The Deck Investigates - 1 of 3: Government Discretion

Episode Date: October 6, 2023

Seven months after we dropped The Deck Investigates, we’re back with an update on everything we’ve learned since then. We will cover where the investigation stands, we tee up new angles we’re exploring, and we consult a legal expert about the handling of Darlene’s case.If you believe you have information about Darlene Hulse’s 1984 abduction and murder in Argos, Indiana, please email [e-mail]’s family has created a petition to advocate for the suspect DNA to be compared to the partial DNA sample that was recovered from Darlene’s blouse. There are also more items that independent experts recommend testing that may yield an even better profile and we would like that to be done as well. To sign the petition, visithttps://www.change.org/p/justice-for-darlene-hulse

It's been seven months since we released the final episode of Darlene Hulse's season. But if you thought that meant we were done, you thought wrong. In the next three episodes, I'm going to tell you everything that's happened since our series was released. From the response to the podcast from officials on the case, to one of many tips we received that led us to a completely new person of interest and more information about a previous one. I'm Ashley Flowers, and this is The Deck Investigates.

This is episode 16, Government Discretion. Any working relationship we had with Marshall County Prosecutor Nelson Chipman ended when the podcast was released. He no longer takes our calls, and the last time Emily texted him, passing on a tip, he told her to send the information we have to the lead investigator, ISP Detective Sergeant Don Curl. Nelson also turned down Emily's request to meet with him one last time. And he's also refusing to meet with Darlene's family. On April 10th, her daughters wrote him a letter requesting a sit-down.

Here's Darlene's oldest daughter, Marie, reading that letter. Dear Nelson Chipman, This letter should come as no surprise to you. Our family has repeatedly reached out to you for updates and questions about our mother's case. In the past seven years, we have begged for answers, pleaded that the case be brought up to, quote, contemporary status with DNA testing. Your gatekeeping of this case has only resulted in more anguish for our family and anger with your continual excuses.

We deserve to be treated with respect. No more patronizing answers of, number one, we don't have the funds. Our response, we've offered to pay privately and the DOJ offered to test with a grant. Number two, quote, I am extremely busy. We have a large caseload. Your mom's case isn't the only one we have to work on. Number three, look, I have a picture of your mom on my desk. Our response, this literally means nothing without action. Number four, promising to write the

affidavit for testing McCune's DNA by October 2022, which came and went. Then you promised again after a November sit down to have it written by December 31st, 2022. Once again, we heard nothing from you. Number five, when asked, wouldn't it be easy for you to take half a day and drive to McCune to get his swab, you said, quote, oh yeah, it would be nothing. I think everybody's fearful about what the ramifications of that would be, quote. Isn't that the point?

The ramifications would equal answers to us. Number six, when asked what keeps you motivated, and I quote, uh, well, that's the romantic way of saying it, but also there's ego. Number seven, you admitted, quote, because I'm an amateur at this, basically, you know, investigative end of it, usually. I think we talked about that, you know, my role, the prosecutor's role here is a case that's already been solved. So my question to you is, why do you have the case then? This entire list of excuses and run around over the years is downright negligent. We don't want any more empty promises from you. Enough is enough. We will not stop our push for answers. We are asking for a sit-down meeting involving us and

our spouses. No reporters or recordings will be done. If you refuse or do not respond, we will move forward with our efforts. Our next contact will be to the Indiana District Attorney Todd Rikita via our Attorney General. Ten days later, Nelson responded. Here is a voice actor reading his response. and ethically possible. In this case, I underestimated how the curinary interest of the podcasters commingled with their drive to entertain and create a saleable virtual package could so readily be used to distort good faith efforts to solve this case and instead create a perverse picture of callous indifference and incompetence. Consequently, and quite obviously, I chose a while ago to cease cooperating with the

podcasters. Recently, though, a local television station contacted me to give my side to the podcaster's claim of a failure to retrieve biological material from the evidence and test it with the most advanced methodologies of DNA analysis available. As this too was based on a false premise, I chose to not participate in that coverage as well. I did, however, present the enclosed statement. This is the official position of this office as it relates to this case. I will eagerly amend the statement to include any significant updates as they occur.

Until then, I regrettably conclude that a face-to-face meeting would be counterproductive. Therefore, I must respectfully decline your request to meet. I wish you well. Most sincerely, E. Nelson Chipman Jr. Now, the statement Prosecutor Chipman is referring to was in response to a local station, WNDU, who picked up Darlene's story after the podcast launch. Now, we did reach out to the

Marshall County Prosecutor's Office to talk about this case and where it is today. Last we heard in 2019, the game plan was to start over with fresh eyes and even test new pieces of evidence. While Prosecutor Nelson Shipman declined an interview, he did release a statement saying, in part, the exhibits have undergone extensive study by consecutive administrations of detectives, crime scene analysts, psychologists, cold case investigators, and prosecutors. I'm going to have an actor read the statement Nelson provided WNDU-TV on April 17th. And I'll unpack it as we go. The events that resulted in the home invasion and senseless murder of Darlene Hulse

occurred south of Argus, Indiana on August 17th, 1984, 38 years and 8 months ago. The physical evidence acquired throughout the investigation of this horrific, needless tragedy continues to remain in secure custody of the Indiana State Police, with the exception of items under examination. As custodians, the ISP must document and ensure an intact chain of custody for more than 38 years for each of the over four dozen items held under lock and key. The exhibits have undergone extensive study by consecutive administrations of detectives, crime scene analysts, psychologists, cold case investigators, and prosecutors. I am the fourth sequential prosecutor to exercise jurisdiction over this case.

Although forensic DNA processes did not exist until the latter 1980s, several years after the murder, each successive generation of investigators have scoured the investigative reports and examined the evidence utilizing the then most advanced, scientifically acceptable methods of deoxyribonucleic acid collection and analysis available at that time. Here's what we know. According to old case reports, testing was done in 1984 and 1989, but only with fingerprint and basic blood detection tests. Now, despite Nelson originally telling us that nothing was found, records indicate that a partial fingerprint was found on the phone receiver at the Hulse home.

Decades later, again, according to old evidence lists and letters in the case file, the lab suggested follow-up touch DNA testing on that evidence, which, as far as we we know was never done. And I say that because we straight up asked Nelson if he had anyone doing that or preparing to do that. And he said, quote, um, nothing sticks in my mind, end quote. Those painstakingly detailed processes continue to this day, but with even more advanced scientific methods that continue to evolve. We also know, because Nelson told us, that the semen found in Darlene was never tested, nor was her bloody underwear.

In my limited interactions with Miss Muir, and even less so with Ms. Flowers, it became quite evident the podcasters neither concern themselves, nor are burdened with proof beyond a reasonable doubt derived from evidence legally acquired within the bounds of the law, admissible in accordance with the formal rules of evidence, and all the while observing the dictates of professional ethics. Tested in court by rigorous cross-examination, determined admissible at trial by jury, and subject to confirmation on appeal

is the most reliable method to obtain the truth and secure justice. We absolutely want things to be admissible in court, but all you need to obtain comparison swabs is probable cause, of which I believe there is plenty for at least three suspects in this case. And to be honest, I think a court would agree.

But Nelson told us he didn't have the time to write a probable cause affidavit for Kenneth McKeown Jr.'s swab. And when we asked if they had tested Ron Hulse's swab against the partial profile yet, Nelson implied money was the holdup. Through the years, ISP command has assigned to this case some of the most experienced and dedicated detectives and crime scene investigators in northern Indiana. Several have since retired,

but those of us that remain continue to be confident we are on the verge of a breakthrough. We will continue our best efforts to secure justice for Darlene, her children, her widower, her family, and our community. It has been far too long. Nelson Chipman, Marshall County Prosecutor. Listen, I think ISP is dedicated and good at their jobs,

and no one is questioning the investigators. We are questioning Nelson. Because when we've asked about specific evidence being tested and plans to move the case forward, he said he didn't know if the fingerprint or bloody underwear or semen or hairs or duct tape had been tested. He also told us last fall, quote, I'm trying to convince you there is no logical plan here.

End quote. We've tried numerous times to let Nelson correct the record. We don't go into these interviews expecting him to have everything memorized, but when we come away feeling like he doesn't even know the case, and then we see him putting out a statement like that, we got to question things. Marie Melissa and Kristen did make a plea to the Indiana Attorney General in spring of this year,

and they got a heartbreaking response. Someone in the AG's office said that they couldn't help and encouraged the family to take their grievances to the State Disciplinary Commission, which investigates lawyer misconduct. But the thing is, the AG could help if he wanted to. And that's not just me spouting off. We talked to experts in law and legal ethics who said so.

Unfortunately, the likely reason of why the Indiana AG refuses to step in is, you guessed it, Nelson. The prosecutors are supposed to do the best they can to serve the public, which includes taking the victim's interests into account. That's lawyer and Fordham University School of Law professor Bruce Green. He heads up the university's Center for Law and Ethics.

He served as a federal prosecutor in the 80s and has been a professor at Fordham for 35 years. He said prosecutors in the U.S. have a ton of discretion, so they can basically decide how they spend their time. And unless they show undisputable gross negligence, basically no one is going to do anything about it. I do think it's probably unusual anywhere for the state prosecutor to forcibly take a case away from a prosecutor. Professor Green said it would be much more likely for the AG to take over the case or assist in the case if Nelson would ask for help,

which often happens when a small prosecutor's office doesn't have enough resources. But we know that Nelson doesn't want the AG's office involved because when the Hulse family made such requests, Nelson got defensive and even asked Marie to explain her reasoning for basically trying to go over his head. Is there some reason why you wouldn't enlist investigators to assist you in investigating a murder case

when you have possible avenues that haven't been explored. It's hard to see why you would do that unless you could investigate yourself. And it sounds like in this case, nothing's happening. The prosecutor's not investigating and the police are hamstrung. If they can solve a murder, they want to do it. Professor Green told us that prosecutors are administers of justice

and they are supposed to do what's in the interest of the public. So in this case, Nelson is supposed to do whatever is in the best interest of the people of Indiana. Professor Green said that if there is viable evidence and suspects who are still alive today, which there are, then there shouldn't be anything holding back the Marshall County Prosecutor's Office or ISP from investigating further and doing more DNA testing. The job of a prosecutor and of law enforcement is to investigate cases and to bring the cases when you have somebody who you can prove is guilty. And while there's a lot of discretion, prosecutors and police treat murder cases pretty seriously.

And so if you have the possibility of bringing a case against someone who's still alive who committed a murder, even if a long time ago, there's a reason why the statute of limitations uh hasn't run it's because the legislature recognizes this is a really really serious crime and they want to uh allow for the possibility of prosecuting it even many years later so the question is really like how how do they get this case solved if the person calling the shots isn't, you know, giving any marching orders? Well, that's the problem.

You know, it would be interesting to know, you know, why the prosecutor isn't investigating if there's investigative measures that could be taken that might be fruitful. I agree. It would be interesting to know why Nelson isn't doing anything. And by the way, if you're wondering, there's not exactly a legal requirement for a prosecutor to be nice to a murdered victim's family. But there is a victim rights law in Indiana which says that victims must be treated with respect. But like all the nuances in state statutes, respect is open to interpretation. And I believe the Hulse family

has experienced a level of disrespect that no loved one of a victim should ever have to deal with. And based off all the emails you sent, I'd say you guys agree. In those messages, some of you were simply compelled to write in just to make sure your love and support

was heard and felt by us and more importantly, Darlene's daughters. Some of you had ideas on how to propel Darlene's case forward. But then some of you had tips for us and many of those tips were legit investigative leads. Most recently, back in August,

one of you forwarded us a reply that you got from Nelson that actually gives me a little hope. I'm just going to read you the entire exchange. So someone named Elizabeth wrote, to whom it may concern, I stand with Darlene Hulse's family and their fight to bring her murderer to justice. Marshall County should be embarrassed and ashamed of the failed investigation.

The world is learning about Darlene's murder on a global span and the lack of integrity of Marshall County. And here is Nelson's response. I am sorry you jumped to that conclusion based on the podcaster's rendition. For almost 40 years, dozens of investigators and four different elected prosecutors have given their best to test, retest, and analyze with the then most current techniques the evidence accumulated. We are currently in a round of expensive cutting-edge technology attempting to find the one bit of DNA that can solve the case.

I am proud of the efforts law enforcement has exerted to solve this case over the last four decades. You don't know anything about those efforts. Your hateful comments will not dissuade us from the goal, but your shallow analysis, based on an entertainment hit piece, certainly don't help bring the murderer to justice. Sincerely, Nelson Chipman. So, according to this most recent statement by Nelson, they are currently in a round of DNA testing. So it makes me wonder if recent strides have actually been made in the right direction. Because you see, around the same time, Emily actually got a text from a source saying that they had also heard new DNA testing was being attempted. So it seems to be working.

Keep the pressure on. As of this recording, more than 141,000 of you have signed the Hulse family's petition demanding answers. Just for 2023 context, that's double the size of the average Taylor Swift era's tour stop. So keep signing, keep sharing Darlene's story, and keep sending us your tips, because your tips are what led us

to explore someone completely new over the last seven months. Hello, I'm reaching out about information I have about the Darlene Hulse case. I'm trying to keep calm typing this because I feel this could potentially lead to the killer, and I really mean it. Please bear with me while I explain. I wasn't sure if this is small town rumor mill or if it's truly the killer's confession. What I was told is that a man in town confessed to killing Darlene while falling down drunk at a bar one night. that's next on episode 17 a secret confession you can listen to that right now