Mind of a Serial Killer - UNCONSCIOUS KILLER: The Sleepwalker Murder Pt. 2

Episode Date: October 30, 2025

Scott Falater claimed he was asleep when he killed his wife, but the court wasn't so sure. In Part 2, we follow the high-stakes trial that pitted science against suspicion, unpacking expert testimony, haunting sleep studies, and a final plea that left the jury wondering if a man could be both grieving… and guilty. Killer Minds is a Crime House Original Podcast, powered by PAVE Studios. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. For ad-free listening and early access to episodes, subscribe to Crime House+ on Apple Podcasts. Don’t miss out on all things Killer Minds! Instagram: @Crimehouse TikTok: @Crimehouse Facebook: @crimehousestudios X: @crimehousemedia YouTube: @crimehousestudios To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Crime House has the perfect new show for spooky season, Twisted Tales, hosted by Heidi Wong. Each episode of Twisted Tales is perfect for late-night scares and daytime frights, revealing the disturbing real-life events that inspired the world's most terrifying blockbusters, and the ones too twisted to make it to screen. Twisted Tales is a crimehouse original, powered by Pave Studios. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. new episodes out every Monday. This is Crime House.

Most of us believe we know ourselves better than anyone else, what we're capable of, what we're not, and why we do the things we do. Even when we feel like we could use some clarity, it's usually with the goal of self-improvement, so we can have healthier relationships and happier lives. But what if the mysteries of your mind were deeper and darker? What if it wasn't just unhealthy habits you had to confront,

but deadly deeds? In 1997, 41-year-old Scott Follater faced this horrifying reality. After brutally killing his wife, Yarmala, He said he had no memory of it because he was asleep when it happened. Scott's claims raised a chilling question. Was he a calculated liar or an uncontrollable killer? The human mind. The human mind is powerful.

It shapes how we think, feel, love, and hate. But sometimes it drives people to commit the unthinkable. This is Killer Minds, a crime house original. I'm Vanessa Richardson. And I'm Dr. Tristan Engels. Every Monday and Thursday, we uncover the darkest mind. and history, analyzing what makes a killer. Crime House is made possible by you.

Please rate, review, and follow Killer Minds. To enhance your listening experience with ad-free early access to each two-part series and bonus content, subscribe to Crime House Plus on Apple Podcasts. Before we get started, be advised this episode contains descriptions of murder. Today, we conclude our deep dive on Scott Falater, the stand-up husband, and father with a mysterious past who was accused of killing his own wife in 1997. Scott didn't dispute the allegations, but he claimed he had no memory of doing it because he was fast asleep. As Vanessa goes through the story, I'll be talking about things like how opposing

expert testimony can affect a jury, whether it's possible to commit murder while sleepwalking, and why people might struggle to decide whether an accused The accused murderer should be forgiven or feared. And as always, we'll be asking the question, what makes a killer? On the night of January 16, 1997, 41-year-old Scott Follater was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona on suspicion of murdering his wife of 20 years, Yarmala Follader. Officers had rushed to the home after Scott's neighbor, a man named Greg Coons, claimed he saw Scott drown Yarmala in their backyard pool and called 911. When police got there, they pulled Yarmala out of the water and realized she hadn't just drowned.

She also suffered dozens of stab wounds. She was declared dead at the scene. And when they scanned the property, evidence of murder piled up, including blood on the side of the pool, and a bloodied pool pebble found inside the house. But perhaps the most damning evidence was found in the garage, specifically in the trunk of Scott's Volvo. There, officers found a plastic bin containing a blood-soaked t-shirt, jeans, socks, as well as a garbage bag with blood-stained gloves and leather boots inside. Finally, inside that same garbage bag, officers found a hunting knife. To the police, this evidence painted a clear timeline of what happened.

They believed Scott stabbed his wife to the point of nearly killing her, then drowned her to finish the job before stashing the evidence in the trunk of his car. From there, they believed Scott returned inside to go back to bed and tracked in the bloody pool pebble. They just had to get Scott to confess all this. The only problem was he said he had no recollection of anything that happened. after he went to bed at 10 p.m., which was about 30 minutes before Greg Coons went outside

to see what was wrong. By the time he arrived at the Phoenix Police Department, Scott knew his wife was dead, and that he was suspected of killing her. When he sat down in the interrogation room across from Detective John Norman, Scott placed his head in his hands and began to cry. Norman didn't show pity.

He simply read Scott his Miranda rights, which Scott waved. Then Norman assured Scott that his two children, 17-year-old Megan and 12-year-old Michael, were okay before asking him to explain what happened that night. Scott was hunched over and visibly grief-stricken when he told the detective he couldn't remember. Norman pressed harder, but all Scott told him was how much he loved his wife. By all accounts, Scott had to piece together on his own that his wife was not only dead, but that he killed her.

This happened between the time of his arrest and arriving at the station. He first overheard officers talking and then he saw the homicide sign at the station and this was how he came to that realization. So if he truly did not remember anything because this did occur during an act of sleepwalking, then he just woke up to a real life nightmare.

Clinically, you can expect acute disorientation, denial, derealization, and emotional numbing in response. to a shock like this. This can create intense anxiety, shame, and a threat to his identity. Like, who am I if I can do that? If he was truly sleepwalking, we would expect to see him respond to this acute shock with denial, externalization, like saying it wasn't me, or dissociation to protect against unbearable

emotions or guilt. Others might fall into severe despair, experience suicidal ideation, or a panic reaction as the reality sets in. Why do you think Scott didn't tell Detective Norman about his history with Parasomnia right away? And why do you think he waived his right to counsel? So I think there are a few possibilities, some of which overlap with what I've already outlined, shock being the first thing. He has to overcome denial and process the reality of what happened to gain a full appraisal of the situation,

let alone accept it or explore potential explanations or memories. Also, like many conditions, parisomnias carry a stigma. People can fear being labeled, quote, crazy or dangerous, and in a lot of cases, they aren't believed, so they can be hesitant to volunteer that information unless necessary. On that note, shame, denial, and a wish to protect his public image or his children can also be motives that stopped his disclosure. Conversely, it could also have been self-preservation tactic that was strategic in nature. Some suspects use impression management to present as cooperative and believable to investigators,

and the less they disclose, the better the odds of constructing a more plausible explanation or defense in the end. So now why would he waive his rights to counsel? That is likely due to a mix of complex factors like confusion or impaired capacity at the time. He may have had a mistaken belief that he could clear this up faster by cooperating or a desire to control the narrative. There could have been pressure or subtle coercion while in custody, which is not uncommon either. There's also the possibility that he felt he didn't need to wait until counsel arrived because if he truly didn't remember anything, then he had nothing to say that could be potentially incriminating. Though I think most defense attorneys would argue to always remain silent

unless they advise you otherwise, even if you truly are innocent. But he also could have been overcompensating for intense guilt as well as he's trying to process all of this. It's really hard to say for sure. Well, Detective Norman felt that Scott was intentionally avoiding the question, so he explained that Greg Coon said he saw Scott drown Yarmala and listed all the evidence officers found at the scene. Finally, he explained that Yarmala was found covered in stab wounds and that the pool had been filled with blood.

Scott was frozen. He could barely believe what he was hearing. He knew his neighbor wouldn't lie, but he still insisted that he didn't remember any anything. Norman wasn't getting anywhere, so he shifted his line of questioning. He asked Scott why there was blood on his neck, as well as a fresh cut on his hand with a band-aid placed over it. Scott looked at his hand, then touched his neck. He looked surprised and told Norman he didn't know any of that was there until now. This only made Norman more suspicious, because Scott's white t-shirt and red pajama pants had no blood on them. His appearance reinforced the idea that

he changed his clothes and stashed evidence before going back to bed. At the same time, Scott didn't deny killing Yarmala. He just couldn't give Norman any information about what led up to the murder or tell him anything more about how it happened. Eventually, Detective Norman gave up. If Scott didn't want to talk, it didn't matter because Norman was certain of what he did. So Scott was booked and placed behind bars. Shortly after, the medical examiner concluded,

that Yarmala's official cause of death was, quote, multiple stab wounds with drowning. In total, she had sustained 44 stab wounds. Investigators charged Scott with first-degree murder. If convicted, he'd be facing the death penalty. It is certainly possible for someone to commit a violent murder while sleepwalking, but it's rare, especially like this, because that would constitute overkill

when we're talking about 44 stab wounds. But for someone to commit, a violent murder like this, you generally need two things. You need a pre-existing vulnerability to a non-REM parisomnia, like sleepwalking, and strong acute triggers, which I've outlined in episode one, like severe sleep deprivation, alcohol or drug use, certain medications, neurological issues, or extreme stress. There's also a very high bar for medical corroboration for this in criminal cases. Courts and clinicians require a lot of evidence, like a documented history of parisomnias, witnesses describing behavior consistent with a non-REM episode,

timing of sleepwalking that is typical, usually within the first one to three hours of sleep, absence of planning or motive, negative or explanatory toxicology, and ideally, sleep medicine or a neurological evaluation like a sleep study and an EEG. This combination of evidence is hard to produce, which is why only a handful of criminal defenses based on homicidal sleepwalking have been successful. So while it's medically plausible, proving it requires multidisciplinary evidence from various experts and professionals. When news spread of Scott's arrest, his family and friends were as shocked as he was. Everyone knew him as a devoted, god-fearing family man who made an honest living. Not to mention, they knew how in love

he and Yarmala had been. It didn't make sense that he would kill her. No one seemed more certain of Scott's innocence than his children, Megan and Michael. Police had ushered Megan and Michael out of their home on the night their mother died and made sure they didn't see her body, but they still heard about all the gruesome details and no part of them believed their father was capable of such violence. Scott's children had been staying with loved ones while he was behind bars, and they visited him faithfully while he awaited trial for two years. They were even present one day in 1999 when reporters came to the prison to talk to Scott.

The interview aired on 2020, and it was the first time the public heard Scott's explanation for what happened. He didn't mean to kill his wife because he was sleepwalking when he did it. Members of the public had mixed reactions to this claim. Some didn't trust Scott and were bewildered at the thought that he would tell such an outrageous lie. Others were sympathetic and considered him a victim of the crime as well. One thing that everyone had in common was intrigue. Scott's trial was sure to drum up controversy, and when he stepped into the courtroom in May of 1999,

it was clear that this case was unlike any other. In May of 1999, 43-year-old Scott Follater went on trial for the murder of his wife, Yarmala. In high-profile interviews, Scott explained that he killed his wife while sleepwalking. He said he didn't mean to do it and had no memory of it. But the prosecutor, Juan Martinez, wasn't buying it. He believed Scott was wide awake when he killed his wife and that he was only pretending he didn't remember it. According to Martinez, at around 10 p.m. on the night of January 16th, 1997, Scott attacked Yarmala with his hunting knife in their backyard. He used one arm to muffle her screams and the other to stab her 44 times. Even in the sterile language of forensics, the picture was chilling, a man holding his wife close, but only to keep her quiet while he drove a knife into her again and again. Prosecutors don't just recount facts. They build a story because they have a case to build.

Grusome details are powerful storytelling tools because vivid imagery sticks in jurors' minds and triggers strong emotions. Ultimately, this can influence a juror's decision with regard to the defendant's credibility or guilt, and even more so when you consider a jury is a group, and group dynamics can be very influential. At the same time, though, judges can limit graphic evidence. redact photos or give cautionary instructions to jurors because overly gruesome detail can unfairly inflame a jury. And this is to help ensure that ultimately the verdict that they come to is based on evidence

rather than emotion or bias. Martinez continued with his haunting account of the night. According to him, it was while Scott brutalized his wife that their neighbor, Greg Coons, woke up to the faint sounds of the struggle. However, Martinez did not explain what prompted the attack, like whether Scott and Yarmala had been arguing beforehand. These details didn't seem important to the prosecution. The bottom line was that Scott killed his wife, and from there, Martinez argued that Scott

stashed all the evidence in his Volvo, which is why his clothes were clean by the time the police arrived. That's when Martinez called Greg Coons to the stand. Greg laid out everything he saw that night, from seeing Yarmala, arriving in the yard to Scott standing silently over her and eventually pushing her into the pool. Greg also explained that he called 911 after Scott began holding Yarmala's head under water. But there was one thing Greg couldn't explain, and that was why he watched this scene play out for so long, but never said anything to his neighbors. Numerous questions swirled about this simple topic. The defense posited that Yarmala might have

had a better chance of survival if Greg had tried to stop Scott. At the same time, the prosecution wondered if Greg was in shock or if he didn't want to put himself in harm's way. Despite all these possibilities, Greg had no explanation. We covered possible reasons why Greg didn't intervene in episode one, but let's talk about why he is unable to offer an explanation even years later. Greg likely went into freeze mode, and when someone's threat response system is activated, it often encodes feelings rather than details or logic. So even years later, this could explain why he cannot produce a clear narrative as to why he didn't intervene. But we also have to consider the present context as well. The defense is arguing in a courtroom over a case that drew a lot

of national attention that Greg is somehow partially responsible for Yarmala's death because he did not intervene. That alone can re-traumatized Greg, and it can trigger intense shame and guilt, which could ultimately cause him to shut down in that moment. Psychologically, that would present as numbing, withdrawal, avoidance, and even evasive memory. I think clinically this is more reflective of his own trauma from all of this, and a clinical response to the residual shame from that experience and from the experience he's currently having while testifying. Greg's testimony may have raised a lot of questions, but it also sharpened the image of Scott's calculated methodical killing. He laid out details, like how Scott seemed to be washing his hands in

the kitchen, put on a pair of gloves, and even commanded his dog to be quiet, all before drowning his wife. After Greg spoke, Juan Martinez called someone else to the stand. This time it was a sleeping expert who explained that, based on what Greg described, Scott must have been awake. According to the expert, Scott performed at least 65 actions that were uncommon for a sleepwalker. They said that some of Scott's actions required fine motor skills that simply weren't characteristic of sleepwalking. This included quieting the dog, changing his clothes, stashing the evidence, and applying a band-aid. On top of that, the expert claimed that even if Scott had started out asleep, the nature of the events would have likely woken him up.

For instance, it's probable that his wife's cries would have startled him awake, or the feeling of the freezing cold pool water. So let's talk about the expert's testimony, but before I do, it's important that I emphasize that I am not a sleep specialist, and this expert was. They are far more qualified to testify on this subject than I would be. I would not be called to testify for something like this. That being said, there are a few things that stand out from his testimony as you walked us through it. First is the count of his actions. Saying Scott performed 65 individual actions

sounds powerful in court, but it depends on how you count an action. Continuous sequences like walking or opening a door or removing clothing, those can be parsed into many microactions. And individuals with parisomnia disorders can produce surprisingly complex motor sequences. So this alone, at least to me, doesn't seem unusual or powerful enough of an argument without anything additional to back it up. Next up was his point on the fine motor and goal directed tasks that Scott did, like quieting the dog, changing clothes, dashing evidence, and applying a Band-Aid. These behaviors support what the expert said because they do imply planning, tactile feedback,

like knowing he injured himself and where to put the band-aid and purposeful adjustments, which are features that are less typical of classic non-REM sleepwalking. They do suggest preserved executive control or at least a higher than usual level of coordination, which is very atypical and does suggest he was more likely than not awake, especially if there were no other data points to weigh against this. That said, rare parasomnia cases have shown complex goal-directed behavior, but rare is the keyword. This also raises red flags to me in the sense that it warrants more assessment. And third is the claim that certain sensory experiences did not wake him, like his wife's

cries or the cold pool water. That, at least to me, does not feel like enough proof on its own. We covered this in episode one, but to reiterate, deep non-REM sleep has a high erroneous. threshold. Loud or painful stimuli sometimes produces partial awakening and not full consciousness, and strong stimuli like his wife's cries or cold water, can trigger confused, defensive, or even violent responses. So it's possible, but again rare, that he may have been partially awakened by one or both of those very things and responded violently as a result. So from a forensic psychologist's perspective and as someone trained to assess for malingering. I think there are two aspects of this that are compelling prosecutorial evidence. First is the timing. Scott alleges he went to bed at 10 p.m.

But was witnessed by his neighbor Greg allegedly sleepwalking 30 minutes later. It typically takes one to three hours to enter non-REM sleep. And with his use of caffeine pills, which is double the amount of caffeine and equivalent to multiple red bulls, I think you said, and it is a stimulant. It would make it even less likely for him to get into non-REM sleep that quickly. But of course, it's not impossible, especially if he developed a tolerance to caffeine or is less sensitive to caffeine. The other compelling evidence, which I agreed with, is, again, the preserved executive control. It's not that he was capable of doing fine motor and goal-directed tasks while sleepwalking that is alarming, at least to me. It's the name. It's the name.

nature of those tasks that were alarming. He exhibited judgment and reasoning, and his actions, specifically ones that appear like he's concealing evidence, are goal-directed, and they're inconsistent with automatic parasomnia behavior. So to me, that's a clinical red flag, and something I would personally look further into or advise the court to do so. Even though the prosecution aimed to paint a thorough picture of a cold-blooded killer, their argument was still lacking when it came to a potential motive. Still, Martinez tried his best to convince the jury that Scott and Yarmala's marriage had been struggling leading up to her death.

He explained that Yarmala wasn't wearing her wedding ring when officers pulled her body from the pool. This alone wasn't that alarming. People take off their wedding rings all the time. But then, Martinez called one of Scott's former colleagues to the stand, who claimed that Scott had once complained about Yarmala's appearance. However, when the defense pushed further, Scott's colleague admitted things were being taken out of context. And in actuality, Scott had said that even if Yarmala wasn't considered conventionally attractive by some,

he thought that she was beautiful. Just like that, it all circled back to whether Scott wanted to kill his wife. When Scott's attorney, Michael Kimmerer, took the floor, he detailed Scott's long and troubling history with sleepwalking. Scott's mother, Lois, and sister Laura, provided testimony of the aggression and violence Scott displayed during his sleepwalking episodes when he was younger. They said they knew he never meant to behave that way and that he never remembered the things he did. Based on their claims, Kimmerer argued that Scott did murder his wife, but that he truly didn't mean to. He was asleep the entire time and only woke up when

officers shouted at him from the bottom of the staircase. And Kimmerer had an expert witness of his own, who attested to that argument, a psychologist named Dr. Janet Tatman. According to Dr. Tatman, Scott's actions that night actually did fit the profile of a sleepwalker, especially since there was more to the story. All along, the timeline had involved Scott trying to fix the pool filter before he went to bed, and that the altercation between him and Yarmala broke out almost immediately after he entered a sleepwalking state. But according to the time, he was a sleepwalking state. to Dr. Tatman, Scott likely entered the sleepwalking state, then went back outside to try and fix the filter again. I actually thought of this as well because it's intention consolidation.

Whatever you were focused on before bed is more likely to intrude into dreams or automatic behavior. Just like when he was awake, he used his hunting knife to try and loosen the rusty piece of equipment, and just like before, he gave up. At some point, Yarmala woke up and noticed her husband wasn't in bed. She probably heard him outside, so she went downstairs to check on him. But when she approached him, Scott became frightened and attacked her. Tapman explained that sudden confrontations could trigger violent episodes in sleepwalkers, like you said, Dr. Engels. And unfortunately, Scott's unconscious state of violence was taken to the extreme. Not only that, but the defense also claimed Scott wasn't the first one to lash out like this while unconscious.

Kimmerer explained that about 12 years earlier, in 1987, a Canadian man named Kenneth Parks had killed his mother-in-law and attacked his father-in-law while sleepwalking, then turned himself in. Parks was eventually acquitted, and Kimmerer didn't just have stories up his sleeve. He also called in one of the experts from the Parks case. Dr. Roger Broughton testified on Scott's behalf. Broughton said that many sleepwalkers can indeed perform coordinated and complex actions. He gave examples of sleepwalkers who climbed onto rooftops without losing their balance. According to Dr. Broughton, Scott's behavior was even simpler because many sleepwalkers are known to navigate familiar spaces, avoiding furniture and other obstacles.

Scott commanding his dog also wasn't unusual. But the most compelling point was that when Scott stashed everything in the trunk of his Volvo, he wasn't hiding evidence. He was going through another set of familiar motions. His children had said the clothes in his car were what he usually wore to do yard work, and that he always stored clothes and tools in the plastic container where they were found. Basically, Scott had gone through some of his usual motions. It's unclear whether this line of testimony addressed the fact that Scott had stashed his gloves, boots, and hunting knife in a separate garbage bag, but Broughton didn't seem to think it mattered. At the end of his testimony, he rattled off a list of other murders committed by sleepwalkers

who were proven to have no memory of what they did. Okay, the way this expert is framing Scott's actions does fit a parisomnia model where procedural memory, not conscious planning, drives his action. His position is further corroborated by family testimony, familiarity of Scott's routines, and the science, but it also seems like it limits or at least undermines the adaptive choices like bagging the evidence and staging that suggest volition. In almost every criminal case, you're going to have dueling experts, one on the prosecution side, the other on the defense side. What ultimately matters is the quality of their testimony, which expert explains uncertainty

more clearly to a jury, and which is more decisive or confident. Conflicting expert testimony isn't unusual. It forces judges and juries to weigh methodology, bias, and interdisciplinary evidence rather than accept a single narrative. Do you think the expert's own bias might have factored into Scott's case? Yes, experts aren't infalliable. They're human, and every expert brings a framework and incentives, and those can bias interpretation. Common biases include allegiance or confirmation bias, particularly if you've been hired privately, anchoring on early facts, the first timeline you're given, and availability, like relying on precedent cases. In Scott's case, both the defense and the prosecution have hired independent experts to evaluate Scott and his case, and then they

testified. If their ultimate opinion was not favorable, they would not call them to the stand to testify. But courts know that bias can exist, and they mitigate it by letting both experts testify, probing methods in cross-examination, and when possible, bringing neutral or court-appointed specialists that are not privately hired by either side. I myself am a court-appointed expert, so I am an objective expert that's not hired by either side. Then in those cases, when someone like myself is brought in, if there is a privately hired expert for both sides, you would have a tiebreaker. Scott's lawyer seemed to anticipate the jury. would be torn, so he called more witnesses to the stand who could speak to the intensity of Scott's

sleepwalking. Two of Scott's cellmates told the court about instances when Scott got up in the middle of the night and began violently shaking his cell doors. Whenever this happened, they tried to calm him down, but they could never get him to stop or wake him up. It seemed more and more likely that Scott really was capable of unwittingly enacting serious harm while he was asleep. But there were still more depths of his mind to explore, and what experts uncovered led to a shocking outcome in Scott's trial. In Texas, the countdown has begun. Robert Robertson is scheduled to die. When the clock hits zero, it's over, but a growing chorus insists Robert is innocent. We didn't hear Robert. We chose to believe him. And if the system gets it wrong, there's no going back. I'm Lester Holt, and this is

The Last Appeal. My new podcast from Dateline. Listen now. In the spring of 1999, a war of the experts broke out in the courtroom during 43-year-old Scott Falater's murder trial. Some experts argued his actions were too complex for him to have been asleep when he killed his wife. But others said Scott's behavior was completely in line with known sleepwalking tendencies. It seemed impossible for the jury to know who to believe. Scott's lawyers seemed to realize that it wouldn't matter if the jury believed Scott's behavior was typical for sleepwalkers unless they believed he really was asleep when he killed Yarmala.

So they called neuroscientist and professor Dr. Rosalind Cartwright to the stand, who explained that sleepwalkers possess a genetic defect in the brain that affects the transition from deep sleep into dreaming sleep. Apparently, both of Scott's children were known to possess this trait as well. So this is not surprising as non-REM parisomnia disorders do run in families. Generally speaking, if one parent sleepwalks, their child has a 45 to 47 percent chance of also being a sleepwalker, and that risk increases to about 62 to 65% if both parents are sleepwalkers. And this is true of most mental health disorders as well. Things are hereditary. But simply having a predisposition does not mean that it will develop. It's multifactored.

Gene set the baseline for vulnerability, and environment, development, and chance determine if it manifests. What I'm not aware of is how she was able to determine that of his children. Because to my knowledge. There's no specific genetic test for this because there has been no single gene identified even today. She likely reviewed his children's family and sleep history, got behavioral information from family, did a physical and psychological exam, and conducted a sleep study in order to conclude that his children possessed the trait. If she did not disclose how she came to this conclusion to the court and that this was not based on genetic testing, which I'm sure she did, but if she didn't, that could be misleading or an overclaim. Why is it important for the court to know

that Scott's kids also possess this trait? Having family members who share a sleepwalking vulnerability helps the defense because it makes the claim probable. Family clustering raises biological plausibility. Courts hear that and they say, okay, this isn't a one-off fantasy. There's an inherited predisposition here that's backed by science. And practically, that does two main things for Scott's case. First, it strengthens the call for an medical workup, including a sleep study, an EEG toxicology, and a documented sleep history, which the court will expect before accepting any automatism defense. Second, it creates reasonable doubt for jurors who previously thought sleepwalking was impossible. Plausibility matters

in a jury's mind. And that said, having a family trait doesn't prove that he was asleep during the commission of the crime. He could have a parisomnia disorder and still have been awake this happened. Both of those things can be true. This is a very complex case. In a way, the defense was implying that Scott's actions on the night of his wife's death were inevitable, like there was a glitch inside of him that was always going to lead him down this dark path. At some point, Scott wanted to take control of his own narrative. After listening to everyone pick apart his brain for nearly a month, it was finally his turn to speak. Scott addressed the court on June 16, 1999, appearing pallid and worn out in his dark suit and glasses,

he defended himself for nearly two hours. He began by saying he understood the jury's dilemma. He said that initially, even he questioned the sleepwalking defense. He kept thinking that Yarmala perhaps died as a result of a burglary gone wrong, but with no evidence for that explanation, he had to accept reality, which was why he had volunteered to undergo some called a polysomnogram, also known as a sleep study. The test measured Scott's brain waves and muscle action over four nights of sleep. It was his way of proving to himself whether he had really killed Yarmala in his sleep. Scott's test results showed reduced slow wave activity, which meant his brain wasn't getting

as much deep sleep as it should. At the time of Yarmala's death, he was losing sleep because of his stress at work. That lack of deep sleep made his brain more unstable at night and more likely to slip into a sleepwalking episode. Scott told the jury that it wasn't until he got the test results that he finally believed he had killed his own wife in his sleep. In addition to his sleep study results, he said he'd been diagnosed with something known as non-insane automatism, a state of sleep in which a person has no control of his or her actions. Once he learned these things about himself, it was like he was like he was. He woke up and saw the truth of what happened to his wife.

Scott's saying that his test results in psychiatric assessment are what finally convinced him of what he did make sense if he truly was sleepwalking. Everything we've heard about his life points away from chronic violence. He had steady work, he had a caring role at home, no prior violent pattern, and no criminal history. For a man who has been largely pro-social and involved in his family and community,

Discovering you committed an unimaginable act would require a lot of evidence before you could accept it, especially if it's an act you don't remember. And quite honestly, his pattern of behavior after the commission of the crime, including right now, is pretty convincing with regard to this being involuntary. But at the same time, he could have adopted this medical story because it seemed legally useful, and the entire basis of his defense was built around it. It's become an identity almost. It's also possible that he accepted this information because it provided an external explanation he could live with.

It's a biologically grounded reason that shifted blame away from his own moral self. What else can you tell us about non-insane automatism? How does it factor into Scott's case? Yeah, Scott saying he was diagnosed with this doesn't seem factually accurate because it's not a medical or psychiatric diagnosis. It's a legal medical concept that's used in criminal cases to disqual. the conduct a person did, but did not control or intend because their body or brain acted automatically. It's involuntary. And the most common alleged causes include sleepwalking, which is how this applies to Scott, a seizure, a sudden blow to the head, hypoglycemia,

or an extreme drug reaction. It's distinctly different from an insanity defense. That is when the involuntary act is due to a mental disease or defect. Non-insane automatism, points to an external or transient cause that leaves the person criminally involuntary. Insanity implicates ongoing psychiatric illness and leads to a different legal pathway. In the end, Scott's grief was all he was left with. To him, all the scientific jargon and diagnoses were beside the point. He expressed his utter devastation at the loss of his wife and said her murder would haunt him forever. her. He loved Yarmala more than anything and didn't know what to do without her. His eyes were filled with tears as he described dreaming about her every night. He hurt for his children, too,

who would now have to grow up without a mother and possibly without a father. As he spoke, Scott looked at his children from the stand. He begged the judge and the jury to let him reunite with them. After Scott delivered his emotional testimony, it was time for jurors, to decide his fate. On June 25th, 1999, after six weeks of testimony, the jury convened for eight hours. In the end, Scott's emotional outpouring couldn't change the inevitable. He was found guilty of first-degree murder. Scott expected this, but there was still one more surprise in store. Apparently, over the last few weeks, the judge had received dozens of letters from Scott and Yarmala's friends, family, and congregation, testifying to his good character.

Yarmala's mother even asked that his life be spared. But what influenced the judge most was Megan and Michael's pleas to save their father's life? Scott avoided the death penalty and was sentenced to life without parole. Over the years, his lawyers filed multiple appeals, arguing that new developments in sleep science could offer more proof that Scott had no control over his actions. So the hard truth in forensic work is that you can't guarantee anyone will never re-offend. In-violence risk assessment, past behavior is the best single predictor of future harm. Scott's record before this was largely clean, so his baseline actuarial risk is low, but not zero.

A confirmed episode of lethal parisomnia creates a new non-zero risk factor. He now has an established violent history. He also has a biological susceptibility that becomes dangerous when provoked by sleep loss, substance use, certain medications, neurological problems, or severe stress. Forensically, his profile stays low only if these triggers are identified and aggressively controlled, and those triggers are person specific. So the burden falls on him to manage, much like it would if this was somebody who was found not guilty by reason. of insanity. If the conditions aren't managed, the probability of recurrence rises, and that complexity is what makes risk management ongoing and uncertain in Scott's case. It seems the court system has maintained the belief that Scott is a danger to society because every request for an appeal has been denied. Today, Scott remains at the Yuma Prison Complex in San Luis, Arizona, where he teaches professional development courses to his fellow inmates. He even created an anti-recidivism program, which helps incarcerated people prepare for reintegration into society.

Michael and Megan have gone on to lead fulfilling lives. Megan is a respected historian, serving as an awards chair for a well-known historical association. Michael is a successful attorney in Nevada. Michael has also spoken to the press a few times, expressing how much he misses his mother. He says he wishes she could be with the family today, and that she should be. could have met his own children. The case of Scott Falater is a haunting one. It forced us to consider what our own minds are capable of.

If it's true that Scott was asleep when he killed his wife, it means that the boundary between our waking selves and our unconscious minds might be thinner than we ever believed. Or that monsters can exist anywhere, whether we realize it or not. Thanks so much for listening. We'll be back next time for a deep dive into the mind of another killer. Killer Minds is a Crime House original powered by Pave Studios. Here at Crime House, we want to thank each and every one of you for your support. If you like what you heard today, reach out on a

all social media at Crimehouse. And don't forget to rate, review, and follow Killer Minds wherever you get your podcasts. Your feedback truly makes a difference. And to enhance your listening experience, subscribe to Crimehouse Plus on Apple Podcasts. You'll get every episode of Killer Minds ad-free, along with early access to each thrilling two-part series and exciting bonus content. Killer Minds is hosted by me, Vanessa Richardson, and Dr. Tristan Engels. and is a crimehouse original powered by Pave Studios.

This episode was brought to life by the Killer Minds team. Max Cutler, Ron Shapiro, Alex Benadon, Lori Maranelli, Natalie Pertzowski, Sarah Camp, Emma Lehman, Sarah Tardiff, and Carrie Murphy. Thank you for listening. Twisted Tales with Heidi Wong is perfect for spooky season. dive into the real events behind the world's most terrifying blockbusters and beyond. Twisted Tales is a crimehouse original.

Listen wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes out every Monday.