not a
(38:17):
misguided and naive girl.
She felt that, based on trialcoverage, many people believed
Christina was a promiscuous druguser, but quote, people failed
to see she was a young, lonelywoman.
She craved acceptance, love andcompanionship and was fooled by
a monster with a friendly face.
Christina's son, corbin, movedin with his father, jacob Croson
(38:37):
, after the trial, but heremained close with his maternal
grandparents and spent a lot oftime in their home too, and
despite his past troubles otherthan a DUI in 2002, jacob has
remained off law enforcement'sradar, and the same goes for
Todd Hale, the other suspect.
His last charges stemmed from a2011 DUI.
Like most families in theirposition, the Sona Bains
(38:58):
recognize that justice willnever replace the person they
lost.
On the third anniversary of hermurder Christina's younger
sister, angelina, who was onlylike nine years old when
Christina was killed shesubmitted a memorial to the
local paper, summing up theemotions her family continues to
process.
It's been year three and no onecould see how much your death
affected me and my family.
(39:19):
We've been through so much pain, the happiness we could never
regain as we sit here and askGod why we sit here and cry,
letting time pass us by so manymemories to cherish, and those
will never perish.
For all three years you've beenmy angel from above, the one
that I'll always love.
For all my life you've beensuch a wonderful sister, mother
and daughter, and for all ofeternity you will always last in
(39:41):
our hearts.
So this is one where I don'twant to cause a ruckus saying
that the police got the wrongguy.
I don't necessarily think theydid, carlos' explanation of the
evidence is suspicious.
The fact that there is so muchevidence is suspicious, but I
cannot get over the idea thather ex-boyfriend, her violent
ex-boyfriend, cut her throat afew months before this happened.
(40:03):
The older she was, dead meatbecause she moved out, had
already found her new place andif we believe everything that
Carlos said is true, it'spossible that you know he, you
know, let's say, the knocks atthe door when they were, if they
were having consensual sex, ifthat was Jacob, and he comes in
and confronts Christina you know, now you're sleeping with
(40:24):
someone else, and then the nextthing he does is kill her.
I don't know it's.
I think.
For me the disappointment isthat the police, in my opinion,
did not investigate thisthoroughly enough to be able to
conclusively say that wedefinitely have the right person
, no question, and that'sdisappointing.
Speaker 2 (40:40):
I would say they probably could have saved
themselves some criticism bymaking sure you had a videotape
transcript of the interrogation.
You had that signeddocumentation of the Miranda
rights even from the get-go Like, hey, I'm inviting you down
here, we don't have all the databack yet, all the testing back,
but hey, I need to let you knowyour rights and go from that
(41:02):
point on.
I think that could have savedsome criticism of the police
department.
I also think you should havehad a toxicology report done on
Christina.
I get it.
Maybe there wasn't enough blood,but there's other organs in the
body to see.
Maybe that could have giventhem something in terms of was
she did.
She smoke weed, perhaps?
What was the nano level of thatthe THC content in her blood?
(41:26):
I just think if they did alittle more it would take away
some of the questions andcriticism.
Not that they don't have theright guy.
I mean, if you can give acriminal discourse life tip, if
you discover somebody in aprecarious situation because
you've gone into their apartment, whether they're unconscious or
dead, call the police rightaway, and it's better to have to
(41:46):
deal with the fact that youcheated on your spouse than to
be put away for life for murderif you didn't commit it.
Because if Carlos is innocent,then he really jammed himself up
by not calling the policebecause you were worried about
your relationship with yourgirlfriend.
Well, there's a dead body hereand a young boy, and I mean
(42:07):
there are a lot of questions.
Don't get me wrong.
I think there are three viablesuspects in this.
I would imagine he still hashis federal appeals, even though
the state court seems to haveknocked down everything.
He can now go to the federallevel with his appeals.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
Let me see here His last appeal was in 2021.
And that was the DNA sample,the minor contributor that he
wanted tested.
Speaker 2 (42:31):
Now can somebody else the heat can't because he's a
prisoner.
But can somebody else say,let's say, an innocent project
decides to take on his case.
Could they petition to havethose samples tested?
Speaker 1 (42:44):
I think that's possible.
I think there could be a pushfor at least some of the other
evidence of the crime scene,especially because and this is
key the jury's decision is whatthe court keeps coming back to.
This is not enough to overturnwhat the jury decided, however.
The prosecutor hammered home tothe jury in opening and closing
arguments.
There's no evidence of anyoneother than Carlos in this
(43:05):
apartment.
So if there is evidence of that, in my mind that's the lynchpin
.
Speaker 2 (43:11):
Even Hale who was there who helped her move in?
How is there no evidence hecrawled through the window, at
least once we know of?
How is there no evidence thathe was in the apartment?
Maybe eliminated, but I meanjust there should be evidence
that he was there and handlingthe furniture.
Speaker 1 (43:28):
And this is the other thing too.
You have all these people inthe community saying, oh, this
is not really the Carlos we knowhe was so friendly.
He was also beating up his wifeand kids.
He's not everything you thoughthe was.
So I don't think that he's apurely innocent guy.
I do think it's possible thathe did this.
There was a YouTube comment onthe forensic files video where
someone said she escaped fromone monster only to end up
(43:51):
moving right next door toanother one.
I do think it's possible thatthey definitely got the right
guy.
It's just so disappointing tosee the lack of due diligence.
It's important to go throughthe steps.
Speaker 2 (44:01):
Yes, again, they could probably do with a lot
less criticism or questioning.
They may have the correct manserving time for her murder.
Her family believes that, sothe jury believed that.
But the questions lingerbecause why didn't you take the
time to give them, as Mirandawrites, right away?
Why didn't you take the time toaudio record or video record
(44:22):
the entire interrogation?
Speaker 1 (44:24):
Check the ex-boyfriend a little bit harder
.
The one that said he wanted tokill her, the one that almost
did shot her in the face RightCheck that guy Really nailed
down his alibi that there reallywould be no in the time frame
that, yeah, he could have goneover there.
Speaker 2 (44:38):
In terms of questioning the neighbors about
seeing the red car, they saw itthere a few times.
Did they see it there thatnight?
I get it Going through thosemotions and steps.
Speaker 1 (44:47):
But for the Cedar Rapids Police Department they
did do a wonderful job withMichelle Martinko.
They did and this is notnecessarily indicative of their
entire department and hopefullyfrom this experience maybe they
learned a little bit too.
You know, the next time theyhad a case they really Make sure
you get the Miranda right sign.
Let's take that shirt in.
I know the light said there wasno blood, but let's just take
it.
Speaker 2 (45:07):
Well, if you want to learn more about today's case,
head over to our website,criminaldiscoursepodcastcom.
There you'll find detailed shownotes that Wendy put together
and all the resources she usedto bring you this episode, and
we invite you to join thediscourse and let us know your
thoughts on today's case or anyother case.
Do you have questions?
Did you think if they just dida little more and checked a few
(45:27):
more boxes, the Cedar RapidsPolice wouldn't have the
criticism or questions that theydo?
Let us know your thoughts.
Did they get the right guy?
Is Carlos, or do you believe,hey, there is possibly other
viable suspects?
Or reach out anytime and tellus about yourself or suggest a
new case for us to cover.
And if you've enjoyed thisepisode, don't forget to
subscribe on whatever platformyou're listening to us on.
(45:49):
Leave us a five-star review,tell a friend so they can join
the discourse too.
And you can also share theseepisodes.
I know on Apple Podcasts andSpotify, hit the three little
dots.
That'll bring up a menu and itsays share.
You can share it and send itdirectly to them.
So, as always, if you seesomething, know something, say
something.
Like you go into someone'sapartment and find them
(46:12):
unconscious against a bathtuband you know there's liquid on
the floor, but you don't quiteknow what it is.
But he knew when he got back tohis apartment because he had
blood on him.
Call the police, report it.
Just do it.
Just do it.
Save yourself a headache, saveany questioning, because,
honestly, what would thenarrative have been?
Well, if he did this, why wouldhe call the police and report?
Speaker 1 (46:33):
this right?
Why would he admit to cheatingon his wife, Right Wife or
girlfriend?
They said common law wife.
They'd been together for 11years.
Speaker 2 (46:41):
Would have saved him so much trouble, but you might
have that missing piece of thepuzzle it would take to solve a
crime.
So before we go, remember wewant you to stay safe out there,
we need to be kind to oneanother and we need to watch out
for one another.
So until next time, guys.
Bye, thank you.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
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