Dateline NBC - Talking Dateline: Murder in Minot

Episode Date: May 7, 2025

Blayne Alexander and Josh Mankiewicz sit down to talk about Blayne’s episode "Murder in Minot.” When college student Anita Knutson was found fatally stabbed in her off-campus apartment, investigators struggled to find a killer due to the lack of physical evidence. Eventually investigators turned their attention to Anita’s former roommate, Nichole Rice, who stood trial and was acquitted of the crime. Blayne and Josh discuss their experiences reporting on acquittals and Blayne shares a podcast-exclusive clip of her interview with Anita’s sister on grief and moving on. Plus, they answer viewer and listener questions. If you have a question for Talking Dateline, send us an audio message on social @datelinenbc or leave us a voicemail at 212-413-5252.Listen to the full episode of “Murder in Minot” on Apple: https://apple.co/43gVGmKListen to the full episode on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5X2MzLrmE77HGB2wV2zMQO

Hi everybody, I'm Josh Mankiewicz and we are talking Dateline today with Blaine Alexander. Hi. Hello. So we're here to talk about Blaine's episode called Murder in Minot. Now, if you haven't seen it, it's the episode right below this one on your Dateline podcast feed. So go there, listen to it, stream it on Peacock, or go to your DVR and watch it because you record it every single week, which is what you ought to be doing, and then come back here.

Now to recap, college student Anita Knutson was found stabbed to death in her North Dakota apartment in 2007, and it took nearly 15 years for investigators to make an arrest in that murder. And then that turned out to be one of the first people they spoke with at the crime scene, which was Anita's roommate Nicole. Now she maintained her innocence and as you saw or heard in the episode, she was acquitted after a week long trial. So for this Talking Dayline, we have an extra clip for Blaine's interview,

really great interview I thought, with Anita's sister, Anna, and how she talks about that long fight for justice for her sister, which ultimately did not lead where the family wanted it to lead. So let's talk Dayline. Let's do it. Couple of things I loved about this episode. One,

like it wasn't clear until pretty close to the end, who police thought the guilty party was. A lot of times you have a pretty good idea earlier on. Uh, there were a lot of sort of equally rated suspects as you sort of tick them off through the investigation. And then of course, this great twist in which the person that gets arrested that everybody thinks did it, at least at that point, is acquitted.

So let's talk a little bit about that for starters. You know, this was an interesting story for me to do, Josh, because this was my first time doing an acquittal story for Dayline. Not like I have a whole heck of a lot of them under my belt, but it was a very different process almost throughout, I would say, starting with the family. Because typically, you know, when you sit down with families, you kind of have a, there's a, I hate to use the word closure because you don't bring the person back. But I mean- We hate that word, yeah.

Yeah. There's a period at the end of the sentence. And somebody almost always got convicted. I mean, you're talking about, this was your first acquittal. I mean, in 30 years here, I've done, I don't know, maybe 10. I mean, they just don't come along that often. It's rare, right? And in cases like this, because I mean, I think when you have a murder case, you take it all the way to the courtroom, typically by the time you get there, you're pretty certain if you're the prosecutor that you're going to get a conviction. That was obviously not the case here.

So it was a very different type of story to tell. And to your point about the suspects, there were a lot of them. And I think that that's what sowed a lot of seeds of doubt in the jury. When you heard from our juror, he was like, yeah, I was able to eliminate two of them and say they definitely didn't do it. But that still left him with several other people that he thought could have possibly done it. And you don't typically have that many suspects who kind of have to some degree equal weight and possibility of guilt. You know, prosecutors are not supposed to bring murder cases unless they're very certain

that they're going to get a conviction. You're not just allowed to try somebody because like, hey, maybe we'll get lucky and the jury will go along with us. Like the prosecutors don't do that. They tend to not go into the courtroom unless the deck is significantly stacked in their favor. And that clearly was not the case this time. There was not an overwhelming case against Nicole. There wasn't. I mean, it was a circumstantial case to begin with. There wasn't physical evidence.

You know, in a number of stories we do, they never find the murder weapon, right? Here the murder weapon was right on the bed, right next to Anita. But even that didn't give them any sort of DNA evidence, any sort of forensic evidence to lead them any closer to the killer. So there were all of these different things that fell through. The typical things that you think of as, this is what's going to be something that points to the eventual killer. None of those existed for investigators this time. Yeah. And you've got to believe that what? Nicole is so sophisticated that she could leave the victim's DNA on the knife, but wipe hers off.

She doesn't really strike me as that kind of killer. And that's the other question, right? Somebody wearing gloves, was it more planned than what prosecutors were kind of saying would have been more of an act of anger between two roommates if that were the case, you're not putting on gloves, you're not wiping off evidence. And so, yes, I think that that was a big hole, of course, when it came to the investigation, why it took so long for unrest to be made and then ultimately why there was an acquittal. So the motive is what? They weren't getting along as roommates, so she decided to kill her?

That's the prosecution's theory, yes. They said though that there were a number of things that were showing that it was getting increasingly tense between the two of them. You know, I've covered cases in which people who live in the same house, one of them ended up killing the other. And I will say that, I mean, look, every case is a little bit different. I'm not seeing the level of tension between the two roommates that gets you to murder. And also like, and then what? And then you don't have that roommate anymore. I mean, there's no financial gain here. There's no third party. They're not supposedly fighting over some boyfriend or girlfriend. Nobody got custody of the home afterwards. I mean, it feels thin kind of from the get-go.

What prosecutors would point to would be rage, right? That it was just one of those crimes of passion, a fit of rage. That's kind of what prosecutors walked in with. And if that's what it is, if it's second degree heat of passion, then where's her DNA on the knife? One of the things that came up in my last story, which was the widow of Woodland Hills, was something very common in stabbing homicides, which is that when you stab somebody else, you frequently get cut. There wasn't any of that in this one. There weren't two sets of blood on the knife.

There wasn't, there wasn't. And what was interesting, I mean, her stab wounds were obviously fatal, but they were minimal. She was stabbed twice. So it wasn't this kind of repeated in and out. It was two, two stab wounds. Two stab wounds also kind of fights the, you know, frenzy anger. I've had it with you theory, but you know. There was also a theory of maybe she was stabbed in her sleep, but you're absolutely right. I mean, the knife for everything that it could have represented in this investigation really yielded nothing.

You had a lot of access to the cops who investigated the case, who I thought were quite good. Tell me a little bit more about the ride along with David Goodman, who was the detective on this. I really love when we do the ride alongs. It's when you get out in the field and kind of get people more in their element that you really kind of get a sense of what they were thinking that day, what they were feeling that day. I also enjoyed it because it was at the time that I did the interview with him, that was my first trip to Minot, North Dakota. And so he was able to kind of just show me around. I mean, I got a sense of how

quickly he could get to the murder scene, right? Seeing the apartment itself. You know, one thing that he told me that I thought was interesting was that they were doing a lot of the canvassing, like knocking on the doors, talking to people. And a lot of folks just didn't really have much information about her or hadn't seen anything or heard anything. And so some of those things that kind of, you know, come in handy, I guess you could say if you're an investigator early on in the investigation. They didn't have a lot of that stuff. You know, in a lot of jurisdictions, bigger ones, you know, there are 15-year-old cold cases here in Los Angeles, where I am right now. But since the 15-year-old cold case and now there have been hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of other

murders. Some, a lot of them unsolved. You don't really have that in in in Minot. You don't have this huge backlog of of open cases. And so I think this was, I get the feeling that this was kind of always in the back of their head. It was in the front of their head. I mean, it was forefront in their mind. I mean, I really think that it was a combination of the death itself being so hard hitting for people there. Again, college students, that was the talk of my not say university. That was the talk of anyone in town. That was the talk of Butte nearby. I mean, the hometown where she was from. So everyone was talking about it. There was fear. There was also the very real, you know, question of who did this and

how could they have gotten away with this? I thought it was so telling when we heard from Clu once he became chief that they almost kind of put up this reminder of Anita Knudsen. I mean, they pulled out her binders, put her picture up, and people who were in the investigations division had to walk past that every day, just a reminder of, hey, this is still open. We need to do something about this. And then you had a family, a very diligent family. I mean, the billboards went up. They had this Facebook page that really gained a lot of traction, which was a big deal. And all those ribbons are still up. Yes. Like that's not happening in your big cities

Yeah, no, absolutely not. They're still there that faded photograph is still very much hanging and So yes It impacted the community in a way that to your point a lot of others don't a lot of other places don't have When we get back we'll have that clip of Blaine's interview with Anita's sister Anna and how she Describes the family's journey to find justice and also how they're looking ahead now. It was really heartbreaking to see Anita's parents on the stand. As bad as it was, it's a great example of sort of how excruciating this whole thing is from beginning to end for the families involved. And I say this all the time, like, you know, people always want to know, like, what's it like to sit across from murderers?

That's easy. The hard part is sitting across from those families and watching what they have to go through. I think that I have a lot of thoughts about sitting down with Anna Knudsen. One, what she and her family have had to go through and losing not only Anita, but losing Daniel, who died by suicide a few years later, was really unbelievable. And they all have carried this sense of the killer, whomever the killer may be, took from their family twice. And so they've had this pain that has then been compounded. They were waiting for an arrest. The arrest happened and then they had an acquittal. And so it really is a difficult place for them. And I think when you saw their parents on

the stand, I mean, they are elderly. Yes, Sharon was 80 years old, Gordon was 90. And I think another thing too, that our viewers don't know, this trial happened a good three hours from where they live. There was a big fundraiser around town to kind of make it so that they wouldn't have to drive back and forth so that they could be taken care of and put up down there. But they had to be away from home for several weeks for the duration of this trial. And again, when I spoke with one of Anita's friends, they said, we really were holding on to some sort of justice for her parents. Because they had been through so much, they were thinking, okay, this is going to be the

thing for them. And so that sense of disappointment, but especially at that age, after going through so much loss, I can't imagine and I really feel for them. Well, you know, and the other thing is sort of the part of the family's involvement that is not shown on TV because we just, you know, we only have two hours and not six hours. But you know, by the time this gets into a courtroom, those parents, I don't know about these particular parents, but in almost all cases, that family, whoever we're talking about, has shown up for dozens of different hearings involving the, you know, status conferences, motion hearings, evidentiary hearings, all kinds of things in which they show up in the courtroom

to represent the victim and to show the accused, hey, we're here and we haven't given up and we see you and we're going to be here throughout. And it becomes for these families like a second job. And it's emotional too, because again, every time they have to go in there, they're in the courtroom. And I'm speaking generally, any family is in the courtroom with the person they believe to be the killer of their loved one. So you're talking about sitting a few feet away every time that you have to go in there, seeing their family and friends. And so it was difficult. That's one of the reasons I asked the question, would they consider

a wrongful death suit? Would they consider some sort of civil lawsuit? And they basically said no, because that would mean taking Gordon and Sharon, Anita's parents, through more, and they just needed it to end for them. That's what Karen and Anna told me. Now let's talk about the verdict. So the judge issues this instruction beforehand, like everybody, you know, stay quiet. And then the verdict is delivered and it's not guilty. And you know, they are, they're acting like they just want a bowl game. I, I, I'm surprised that they didn't exercise a little bit more self-control of the defense.

They got a lot of flack for that online, by the way. There was a lot of angry comments. There were a lot of people who said that was just some terrible taste, poor taste. And I think talking to Anna, she said, yes, that was a hard moment hearing the not guilty. But she said when she heard that celebration on the other side, she said, I just felt the room getting smaller. I just had to get out of there. I'm curious when you, I mean, have you, obviously acquittals are rare. So this is a rare thing anyway. Can you recall such a courtroom response? Not like that. I mean, I recall some outbursts. I can't remember anything on that level.

Anything, you know, the fist pumping, the whooping, that I don't remember. I remember, you know, judges saying, I don't wanna hear anything afterwards. And then you do hear something. You hear people, you hear somebody go, you know, yes or good or, you know. And it's usually a gasp, right? Or like a woo, you hear people, you hear somebody go, you know, yes, or good, or you know. And it's usually a gasp, right?

Or like a woo, and then people contain themselves. And you hear people crying, that's the other thing. And that's sort of an emotion that people are unable to control. But generally, over all the years that now I've been doing this, the reaction you hear is from the gallery, from the people watching on both sides, not from the defense or prosecution.

That's the unusual part here, was that it was an outburst that really sort of started at the defense table. Absolutely. That's absolutely it. You know, and I will not forget Anna saying, you know, I wish I could get that out of my head, but I can't. I can hear those. I can still hear those screams of triumph. So you spoke with her in a clip that we are now, that didn't make the broadcast that we're going to play now about, in which you were talking with her about sort of what those 15 years have been like,

not just the trial itself, but the actual period of time of losing your sister and not knowing what happened. So let's listen to that. I describe this whole experience as very much like a marathon, that through the first like 15 years, we're just kind of on this run. And then my brother passes away in there and things kind of speed up.

And then there's an arrasmade and things really kind of start to pick up. And now it feels like that race is over. Where do you go from here? Yeah, I think it looks like us trying to help people, I think both Danielle and Anita, one thing that they did is, you know, they were loved by everyone in the community and they love

to help people and I think that we can do something to honor them in those ways. So I don't know, it might be scholarships for teachers, it could be school supplies for teachers, helping people through mental health journeys or struggles. It looks like helping people. Yeah. Like really spreading their light. Yeah, absolutely. I thought you were great with her.

I thought that the two of you really had a great rapport. She was just an incredible person to sit down and talk to because you could feel that pain. I mean, you could feel the pain. This didn't make it into the episode, but there was a time when she and I sat down and we looked through younger pictures of her with her brother and sister. And for her to be the only person that remains of that trio was just a really sad thing.

To your point earlier about how emotional this is for so many families, for a lot of people that's how they channel their energy, right? How they kind of channel their grief, how they channel going through this process of keeping someone's memory alive or pushing for justice or going to the trial, going to the hearings. That's kind of their way of being there for their loved one who was taken or whatever. When that ends, and especially if there's no conviction, but even just when that ends and you don't have that place to naturally channel your grief, then what? And that was the heart of what I was trying to get at with her. And it's yes, doing something to keep her brother and sister's memory alive. But I also just kind of felt that need of what do you do once

all of this comes to an end, essentially? Yeah. Yeah. I've seen that. I've seen that a lot of times with families that got the result they wanted, you know, but now that other job that you had, that second job of representing the person who's no longer here, your loved one, all of that's over. And now, you know, the prosecutors, the cops that you dealt with all those years, they've moved on to something else, some other crime, some other case. And you're like, okay, well, now what? You know, like I still have this giant void in my life because my husband, daughter, son, you know, wife is gone still. And that can be very hard. I'm glad that she's thinking about other things that

they can do because that can be a tough place to be at. That's if you get the conviction you want. Do we know what became of Nicole, where she is now, what she's doing? She's married. She has a daughter. She still lives in Minot. You know, of course, we reached out to her. We reached out to her family. They didn't want to talk. This has been a weight on her, on her family to kind of go through this, you know, holding the suspicion for 18 years and then be acquitted. I mean, look, you know, the title of that case is The People versus Nicole Rice. If I were acquitted in that case, you know, if it's the people versus Josh Mankiewicz,

I would be getting away from those people. Like I would probably move out of that town. It would be very hard to stay there. Again, we've talked about the size of Minot, right? It's not like you're acquitted in LA, you could just move to a different part, right? It's a very different story. And coming up next, your questions from social media. Social media, a lot of discussion about whether or not the jury reached the right verdict. Sue Marie on Facebook says, I can see the anxiety it would cause for a jury

to put someone in jail on circumstantial evidence. And that may have been the problem. And kudos to the jurors because it, at least in the one that we talked to, who kind of talked about the deliberations that were going on, they really took this seriously. And I think that that piece, the circumstantial evidence piece is something that they just couldn't get past, plus the number of other suspects. A lot of conversation about the investigation on social and whether or not the police focused on the right suspects early on. Peggy Nicholson on Facebook, those who investigated her murder failed to get any testings from the roommate or even thoroughly questioned her. I think

they're talking about at the beginning. They were stuck on Tyler being the murderer the entire time. Investigators failed Anita and her family for justice. Well, I'm not sure I would go along with that, but does the family feel investigators failed them? Well, I think, and Peggy to that point, I don't think that the family would disagree with her. I'll say that. I think that they, even just over the course of the 15 years between murder and arrest, felt is everything being done? All right, don't forget about us kind of thing, right? And so I don't, you know, obviously they were very not, not very happy with the outcome and the length of time it took to get there.

Carrie Fryer wants to know about cell phone records. And this was a question that I also had, which is they mentioned texts in the cell phone records. And this was a question that I also had, which is they mentioned texts in the cell phone records where any of the suspect cell phones pinging in the area in the morning of the murder. I'm thinking that one of the problems might be that it's such a small town that everybody's cell phone is pinging on the same tower. On the same thing. You know, that is a very fantastic question. It's not something that was presented, not something that was part of evidence at all.

Rebecca Gage asks a question that a lot of people ask, which is, can they try this case again? And the answer is, under our system of jurisprudence in this country, there's a thing called double jeopardy and no, you cannot try it again. You cannot be tried twice for the same crime. You're acquitted and you're done. You can only try once. I was just going to say too, you know, I mean, Clu made it very clear that it's case closed. Blaine, thank you.

It was a joy as always, my friend. Thank you so much. Now remember, if you have any questions for us about stories or about Dateline, you can reach us 24-7 on social media at at DatelineBC. And if you have a question for talking Dateline, and if you have three names, because we prefer people who use three names. That's one of the bylaws of Dateline. You know who would have done really well would be Arthur Conan Doyle. We would probably take his questions every week. Absolutely.

But if you have a question for talking Dateline, you can record a message and send it to us on social media or you can leave a voicemail at 212-413-5252. That's Keith's private number for a chance to be featured on a future episode. And coming up on Friday, Keith has an all new two hour episode on a case that we've been following since the very beginning. It is the murders of four University of Idaho students. We have new reporting and new interviews and what it all means ahead of the murder trial of the suspect, Brian Coburger, later this summer. So check out Keith's episode, which is called The Terrible Night on King Road. That's Friday at nine o'clock, eight central.

Now coming up Sunday at 10 o'clock is a dateline in a time when you don't usually find us. I have a new episode in which we're looking ahead to the Sean Combs trial, sort of everything that led up to this point and what you might hear over the next couple of weeks as the trial unfolds. That's at 10 p.m. Eastern time this Sunday.

Thanks for listening.