Anatomy of Murder - If the Shoe Fits - Part 1 (Suzanne Nauman)

Episode Date: November 24, 2021

A troubled 17-year old girl was strangled with a shoelace. Was her killer a stranger or an obsessive boyfriend who threatened violence against her? Investigators will spend 22 years trying to find that answer.For episode information and photos, please visit https://anatomyofmurder.com/. Can’t get enough AoM? Find us on social media!Instagram: @aom_podcast | @audiochuckTwitter: @AOM_podcast | @audiochuckFacebook: /listenAOMpod | /audiochuckllc

Any person, any human being, whether you're a police officer or not, if you view the scene as it was and the sheer violence that was perpetrated against her, is more than enough motivation to work your hardest to bring it to a resolution. I'm Scott Weinberger, investigative journalist and former deputy sheriff. I'm Anastasia Nicolazzi, former New York City homicide prosecutor and host of Investigation Discovery's True Conviction. And this is Anatomy of Murder. today's story can only be described as devastatingly tragic on multiple levels we often talk about the dedication of members of law enforcement or the judicial system about really solving cases but in today's case you will hear it go we believe to another level and because of the span of time and the different components, the many components involved, we spoke to two people involved in the case. My name is Daniel J. Kane.

I arrived in the detective squad in 2011. The lieutenant, who's now the police chief here in Schenectady, arrived in the detective squad approximately four months before I did. Our story starts off in 2011 in Schenectady, New York, where the police department had just begun a new effort into re-looking at unsolved homicides in the city. Immediately upon coming on board, it was the lieutenant who felt that we could put a bigger emphasis

on cold cases than what they were receiving. Helping in that initiative was Detective Sergeant Dan Cain, who had just transferred from road patrol, ready to take on a really big challenge. Sergeant Cain began digging into cold cases in 2011, and one of the cases he started to look at, the victim's name was Eddie Dan. It was a homicide here in the city. He was actually

a door-to-door salesman for Kirby Vacuums, which I found very interesting because, you know, as a kid, I don't even remember that. The crux of it was it was a home invasion robbery that ended with Eddie Dan's life. Mr. Dan was brutally beaten and from head to almost midsection was duct taped basically from the top of his head right down to his chest area. His hands were tied behind his back. His feet were tied with duct tape as well. But we're not actually talking about that case today, but another homicide that wasn't even on any of their radar. We were going to contact retired detectives and re-interview them, if you will, pick their brain. One of the detectives Sergeant Cain would ask for information was a retired detective, Roy Edwardson. When we were done discussing the case that he had actually come in to talk about,

he had asked me if we could speak in private outside in the police department parking lot. And at the end of the day, he pulls Sergeant Kane aside and says, hey, while I have you, here's something else I really need to talk about. And he basically has his own set of files on a completely different case. And he began to tell me about the Nauman case. This was the type of case that affected him very deeply. It was a case that he carried with him in retirement. It was one of those cases where he just couldn't stop thinking about it. He couldn't let it go. And by the end of that conversation, he basically said, he made me promise him,

one police officer to another, that I would look into this case. You know, I can really relate, Anastasia, to that story. It's just more proof that when case detectives retire, and it's the unsolved cases that keep them up, still having to think about the victims, still having a desire to bring them justice, and even going to the point of requesting another detective look at his files. I mean, that shows incredible dedication. I've never met former Detective Edwardson, but I already think that I would like him. I mean, there's just something about him so wanting to talk to Sergeant Kane. And I almost thought it was kind of funny that he's like, okay, you want to talk

about one case? I'm more than happy to come in. But what I even more want to talk to you about was his own agenda. And it's just this promise that, hey, this is a case that I couldn't let go. And now I don't want you to let it go either. It became very, very clear to me in the course of our conversation how passionate he was about this case. He actually had his own little case file that he brought with him. The fact that Roy kept those files shows the victim in this investigation remained front and center on his mind. Just like no two painters or artists are the same or alike, detectives have their own methods of walking through an investigation. And of course,

while you do have to check all the boxes off, each investigator really knows what they're good at. Their file or their case Bible really becomes a true reflection of their work. And that's the thing too, you know, all of us in this line of work, we bring our work home with us literally sometimes. You know, I have a file cabinet that is all my old summations and various things, not original copies of police reports they need to say at the office. And I'm sure the same as detectives too. They take copies of things that are meaningful to them. And here's something else. You haven't heard a word yet about Suzanne Nauman or her case,

but the fact that this is the one that stayed with that particular detective tells you it is going to be something that will likely stay with you all. So what I did immediately was went to the division secretary and together we went downstairs into the police department archives and I pulled the Suzanne Norman case out of the archives. Sergeant Kane would gather up all his files, spread them out over a table and begin to review crime scene documents, medical examiner reports, witness interviews. So as he poured over the papers that sat in that box for all those years, he quickly learned that she had been killed in 1995. And up until that point, her case had gone unsolved for 16 years. And it became abundantly clear that

it was absolutely a case that was worthy of our best effort. The crime scene photos was enough motivation for me to bring this case forward, present it to the lieutenant, and shortly after that, the investigation began. So investigators go through the case starting at the beginning, and that's where our second guest comes in. My name is Robert Carney. I'm the Schenectady County District Attorney, and I have been the District Attorney of this county since January of 1990. And often DAs and prosecutors do go to crime scenes after police respond.

DA Robert Carney would go to all homicide cases himself. I heard about it the day that it happened, and I was there. I'm probably one of the last people from law enforcement that was still employed that was at the scene that day. In May of 1995, Suzanne Nauman's body was found near a golf course in Schenectady. And she laid there in dirt. Her body was discovered, I think, by golf course personnel early that morning. There was a dirt parking strip, and then there was a wooded area.

And on the other side of the wooded area was the side of the driving range. And that's where she was found, right next to the wooded area. And it didn't take long before police were called, and what they saw there is the type of thing that no one was out there will ever forget. And it was pretty clear that there was signs of a struggle in the wooded area and where she was found. She was lying on her back. Her body was mostly exposed. There were bite marks on her breast. And I believe that her pants and underwear had been pulled off of one leg and were still wrapped around the other leg. But that was the

body of a young girl, 17 years old, left lying on her back. Just think about the terror as debris is stuffed into her mouth. It also tells you that she must have been tough because there were signs of a struggle. And there were also signs of attempted, at least, sexual assault that she fought. And she fought hard, but she lost. Nearby the body, there was a man's sneaker, size eight and a half. And the sneaker was missing a lace. When the shoelace was later removed from her body, it was compared with the sneaker.

And the discolorations in the shoelace matched the eyelets of the sneaker. You know, when we talk about some of the cool things about evidence and how police figure things out, this to me was something that struck me right away, was that they were able to actually match that shoelace to the sneaker because they could match the discoloration on the shoelace itself, that it matched exactly to the various eyelets, you know, the things that you put one lace into the other in a shoe. And that is one of those things that once it was documented and photographed, that is preserved for all time. And while basic in its nature, it's the exact

type of thing in police work that just may make a very big bit of difference in the end. So it's pretty clear that that shoelace came from that sneaker, which was then discarded at the scene. We found a sneaker print, which was close to where a car would have been parked and somebody would have walked in the direction of the woods. And the sneaker print was the same size and the same tread pattern as the discarded sneaker at the scene. The victim was lying on her back and there was debris stuffed in her mouth, including leaves and sticks. So it appeared that he was trying to silence her, a sort of disorganized homicide that didn't appear to have the hallmarks of any planning, but that it did seem to occur there. Based on her being partially clothed as well and the bite marks to the breast,

it was clear that this was a homicide which was sexual in nature. And then you go to the fact of strangulation. You know, we've said this in other cases. Strangulation is a very personal crime. In some cases, it's determined that the victim and the killer normally are only inches apart from each other when the murder occurs. She's not strangled with the rope. She is strangled with a shoelace. Take any shoelace out of any sneaker you have and pull it, and that is how much there was available to the killer to literally wrap around her neck and snuff out her life.

Let's back up a second and tell you more about Suzanne. She was a teenager with a difficult past, and she did not have many people looking out for her. Suzanne Nauman was a young woman who, from the time she was a girl, was victimized. Both of her parents had issues with substance misuse, and at a very young age, Suzanne was forced into sex work by someone she should have been able to trust. And just a quick warning, this next detail is disturbing. Her father, an investigation revealed that he had prostituted his daughter at a young age for his own drug habit when she was maybe six or seven years old.

And that after he died, she continued in her mother's care, if you can call it that. But her mother was also a crack addict and was a prostitute. And then the two of them became addicted together and engaged in acts of prostitution together. When I heard that part of that beginning, if you will, of Suzanne's life, she had my heart right there.

It is always one of those things that I just, you cannot understand or wrap your head around. You know, as a prosecutor, I've seen, unfortunately, just that. There's two young women I'm thinking of. And the thing that I remember about them both, which I somehow also picture with Suzanne, is that they were tough, really tough as a result, because they had to be.

They had no choice, which to me makes them all the more vulnerable. And that innocence was ripped from them. And I just think as we talk through this case, let's continue to remember that because it will be a factor in some of the various next steps of her life. A 17-year-old girl should be thinking about graduating high school. A 17-year-old girl should be thinking about graduating high school. A 17-year-old girl should be thinking about where she may want to go to college or that first job that will shape her future.

Instead, for Suzanne, this appeared like a living hell. And it doesn't just affect us this way. It clearly affected Detective Edwardson the same way, too. I think it was the fact that Suzanne Nauman was a 17-year-old kid and he was a parent himself, just felt very strongly that what happened to her was terrible and should never have happened. He was hoping at some point after the case was solved that he wanted to buy a headstone to put on her grave. This is why we think we should highlight these cases. This type of case think we should highlight these cases.

This type of case, while often talked about in the media, is not given enough attention or apathy towards the victim because they may have been involved in drugs or they may have been sex workers. But that's not our position here. You often hear from the media that someone who may be on the fringe of society or marginalized or had a more difficult life and may be walking down a difficult path isn't cared about by police or prosecutors or really anyone at all.

And this case is a great example and a prime example to show that that just isn't true. That the Suzanne Naumanns of the world, which unfortunately there are many, are cared about too. I've prided myself and my office as one that cares deeply about homicides. There's nothing more destructive of the community than the death of somebody from that community, regardless of their walk of life or how they comported themselves or what people think of them subjectively as a human being. Investigators begin with that all-important timeline. What were the events that led up to Suzanne Nauman being at that golf course? Why was she there? How did she get there? And who was she with?

You know, her mother was with her that night. They were turning tricks and doing drugs together. She was not as interested in what happened to her daughter as one would think a mother would be. Knowing Suzanne was in the line of work only brings the fact that she may have been involved in several random encounters with people. And there's also been plenty of cases where sex workers are specifically targeted because the thought is they're doing something illegal, and it may be less likely that society will care about them. So is Suzanne's killer going to be a stranger or someone she knew?

Police quickly zero in on someone, and it is someone that was actually with her that night. Not who you might expect, because that person was her boyfriend. Police do determine early on who Suzanne was with hours before she was murdered. That person would turn out to be her boyfriend, Keith Gavreau. He was with her that night before, and then she went off on her own.

He couldn't find her. When he was questioned by police, he admitted he was with her on the night she died, but he was sure she was alive when he left her. And he also said she was picked up by another man. How common is a story like this? And I say that because everyone out there can probably tick off some in the head. You know, girl dies, boyfriend or husband's the last person to see her, and then they end up being the person that did it.

I mean, just think about cases lately that you've heard and I've talked about in the last years. The obvious, the Chris Watts. I even think about one of the more recent AOM episodes of Alicia McQueen. And we could go on and on. You know, it is unfortunately the story that you hear time and again that the boyfriend or the loved one is the person that did it. He told police that he was walking with her when a car pulled over and picked her up with his consent to perform some act of prostitution. He described the car, general description of the driver, and that it headed up generally in a direction which could have taken her to the

golf course. But he was adamant that that was the last time he saw her. But most people didn't believe that he was being truthful about that. So let's look more closely at Keith Gavreau and what if any motive he may have had if he was the one that killed her. He was angry that she was possibly turning tricks with other men and that she wasn't there to provide him with drugs because their usual modus operandi would be that she would prostitute herself, get money, and the two of them would use the money to buy drugs. So he told a couple of people that he was furious with her. He showed one of them a knife that he had, where he said he was going to kill anybody who was with her.

And he told another person that he was going to hurt her when he found her. That statement was curious to me because the fact that he depended on her work as a sex worker to feed his high, but on the other hand, he was upset that she was with another man, the statement makes no sense to me. But it does make sense that he would be on the top of my suspect list. And the thing that I come down to is this. It's like, okay, she is the, you know, I hate to say the breadwinner, if you will, of the couple, but she was. But when emotions get involved, unfortunately, too often, we end up with disaster.

And he was angry at that moment. And maybe it wasn't because she had gone off with somebody else, and maybe she hadn't come back quickly enough to help feed his high. But regardless, the last statements that he made to other people was that when he saw her again, he was going to hurt her. Investigators would get witness statements to talk about the couple. But getting a witness to tell you a story on the street is one thing. Getting them to repeat that story to a potential grand jury, or even if you go to trial, is not as easy as it sounds.

In fact, it is often very difficult. In the urban environment, it just appears to be a street code, if you will, that you don't talk to the police. We've all heard it, you know, that saying on the streets about snitches get stitches. And here's the thing about this particular investigation, you know, they did get a fair degree of cooperation from other people that were friends with Suzanne and that knew her. However, many of those people, their recollection was unfortunately fueled at least in part by their own narcotics misuse. So those recollections were hazy. They were inconsistent. And that ultimately really puts at least major dents in any investigation and was proving problematic in this one indeed.

We've had several cases in my office over the years of people engaged in sex work who were assaulted and viciously beaten. And we've had some success with taking those cases to trial. We realize there's techniques in dealing with them to get past that fear or thought that nobody's going to believe me, so why should I even bother? There was definitely questions about the fact that was Keith Gavro responsible for the murder of Suzanne Nauman? And for me, Anastasia, I'd be questioning why commit a murder in such a public place, especially when the body was left to be discovered,

and that sex was the motivation for this murder based on the way her body was left and the bite marks on her breasts. With someone that you're already in a relationship with, the MO does not fit. I could not agree more. Because again, of course, there can be sexual assault or attempted sexual assault between partners.

And people do crazy things when they are misusing narcotics or just when anger gets in play. But this, it just doesn't fit. You don't normally have such a vivid sexual assault scene as we have here. And then it ends up being a intimate partner homicide. It usually goes to someone who is there for the power play of the sexual assault attack. And that most often is not going to be a loved one or someone intertangled in an interpersonal relationship. They were reconstructing her activities of the night before. In just reconstructing her movements, they were all revolved around prostitution and drug use and avoidance of him that night.

I think the problem in this case is, even though these people were talked to pretty quickly after the incident, because they were all using drugs, their recollections of the details of the night were hazy or inconsistent. It was hard to get one consistent story from all of the eyewitnesses. Let's sidestep for a moment and lay the groundwork for the picture of where Schenectady and the drug scene was back then at the time. Schenectady is an old city.

It was settled in the mid-1600s, and at that point it was the furthest west outpost of civilization. In the late 80s, early 90s, middle 90s, Schenectady is a blue-collar city, and at the time, it was gripped with the crack cocaine epidemic that was sweeping the nation, which led to an uptick in violence and crime within the confines of the city. Now, I can tell you firsthand, I patrolled the streets of a very similar city in the 80s, and much of my uniform work involved not only traditional calls for service, but trying to be proactive against street-level drug dealing, which was primarily crack cocaine. My district would see several homicides relating to crack cocaine, whether it

was somebody coming into the area to buy crack cocaine on the street, being robbed, or drug dealers coming in to rip off other drug dealers, resulting in multiple shootouts during my tenure. And that definitely feeds into the difficulty that investigators had in investigating this case. So what they had left to do right now is this. They had to see if they could rule Keith Gavreau in or out. So if they could only get so far with the witnesses, where else could they go? And the obvious answer, even though it was the early days, was DNA. And everything really then circled back to the bite marks. On the day her body was discovered, investigators knew the bite marks would be key evidence.

In fact, in a very unusual move, members of the forensic lab themselves came out to process the bite marks and collected DNA, a job normally done by crime scene investigators. Each member of the scene felt like the collection would be key, and that's why this very forward-leaning move was made. We were pretty excited that we thought that that might produce a lead. You have to remember these were the early days of DNA, and DNA worked best when you had bodily fluids like blood or semen at a crime scene. Saliva was a little iffy back then,

but we didn't get anything on the DNA, unfortunately. No DNA, but they still have the evidence of the bite marks themselves. I know that investigators showed the bite mark photos and an impression of Keith Gavro's teeth to a forensic odontologist who was affiliated with the state police and is very experienced in this work. So let's talk about bite marks for a second because it is a really neat part of investigation. You know, you hear it and you automatically perk up because you want to hear more. But here's something else about it is that there is a lot of question marks about

this type of science itself. You know, I've certainly handled lots of cases with other assistants that we've seen it and we've really seen it at times become pivotal only to prove later problematic. And here's why. There is an element of subjectivity with this type of work. You know, you have examiners looking and making conclusions based on what they see in their perception, at least in part. He looked at it and his conclusion was that it was inconclusive. He couldn't rule them out. He couldn't rule them in. They showed the bite mark to another local Schenectady dentist who was of the opinion that the bite mark was Gavro's. You know, having a local dentist give you his opinion that you're on the right path, only being backed up by the opposite opinion of obviously a professional in the forensic line of work, that is tossing up both ways for me. But I clearly believe that the person who worked on the state police level had done several cases prior to this, so science. And that is why it has proven to be very difficult to use in the courtroom and problematic when we

are asked to rely on bite wound evidence as our markers of finding killers. But there's one more detail you're about to learn about, Gavro, and that's the murder of another person. So let's fast forward to five months later, because here's where things really get interesting. In October of 1995, a man named Kenneth Martin was murdered. He had suffered multiple blows to the back of his head, and police quickly found and arrested the person responsible for that homicide. And that person was Keith Gavreau. Gavreau was involved in the death of another individual later. Now, let's be clear, these two cases are unrelated. But if guilty, he shows he's capable of murder.

I mean, of course, any time that you hear that someone has taken a life before, it makes you turn your head more quickly in their direction. But, you know, there's a reason that that evidence is not normally admissible in court. Because you've done something, albeit horrible before, doesn't make you guilty of the next one in the line. But it's certainly something investigators were going to look at and make them look even more closely at Keith Gavreau and more suspect of everything he said.

So at the moment, Gavreau was in jail for a separate murder, and police were still looking at him as the prime suspect in Suzanne's murder. But it's pretty unclear whether he did it or not. So you need a lot more to arrest somebody and charge them with murder. And here's something else about the two as I think more about it. In the one case,

there is blows to the back of the head. It's brutal, but it's pretty straightforward. Yet, when you look at Suzanne, there is definitely that power, the attempted sexual assault, at least at play. It's a very different type of murder. So while one person could be responsible for both, just looking at the two crimes themselves, to me, that makes me leaning to that it's much more unlikely. While Gavreau was in jail awaiting trial, apparently there is an interesting conversation he has with a fellow inmate.

There were a couple of people that came forward from the jail environment claiming that Gabriel had confessed to them having murdered Suzanne Nauman. Now let's just talk about jailhouse confessions for a moment. I've certainly seen my share of them. Most of them I've chosen not to use and many of them I haven't believed, but I do think that sometimes that they can be credible and sometimes usable, but you have to be really careful when using them. And any prosecutor will tell you this. So often there is the obvious, well, is it self-serving? Does the person who was incarcerated just want to help themselves? There's the obvious credibility factor that this is coming

from someone that you know is sitting in jail having been convicted of a crime. So you have to be extremely wary. I mean, you took all the words from me, Anna Seager. Absolutely, I agree. You know, we've done several stories where this critical information allegedly comes from a jailhouse informant. And, you know, sometimes the information is accurate, but most times it's total fabrication. It's unfortunate to the system that we work through that that actually has to enter into a scenario of an investigation when it could be just for the benefit of the person telling the story. I wasn't really impressed with that evidence and he ended up being convicted of the manslaughter of Kenneth Martin, he pled guilty and was sentenced to three to nine years.

After people had come forward from prison saying that Keith Gavro had confessed to the crime, well, the police placed him under arrest for Suzanne's murder. And that word that I used, police, is where I see the next tug of war here. Because normally in most jurisdictions, that is going to be coming from the district attorney's office, not the police. Obviously, they work hand in hand, but it's the district attorney who's going to normally authorize the arrest.

We usually work together. That didn't happen in this case. Clearly, there's a divide building here, right? You have the investigators who believe they have more than enough evidence to place him under arrest. But the district attorney wasn't following that same path. He really still felt there was much more work to be done. I think it was a situation where there was an outgoing chief that wanted to close out open homicide. So I was told about it after the fact.

So that was a little unusual. And I could just imagine that conversation, Anastasia, in his office of them wanting to push this thing forward. Every homicide prosecutor knows that conversation in and out. So does every homicide detective, because we have had them and we have battled, and that is those that we are closest to and trust the most. Because we sometimes see things differently. And police are looking at it for probable cause to arrest.

They obviously want to get someone who has committed such a heinous crime off the street as quickly as possible. And the prosecutor wants that too. But we also know that our standard in the courtroom is different. It is proof beyond the reasonable doubt. And we know that we normally only get one shot at that. And in this case, there was definitely that difference of opinion, that they just weren't at least there yet. And if you're listing out the evidence against Gavreau, you're going to be talking about what investigators believe they had. They had a leading theory that was heavily influenced by the bite marks. And two other important factors, eyewitness interviews that not only put Gavreau with Suzanne hours before she was murdered, but he allegedly

told witnesses that he wanted to harm the person that she was with. And they felt that was strong evidence, strong circumstantial evidence, that he had a reason to kill Suzanne. There was evidence that pointed to him circumstantially as the person with a motive to do something, an opportunity to do something, the last person seen with him. So I get that. But just on the surface there, that was not enough to get over the finish line for this district attorney. We had this arrest, this open arrest for the murder of Suzanne Nauman, and I elected not to indict him on that. D.A. Carney saw it a bit differently. While he saw those pieces going in one direction, he certainly thought holes that could be poked

into all of them, that at least some of it was subjective, or he was even suspect about what some of these people had said. So basically, you had a combination of conflicting white mark evidence, you had these jailhouse confessions, and then you had the circumstantial evidence of his desire to hurt her and anybody that was with her that night. But there was something else that he just couldn't get past, and that was a particular piece of evidence that was found at the crime scene. The main piece of evidence that caused me to hesitate to prosecute him was the sneaker evidence. As anxious as investigators were to move this to the trial phase, the district attorney was traveling on a different path, and that path was to drop charges against Keith Gavreau.

And that move caused a huge rift between prosecutors and police. I had good relationships with the investigators that worked in this case. I had a somewhat difficult relationship with the chief at the time, but we have an obligation to independently analyze the evidence, and we do that, even though we work closely with police. And I think that some of the police officers that worked the case had doubts, too, about Gavro. In the end, any homicide investigator sitting in the office of anybody whose prosecuting case realizes that it really is up to the prosecutor on that specific case to make the determination to move the case forward. So even though I may plead my case

to a prosecutor, understanding that I believe in the evidence and I really believe in my case, it really is out of our hands. The decision lies with the prosecutor. But in this case for D.A. Carney, it really came down to one piece of evidence. And that was the sneaker that we talked about earlier. You'll remember from earlier in the episode that detectives had found a sneaker at the crime scene. It's pretty clear that the killer was wearing that sneaker at the crime scene. It's pretty clear that the killer was wearing that sneaker and took the lace off and used it as a ligature to kill Suzanne, leaving the sneaker behind.

Well, that sneaker was a man sneaker, size 8 1⁄2. And the big problem for a case against Gavro is Gavro wore size 11. In the very same year that Suzanne Nauman was murdered, well across the country, a defense attorney would approach a jury in a very well-known murder trial telling them that if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. That was Johnny Cochran in the murder trial of OJ Simpson in September of 1995. In the Suzanne Nauman case, investigators would determine that Suzanne Nauman's boyfriend, Keith Gavreau, wore a size 11 shoe,

and that would not be a match for the sneaker found at the scene of the murder, which was size 8 1⁄2. And for a prosecutor, that comes down to two words, exculpatory evidence. And what exculpatory is, very basically, is that it's evidence favorable to the accused, or at least that may be favorable to the accused in a criminal trial that can exonerate someone or at least tend to negate, go against the guilt of that person. So that's something that obviously has to be turned over to the defense. But here it actually casts so much doubt because everything showed that the killer's path was the same size as the sneaker. And you know that Keith Gavro, while we can all fit our foot into, you know, a half a size here or there, we're talking about over two sizes that were different between his foot and this sneaker.

So of course, if that sneaker is the killer sneaker, it just couldn't be him. Any piece of evidence is just a lead. It's a piece of evidence. So if you had something like that, you'd consider it. But you consider it, but you'd consider it within the totality of all of the evidence in the case. But I also looked at the totality of the evidence, which I'm obligated to do ethically for Keith Gavro against him.

And the problem in the case was I couldn't get past the sneaker. And I remember one detective saying, well, he had a bunch of sneakers in his closet, different sizes. So, you know, he was haphazard. So he could have, you know, he could have worn that sneaker. And I said, really? A size 11 foot stuffed into a size eight and a half shoe? I don't think so. So if DA Robert Carney is sure it wasn't Keith Gavreau, then who? Who do they miss? And while you have already heard a lot, there is still so much more to come. There is another murder that you'll hear about in this case. In an incredible twist, they would learn that it would be the victim herself, Suzanne Nauman, who would leave a valuable clue, one that would lead investigators to her own killer.

Those answers in part two of our story next Wednesday. Anatomy of Murder is an AudioChuck original produced and created by Weinberger Media and Frasetti Media. Ashley Flowers and Sumit David are executive producers. This episode was researched and produced by Haley Lukasiewicz. So what do you think, Chuck? Do you approve?