True Crime All The Time - Michael Glazebrook

Episode Date: July 22, 2024

In October 1981, 30-year-old Sonia Herok-Stone was murdered inside her home in Carmel, California. Initial suspects included one of her neighbors and Sonia's estranged husband. The police had some evidence to work with, but it wasn't enough to bring about charges. It took over four decades to finally get her killer. Join Mike and Gibby as they discuss Michael Glazebrook and the murder of Sonia Herok-Stone. Sonia's husband had been accused of molesting their young daughter. That, plus being the estranged husband, put him on the suspect list. But soon, all signs began pointing toward one of her neighbors. Could the police put together enough evidence to convince a DA to take the case to trial?You can help support the show at patreon.com/truecrimeallthetimeVisit the show's website at truecrimeallthetime.com for contact, merchandise, and donation informationAn Emash Digital production See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

everyone and welcome to episode 393 of the true crime all the time podcast. I'm Mike Ferguson and with me as always is my partner in true crime Mike Gibson. Give me how are you? Hey, I'm doing good. How about you? I'm doing pretty well, although I have had a pretty hectic week. Yeah. My wife sustained a concussion earlier in the week. So we've, we've been tending to her, my youngest and I. And she's doing okay. And they did all the the tests and stuff, but she took a real nasty spill. Yes, she did. Into a China hutch and her, she got a big old thing on her noggin.

Well, thank goodness she's okay. Yeah. Yeah, she's just got to get over this concussion. And, you know, those are nothing to joke about there. They're pretty serious. So, got to take him serious. Yep, we're getting her through that. How's your week been?

It's been okay. I got this cold, you know, struggling with it. But what can you do? system is not what it used to be. It is not. Ever since all that stuff a few years ago, it's just not been top of my game. Well, I think it's, it's weakened you. It has. Yeah. Taking away some of your Superman qualities. I mean like a good vampire to come along and just like suck some of my blood out. Oh, okay. So we're going there. All right. I don't know. You know. And that's going to do what for you? I don't know. You know. Like a leaching? Is it what you're,

Oh, I could do that. I could go get some leeches. Yeah, we could do that right in studio on video. Yeah, that would be great. Go get some down to the old creek down in the road here and come back and just place some. Plenty of them in there, I'm sure. Yeah. All right, let's go ahead and give our Patreon shoutouts.

We had Shaky 007. What's going on, Shaky? Corey Titman. What's up? Tipman. Gina Rivera jumped out at our highest level. Oh, thanks Rivera. Cassie Hale.

Hey, Cassie. Reagan Budnick. Well, what's going on, Buttig? Jillian John Cox. Hey, John Cox. Donna Bruner. Good old Bruner. Rick 1-214.

That's important. Do that 1-214? Yeah. You know what that means. That's a code for sure. Stephanie Persephone. What's going on? Persefini.

Rebecca Leboe. Whoa, Lobo. And last for not least, pet peebe. Wow. Nothing worse than having a pet peebe. And then if we go back into the vault. This week we selected Jennifer Winkler. Hey, Jennifer.

Yeah, so we appreciate all the new support, to continue support, all of that. We have an episode out right now on true crime all the time unsolved where we're talking about the murder of 22-year-old Nadia Malick. And it's a pretty interesting case out of Philadelphia. Yeah, there's some good twist and turns. So make sure you check that out. All right, buddy, are you ready to get into this episode of, true crime all the time. I am ready. In October 1981, 30-year-old Sonia Herrick Stone was murdered inside

her home in Carmel, California. One of the first suspects was one of her neighbors, but it took over four decades to finally get her killer. That is a long time. It is a long time. And, you know, we've done, you and I have many unsolved cases where, you know, it's been 20, 30 years. And you kind of have to gauge your own thoughts on, okay, how solvable is this case? Now, all cases are technically solvable, but there's a likelihood, you know, from case to case. And I'm sure this is one that maybe they thought they were never going to conclusively nail down, but they did. Sonia Carmen Herrick Stone was born on May 27th, 1951 in Canada. She lived in Montreal for years and moved to Carmel by the sea in California.

You ever been to Montreal? I have not. I hear it is the closest thing to being in Europe in North America. Like the city, old Montreal, the city, the streets are all set up like a European town. It doesn't surprise me because my understanding is there is a very, very large French-speaking population in Montreal, in there? Yeah. Or should I say, we, we?

You can't if you want to. But how about Carmel by the sea? You know who you used to live there? Maybe he still does. Well, they had a famous, what, mayor? Yeah. And it was Clint Eastwood. That's right.

Make my day. Is that what he said? What are you saying, Dirty Harry? Yeah, I think that's what he said. He said, do you feel lucky punk? Oh, yeah, that's it. Do you feel lucky punk? He said a lot of things.

things and a lot of different movies. He's been in a lot of movies. He's directed a lot too. He has and some really, really good ones. Sonia was killed shortly after she moved. According to CTV news, she worked as a sales rep for the Levi Strauss company. And I had to tell my youngest daughter to go out and get some Levi's the other day. Yeah? Because she was working at her job and was wearing, I won't say the brand name, but it's a store at the market. mall. Yeah. And there were not what I would call work jeans. And she ripped them. And I said, go out and get you some Levi's. They'll last you forever. Yeah. I like my Levi's. Sonia was married to a man named Michael Stone, but they were separated at the time of her death.

They had a four-year-old daughter named Sasha. In May 1980, Sonia took her daughter to the family physician and shared her suspicion that her daughter was molested by her father. The doctor examined and interviewed Sasha and determined there was no indication of child molestation or other wrongful conduct. She spent eight days in the custody of CPS due to the accusations and they weren't just reported by Sonia. They were reported by several other individuals. She was then placed in her father's care. So kind of a strange turn of events, right? Yeah. I mean, you're accusing this man of doing something inappropriate. Now, the determination is made that he didn't do it. The child gets put in, you know, child protection

services and then ultimately is given to the father. So that tells me that they must have been pretty sure that it didn't happen. And so then if they're sure of that, then they're starting to question Sonia, right? Why are you making these accusations? And maybe right this second, we don't feel comfortable with little Sasha going, you know, back home to live with you. But it is, like you said, a weird turn of events. Sonia and her daughter were living together, though, at the time she was killed. Sonia Herrick Stone was murdered inside her home, around noon. On October 15, 1981, her daughter was in school and a friend found her in the living room, just inside the front door. Sonia had been sexually assaulted and strangled with a pair of pantyhoes,

which were still wrapped tightly around her neck. Some of her clothing had been removed, and her shirt and jacket were torn and pulled back. She was sprawled on the floor. Her purse and its contents were spilled near her body. So we were talking about it on. Patreon, Gibbs, but I've been watching a lot of true crime shows on HBO Max. I'm sure they were originally on ID. But I was watching one the other day where a gentleman was caught for a murder and what appeared to be a rape. And he confessed to everything. And in his confession, it was pretty interesting because he went into great detail about how he, you know, staged the scene to make it look like a rape, right?

Like, so pulled this woman's, um, blouse up, pulled her pants down, was wanting to give the impression that that happened that, that, that, that, uh, was a rape and the murder was related to that. In fact, it wasn't. It was related to something else, but you don't hear about that a lot. No. But you do hear detectives, a lot of times maybe speculating.

that it kind of looks staged. Now, I don't know that they said that about this one, but. Well, definitely could throw you off track, potentially, right? Well, there's a lot of things that perpetrators can do to throw police off track. Now, it may not throw them off forever, but it might put them in the wrong direction for a little while. It appeared that Sonia was attacked as she was walking into the house. There were no signs of forced entry and her back door was unlocked. The police did not think she let her killer in.

And that's kind of a big detail, right, in a lot of cases. Because if police think that the victim let the perpetrator in, well, that normally would point towards them knowing the perpetrator. Doesn't mean for sure, but it can mean that. Now, if there are no signs that the victim let the perpetrator in, then we don't know what to think. You really can't lean one way or the other. No, not in that scenario. It could be a person known to them.

It could be a complete stranger. Sonia's left ring fingernail was broken and had blood underneath, indicating she scratched the killer as she was attacked. So a defensive wound? Yeah, absolutely. And I think you see this in quite a few situations. You know, people will fight for their lives, sometimes extremely violently. And that's how, you know, a lot of perpetrators end up getting scratched or, you know,

the victim ends up with DNA underneath their fingernails or, you know, something like that. Detective Lynn's Dorman was one of the first investigators to arrive at the house. He told CTV news that Sonia died. slowly and the killer kneeled over her with his face inches away from hers taking her panty hose pulling tighter and tighter and tighter. This was a violent, violent attack. You know, when you hear that and think about that. And picture it in your mind. Yeah, visualizing that, how disturbing that is. That's very disturbing. It also paints the picture of someone, at least in my opinion, who maybe,

took great pleasure in this. Why do you need to have your face inches away from the victim's face while you're strangling them with the pantyhoes? Well, you know, the first thing that springs to my mind is you want to see that person's face and you're taking some kind of enjoyment out of this action and what you're seeing. And that is a very big. And that is a. very disturbing thought to use your word. Now on the flip side, you can also visualize it through the eyes of the victim and how horrifying this must have been. You know what is happening to you, but you're unable to stop it. And you're also seeing the person who's doing it. Now, we don't know yet whether she knew this person or not. But if you did know them, make it 10 times worse, right?

Well, yeah, because you're seeing somebody that you know right before your eyes ending your life. And you know what's happening. You just can't do anything about it. And wouldn't you just question everything about that person at that moment? Like, question your relationship to that person. Yeah, maybe. I mean, I don't know what would go through someone's mind. in a situation like that. Detective Dorman and his partner were canvassing the neighborhood on October 16, 1981, when they spotted Sonia's neighbor across the street fixing a boat in his yard. He was 25-year-old Michael Scott Glazeberg, a married tradesman who was discharged from the Navy.

He moved into the house just months earlier. The detectives asked him to remove the mask. he was wearing. And that was when they noticed that he had a scratch on his right cheek that ran from under his eye all the way down to his jaw. It's a healthy scratch. Yeah. Sounds like it was a pretty long one.

It was even described as kind of fading into his neck area. Glazebrook gave Detective Dorman, three stories about his whereabouts on October 15th and about how he got to scratch. Well, that's a lot of stories. It's anything more than one story is too many stories. What are you saying? I was at the movie theater. I mean, I was at the restaurant.

No, wait a minute. I was, I mean, what are you doing? There's one true version of event. So initially he said he was at his dad's house and he didn't even mention the cut. He then said that he cut himself on October 15th while cutting some Plexiglass, Dorman noted in his 1981 report that there was no sign of blood in the work area. Glazebrook claimed he stayed at the hospital overnight. And, you know, again, this does sound like a pretty long scratch, pretty nasty one.

If you cut yourself on some plexiglass, let's say in the garage. Right. You would probably expect to see some blood. Yeah. Somewhere. Something to clean up. I would think. Glazebrook then said he cut himself on October 16.

He also claimed that he didn't know, Sonia. Detective Dorman noticed that he was fidgeting and seemed very nervous. I think it's something detectives pick up on. I know you've been questioned many times. Several. But you're usually stone cold. Absolutely. Dorman and his partner had Glazebrook arrested for several outstanding traffic

warrants, he was booked, printed, and photographed. The detectives wanted to document the scratch on his face. But apparently the camera was not working properly that day. So two different cameras, right? We've got a booking camera and we have a camera for taking pictures of scratches and things like that. I mean, can you go out and get another camera maybe? I don't know. Hey, the camera we need for potential evidence, uh, not working. Anybody go to the store. Kmart, whatever, back in the day. Get another one? I mean, it is 1981. I'm assuming it's a

pretty nice camera for 1981. Yeah. Remember the old Polaroid? I mean, just go get a Polaroid for now, you know? I guess that's better than nothing, but it's probably not the best quality. Oh, but. Glazebrook agreed to do a blood test.

His blood type matched the blood under Sonia's fingernail. But this is where we get into the limitations right of forensics in 1981. There is no DNA yet. We're not that far off from it, but it's not there in 1981. You know, how much can you really do? Well, I mean, blood type is pretty broad, right?

Well, there's only a few. So upon further questioning, Glazebrook then admitted he was having an affair with Sonia and was at the house on the day of the murder. but he denied killing her. So again, this guy has told a bunch of different stories from, you know, I don't know this woman to now I'm having an affair with this woman and I was at her house on the day of the murder. But I didn't kill her. But I didn't kill her.

That's the big thing. But this is something that we see all the time. You know, when you are confronted with evidence, well, then we're. what happens. Your story has to change somewhat to account for that evidence. Okay, we're telling you that the blood underneath the victim's fingernails matches yours. Okay, well, I was having an affair with her and I was there that day because it makes no sense that her fingernails would contain your blood if you don't know each other and have had no contact. Right. So let's paint a scenario in which that could have happened.

But now you'd have to answer the question, right? How did that blood get underneath her finger now? Yeah, but much easier to do if you're having an affair. Yeah, sure. Then as opposed to, well, I'm a neighbor and I've never met this woman. Meanwhile, law enforcement called Michael Stone, who was living and working in Marin County and told him there had been an accident. He drove to Carmel right away and learned that he was a suspect.

when he arrived. Michael Stone told the union, the worst thing was that Sonia's mother wanted my daughter, who was only four at the time, to go and live with her. She told the police that she thought I was a child molester. Carol McBride, one of Sonia's closest friends, told the police that Michael Stone was unfit to care for his daughter and that Sonia and Michael had been separated per a sheriff's department report. Okay, so her family thought this guy was a child molester. Yeah, even after he was investigated. Based on the earlier incident and what Sonia thought had happened.

So when she is murdered, number one, he's going to be a suspect, someone who's looked into just because, you know, he's the spouse. But then you add this child molestation allegation on top of it. I think that would make you an even better suspect, right, in the eyes of law enforcement. Yeah, maybe he was upset that you did this to him. Maybe he wanted to get his revenge. Yeah. Or maybe he just wanted to end all of this custody fighting once and for all so that he could

have his daughter. Yeah. But on December 18th, 1981, 26-year-old Michael Glazeberg was arrested as a suspect in the murder. his preliminary hearing started in November 1982. Two state medical experts gave contradictory evidence. Forensic serologist Dr. Edward Blake testified that he examined blood, semen, and urine samples from Sonia and Michael Glazebord and found no indication of sexual assault. However, Dr. Boyd-Stevens, coroner and chief medical examiner for San Francisco, said,

bruises on Sonia's body indicated she was sexually assaulted. So we got conflicting testimony. And it's not out of the ordinary for, you know, prosecution experts and defense experts to differ. We hear that all the time. Right. This is a preliminary hearing and these are both state medical experts. Now, they're giving their opinion. They just happen to be different.

Have you been at a party with a serologist? No, not that I know of. Next time you're at a party and you find a serologist, stick nearby. Some good stories. You're going to hear a lot of stories? Yeah, especially if they're drinking. Yeah, you want to be near that serologist. Now, see, I would think proctologist is where you're really going to hear some of the juicy ones.

Juicy stories. Sonia's friend, Carol McBride, who found the body, testified that Sonia did not know. Michael Glazebrook on November 9th, 1982, a key witness for the prosecution denied earlier statements that placed Michael at the crime scene on the morning of the murder. The witness, Michelle Wilson, was having an affair with Glazebrook. She denied telling detectives that Michael confessed to her that he was in Sonia's home on October 15, 1981. Got a lot of possible affairs going on here.

and this guy seems to be in the in the center of all of them. According to the Californian, she originally said that Michael told her the scratch on his face, quote, got him into trouble. He said he got the scratch during an argument at Monterey Peninsula College the day after the murder. But Michelle also said the passage of time made her uncertain about details of the conversation. According to CTV news, She said the police were leaning on her. And she made everything up because she was met at Glazebro.

What's that saying? Nothing like a. Hell have no fury like a woman scorn. Yes. Or according to you, there's nothing like a woman's corn. No, but you know,

you think about it, you do need to be careful how you treat people. I mean, just generally, there's a way you should treat people, just out of common decency, common decency, the way you should behave. But, you know, taking a step further, you go around stepping on people and treating them badly. As soon as they get the opportunity, there's a chance that they're going to try to stick it to you. Yeah. Because you have not been

nice to them. But no doubt, this was a major hit to the prosecution's case. Deputy DA Robert Moody. impeached Michelle Wilson as a witness on November 10th. She said she became really confused when the detectives asked her question. Moody asked the judge to admonish Wilson and remind her that she was under oath. Moody then called on detectives J.T. James and Lynn's Dorman to try to discredit her statements. Both detectives were present during her interviews and testified that she spoke about conversations with Glazebrook, putting him in the vicinity of Sonia's home on the day of the murder. The defense called on Michael's parents, Walter and Gene Glazebrook, who said they did not see a

scratch on their son's face on October 15th, 1981. So, I mean, obviously the scratch is a big deal. And more specifically, the timing of when it occurred. You know, he told somebody it happened the next day at college. His parents are testifying that they didn't see it on the 15th. Michael Glazebrook was bound over for trial on November 12th, 1982. On February 25th, 1983, a judge refused to dismiss the murder charge, but did say he didn't believe he could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence

presented at the preliminary hearing. Pretty big statement. It is, but I'm assuming. a lot of that goes towards the statements that were discredited, the ones made by Michelle Wilson. It does sound as though that was a key part of the state's case. Once those statements kind of fall apart and the witness is no longer believable, okay, how much do you really have? On June 20th, In 1983, the case against Glazebrook was dismissed after the judge granted a defense motion to discard statements made by the defendant and an identification made by a bar owner.

Michael's admission that he was at Sonia's house on October 15, 1981, was ruled inadmissible due to police misconduct. The judge called the investigatory procedures surreptitious and illegal. per the California. Serpetitious. No, but close. Serpetitious. No, but farther away.

Is that the name of the gladiator in the movie? Might have been. Yeah, might have been. But, you know, let's talk about it. Michelle's statements were discredited. And that was Michael telling her that she was at Sonia's home. But he had also told the detectives the same thing. But if that's inadmissible, well, now you.

have neither one. Yeah, it really hurts the case in a major, major way. The murder charge was refiled on July 18th. On August 10th, 1983, Glazebrook was ordered to stand trial for murder a second time after a three-day preliminary hearing. He was arraigned on August 23rd and pleaded not guilty. So, you know, the state has a lot of hurdles, it seems like, in this case, but they're not giving up. They're trying to pin the murder on Michael Glazebrook. Oh, for sure. They're going after him a second time. But the defense had another win on October 7th of that year when the judge suppressed incriminating evidence. Judge E.J. Leach was the fourth judge in a year to question the evidence in this case. He said, the questioning of Michael Glazebrook in connection with the murder of Sonia

Herrick Stone was conducted during an arrest primarily for illegal purposes. So it seems like this is an ongoing problem. Well, we did say it early on, right? They arrested him for what? Traffic warrants or something like that. Yeah. And I think what the court is saying is that they used that arrest to then question him about the murder of.

this woman and they were not going to allow any statements he made during that questioning to be used. Leach upheld a lower court ruling to suppress Glazebrook statements made to a former FBI agent and blood samples taken at the time of his arrest. So really, if you look at what's going on, almost everything is going against the state, all the ruling. They're losing a lot of their valuable. evident. Seems like it's all being tossed out the window. The judge granted a defense motion to suppress further statements made during Glazebrook's transport and his clothing that was seized when he was given

his county jail jumpsuit. The defense alleged that the sheriff's office arrested Glazebrook for two outstanding traffic warrants and then questioned him in connection with the murder. They called the arrests a pretext and argued that the investigators intentionally interfered with Glazebrook's right to post his bail of $165 on the traffic warrant. That's a big problem. It is because, you know, let's say you get arrested for outstanding traffic warrants, which I could see very easily with the way that you drive. But they also think you might have been somewhat.

connected to a murder, which I could also easily see happening. No comment. But you're only arrested on the traffic warrants. And so, yeah, they take you in. What are you going to do? Pay them post bail, whatever it is you have to do. But you're walking right out of there. Yeah, you're getting, you don't want to be there. You're going to do what you have to to get out. You're not staying in jail over some traffic warrants, but that's not what happened here. So the question. So the question. You're question is, what did they do to keep him there and not allow him to leave so that they could question him about the murder? And it all got wrapped up into, you know, multiple judges finding that it crossed the line. And basically, this violation of his rights tainted evidence in the case.

The judge ruled that Glazebrook was legally arrested for the traffic warrants, but investigators failed to follow appropriate procedures and allowing him to post-bail or appear immediately before a magistrate. Additionally, the arresting officers were homicide investigators and not traffic officers. Investigators also failed to notify

his wife of the arrest or advise him of his right to make phone calls. I mean, there's process and procedures in place for a reason. Just got to follow him. Yeah, I mean, it does sound to me as though they were trying to circumvent some of the rules because they wanted to talk to this guy so badly in connection with this murder. And I understand that.

But, you know, like you just said, some of this stuff is in place for a reason. And the bad part about not following it is it's great that you got to talk to him. It was amazing that you got him to tell a bunch of different stories. but because of your actions, none of that is going to be able to be used in court. So doesn't matter. It's like it didn't happen. Yeah. Jury selection for the murder trial started on November 14th, 1983.

And, you know, it's kind of strange to me, Gibbs. They weren't giving up on this thing, but we talked about how much was kind of cut from what they had to work with. You have to imagine it's going to be a pretty tough uphill battle for the prosecution. I can't imagine that you're going into this feeling good. Not great. No. In opening arguments, Deputy D.A. Robert Moody told the jury that the sexual assault would be verified by a forensic expert.

This expert would testify that a rape was planned but not carried out. Remember, at the preliminary hearing, we had. two state experts differ on whether Sonia was raped. Now, the prosecution is telling the jury, there was no rape, but our expert is going to testify that one was planned out. It just didn't occur. I don't know what you're trying to sell the jury at that moment. Well, ultimately, they're going to try to sell that it was Michael Glazebrook. We know that. His intentions were what? To rape Sonia. But something. went wrong and he murdered her. Moody emphasized the scratch on Glazebrook's face and his conflicting

statements. He argued the scratch was caused by Sonia when she attempted to fight off Glazebrook. The blood found under her fingernail did not belong to her. Again, it matched his blood type, but it probably also matched however many tens of thousands of males in and around that area. is blood type as well. I mean, you're talking in the millions, probably nationwide. However, Dr. Robert Cushing, an emergency room physician who treated Glazebrook the day after the murder, testified that the laceration on Glazebrook's cheat was not consistent with a scratch from a fingernail.

That kind of hurts. Moody also brought up the testimony of Michelle Wilson, who told Sheriff's Investigator Lynn Dorman that Michael claimed he, he, was a guy. He was in the home on the morning of the murder. Wilson denied making these statements at both preliminary hearings. And at this point, you know, I get it. They're going to bring up that testimony. But that testimony is so tainted.

And she was so impeached as a witness that the fence you would think would be able to tear it apart pretty easily. You almost wonder why the prosecution would even use it. Well, my thought is that they just don't have much. So they are grasping a little bit. On November 16th, witnesses testified that Glazebrook appeared to be out of the area at the time of the murder. One neighbor said his truck was not parked out front during the relevant time period. Okay.

I don't know what you make of that. Yes, if my truck is not parked out front, normally that would mean I'm not here. I'm not in the area. Right. But if I'm planning on committing some kind of heinous act, could I have the foresight of maybe parking my truck a couple of streets over, walking, you know, through the houses back to my house before carrying out whatever deed I have planned? Well, that could be true for somebody, but not you because you don't enjoy walking anywhere. Well, absolutely. Yeah, I was just using that as a example.

Yeah. But what I don't understand, I need to be better with my awareness because I wouldn't be able to tell you if my neighbor was home or not home. I wouldn't know. No, if I couldn't tell you right now within four houses either way, left, right, right, across the street whose car is in the driveway. Yeah. But I will say, because I have had some people like this in my family, there are people who love to stand at the window and kind of look out, see what's going on. The classic example was my grandfather. And he's no longer with this. But, you know, when he was alive, he loved nothing more than to look

out the window and see what the neighbors were doing. That was like his pastime. He knew. He knew what time people got home and left and what they drove and all that. He would have been a great witness. Yeah. But we have this testimony, right? What does it mean? If you're a What does that mean? Okay, you didn't see the guy's truck. I get it. Now, timing was important in this case because one neighbor testified that Glazebrook left home between 1030 and 11 a.m. Deputy DA Robert Moody argued that Sonia could have returned home after visiting with a relative as early as 1015 on the day of the murder, but the defense argued that she could have returned as late as 11. Which worked good for them, right? Because they can say, well, remember the one witness said, Glazebrook left between 10, 30, and 11.

So if she didn't get home until 11, could it have been him? Yeah. Well, and even the 1015 does not leave a lot of time. Could the crime have been committed in 15 minutes? Yeah, I'm sure it could have been, but it's a pretty tight window. Peter Hammond, the owner of the Mission Ranch,

and Carmel testified that Sonia was with him. at his business until 1015 or 1045. And I get it, man. You're called to testify. Are you going to be 100% sure about the timing of when someone left you two years ago? Because remember, we're in 1983 now. For me, unless it was in my Franklin Day planner back in 1981, because then we all used the Franklin Day planners.

Yeah. Well, not me. because I was like nine, but... Oh, yeah, yeah. I know you as a 25-year-old probably needed that Franklin Dayplan. I wasn't that old. But, you know, you might have something

written down in a book somewhere, you know, what you did. But outside of that, I think it's a, it's a wag. What's a wag? Wild-ass guess. Oh, okay. Yeah.

I did not put that together, but I like it. Yeah. I don't know if it's a wild-ass guess. I mean, I think he's pretty close, but there is a... difference in this case between 1015 and 1045. That 30 minutes in normal everyday context is no big deal.

But when you're talking about a murder case and the suspect having been seen leaving between 1030 and 11, well, then it becomes a very big deal. Yeah. Defense attorney Richard Rosen questioned each witness about discrepancies between written statements and their testimony. Two neighbors denied making statements, as reported by investigator Lynn Dorman, who wrote a report on the case. And that seems very strange to me. Either you have an investigator making up statements made by neighbors, or you have a couple of neighbors who either don't remember making the

statements or now don't want to put their name on it. There's only a few options there. Lins Dorman was asked if any effort was made to locate Glazebrook's teammates on a Monterey softball league. Apparently, Glazebrook claimed he played a game the day of the murder. The defense said that the teammates would be able to verify that Glazebrook did not have a scratch on his face on October 15, 1981. Dorman said investigators could not contact any of the players. And I'm just kind of putting myself in. in the place of one of these jurors. You know, when an investigator says that,

I would be thinking, that doesn't sound right. Yeah. You are the police. If you wanted to find these people and talk to them, you could. What it sounds more like is that you didn't do it. It's not that they couldn't be contacted. Chose not to. It's that they weren't.

Walter Glazebrook testified that his son was at the family's home and C-side at 11-10 on the day of the murder for an early lunch. So, you know, it does kind of narrow down his time frame. If some of these people are being truthful in their testimony, you know, he left sometime between 1030 and 11. He was at his family's home at 11.10. Well, they could figure out how long it takes for him to get from his home to the family home. Sure. Walter and, Gene Glazebrook both denied that their son had a scratch on his face. On October 15th, 1981, they testified that he spent most of the evening with them. They attended a softball game and he returned to the family home with his wife after the game.

So again, if we're going back to you sitting in the jury box, now you have to take everything with a grain of salt, right? This is his family testifying. Are they trying to protect him? you know, I don't know. But all you can go by is what people testify. Sure. And you're hoping that they're being honest under the oath.

And if you have a number of people saying, yeah, he didn't have this scratch after the time that the police are saying he would have gotten it when Sonia was murdered. Okay. You're going to have big time questions. Gene Glazebrook a nurse testified that her son often came to her son often came to her workplace at the community hospital of the Monterey Peninsula when he was injured and she usually took care of him. The day after the murder, Glazebrook went to the ER seeking treatment for the scratch because she was not on duty. His parents did not see him on October 16th and didn't

see the scratch until they returned from a weekend away. So both sides finished up their arguments. The jury started deliberating. On November 29th, 9th,000. 1983. On December 2nd, the judge declared a mistrap because the jury was deadlocked 9 to 3 in favor of acquittal. And I think, you know, that right there tells you where the majority of people were leaning. Yeah, and I can't blame the jury. I can't either. I mean, based on the evidence that we've talked about, the state's evidence was weak, to say the least. And the defense sounds like they provided. you know, some pretty good witnesses who testified in favor of Michael Glazebrook. Yeah, I think their counterclaims are very strong.

Prosecutor said a retrial was possible. But on December 8, 1983, Monterey County DA William Curtis called for the dismissal of the murder charge against Michael Glazebrook. As reported by the Californian, Curtis continued to profess his belief in Glazebrose. Brooks guilt saying further prosecution would not result in a conviction. But I still feel the defendant is guilty. It's an interesting statement. And I see how it could be true. You know, analytically, you could sit down and make the determination that, hey, we don't have enough. We could do this thing two, three, four more times. We're not going to have enough to convince a jury that

this man is guilty, even though we believe he is. Yeah. But I think that happens in a lot of cases. Oh, a lot of the unsolved cases that we do. Gibbs, think about how many of them have kind of one main suspect that everybody looks at or believes is guilty, but has never been convicted. You got to have the evidence. You do.

Glazebrook's attorney Richard Rosen commented that the DA was a whiner and added, this case is history. He's a whiner. Okay. I mean, you could be a little more diplomatic, but I guess you don't have to be because you won, right? Right. He's kind of like a sore winner.

Rosen believed the DA was embarrassed by the investigation. He noted that there was a 10-month gap between the murder and the formal filing of charges in July 1982 because sheriff's deputies were waiting for a personnel rotation in the DA's office. Rose and alleged that the sheriff's deputies could not persuade the ADA in charge at the time to file charges. And I think that would have been a difficult decision. You know, based on the evidence we have, do we charge this guy or not?

And if they said no, then what, I guess in this case, the sheriff said, well, we're just wait for the new guy to come in. We can sell them on this case. And you know, it's happened before where somebody has actually run on the platform that, hey, the current guy won't do anything about it. But if you vote me in, I'll make sure it gets to trial. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but that has happened in certain cases. Michael Glazebrook told reporters, he was not surprised by the decision. Adding, I felt from the very beginning that I was wrongly accused.

He said the legal system wasn't what he was taught, and there were unanswered questions. He also said he didn't think the trial would hurt his carpentry business, adding, many people have faith in me. They can make up their own minds. Well, first of all, what else is this guy going to say? You're going to say, ooh, I dodged a bullet on that one. Yeah, yeah. They don't know how guilty I am.

No, you're going to say, I knew this was going to happen. I was wrongly accused. I'm innocent. then. We'll get back to my life. Move forward. Sonia's case went cold for more than 20 years, but was reopened in 2009.

Detective Lenz Dorman had retired by this point, and a new detective was working the case. Investigators now had access to DNA testing, which they hoped would conclusively identify a suspect. And my question, Gibbs, is how many cases do you think are out there right this moment that are kind of in this same situation. They're older cases.

They had some evidence, but it wasn't enough, right, to really put anyone away, but maybe the evidence could result in, you know, a DNA profile. And I think a lot of those have been solved. We've talked about some of them,

but I think there are many, many more out there that they just haven't gotten to yet. Hundreds. time, resources, all of that. Yeah. In 2010, forensic expert and state Department of Justice criminologist Josh Chead started testing items of evidence, including the blood from under Sonia's fingernail. And you know, that was a big thing in this case.

They just had such limitations in 1981 with what they could actually do with it. Yeah, a big difference between 1981 and 2010. They obtained a. male DNA profile. Their goal was to cross-reference the male DNA with a sample of Michael Glazebrook's DNA, which had been stored in blood vials for about 30 years. Unfortunately, the vials broke at some point and spilled onto the envelope containing Sonia's fingernail clippings.

Oh my gosh. And man, have we heard this in so many different cases. If it's not evidence lost, it's evidence-containing. or, you know, something along those lines, you know, the evidence room floods or whatever happens. It gets thrown away. We've heard that. Sure. Apparently the DNA was so degraded that only a faint male profile could be obtained. Investigators now knew there was male DNA in both samples, but they couldn't be sure. It was Glazebrook's blood under Sonia's fingernail. They would need a new sample. The Sheriff's Department, lacked funding and resources so they were unable to get one. And the case was shelved in 2013. There's always that problem with the funding. You know, we hear that a lot in some cases.

Yeah, I mean, there's a priority of things. Pretty much in any business. Yeah. And I don't really look at a police department as a business, but on some level, there are business aspects to it. You know, there are allocations of funds. there's only so many resources to go around. You have to prioritize some cases over others.

Seven years later, in 2020, the Monterey County DA created a cold case task force, focusing on cases with DNA evidence. Detective Eris Wilson was assigned to Sonia's case. He believed it could be solved. And I would say with the technology they had at that point, it does seem like a very solvable case. I mean, anytime you have a DNA sample,

you have to be somewhat optimistic that you're going to solve it. It doesn't always happen, but you have to be optimistic. In early 2021, detectives obtained a search warrant from Michael Glazebrook's DNA. By this point, he was in his 60s

and still living and working in Monterey County. He was a school bus driver and a little league umpire. Hey, badda, better swing, better. Do you ever umpire? I did when I was little.

Yeah. When I was actually playing ball back in the day. So apparently the carpentry business either faded out or, you know, maybe by that point he was looking for something a little less taxing. But is it also a little scary that you could potentially have a murderer, driving your kids to school and umpiring your kids little league games. Yeah, it's all freaky.

Maybe the school bus a little more so, at least at the game you're usually there watching. That's true. But you know, you're not on the school bus. No. Glazebrook was pulled over at a traffic light on his way to work. Detective Eris Wilson approached him with the search warrant for his DNA. Glazebrick asked if there was time for him to talk to his lawyer. But the detective told him he didn't have a right to speak to his attorney first, according to a

2021 recording obtained by CTV news. Detective Wilson asked Glazebrook about Sonia. He said he didn't know her and had never met her. Back in 1981, remember, he told the police he had an affair with her. Yeah, we are with conflicting stories again. During his conversation with Detective Wilson, he said he was a. attending college classes at the time of the murder. Detective Wilson told Glazebrook, I'm taking a fresh look at the case and I'm doing what I can

to solve it. It's also really important for me to not just catch the person who did it, but to eliminate anybody who isn't involved. And that is an important thing. I know a lot of times police use that in movies and stuff and maybe she was using it here too as a tactic, right? We don't think you did it, but we need to eliminate it. but we need to eliminate you.

The whole time they're thinking, yeah, we know you did it. We just want to get you tested. Right. Glazebrook's mouth and vehicle were swabbed, and the sample was sent in for testing. In early August,

2021, the Monterey County Sheriff's Office was informed that evidence from the crime scene matched, Glazebrook's DNA. So the blood under Sonia's fingernail was Michael Glazebrook's. And now with DNA technology,

the odds of it being anyone else's were one in 46 quadrillion. It's a pretty good odds of putting him there. Since there's not that many people in the entire world, yeah, I would say so. It's just amazing. You know, when you look back at even the early days of DNA, sometimes they would say one in, I don't know, however many thousands. and you're thinking, well, that's not that great. I mean, they're to the point now where they're in the quadrillion.

How can it be anyone else? Initially, prosecutors were worried about blood contamination, but it was later determined that there was no contamination. And I would be worried about that too. You know, when the defense finds out that blood vials got smashed or they ended up on her fingernail clippings, okay, you know they're going to, try to punch holes in that. Oh yeah, especially if he has as the same defense team.

Contamination or not, if you don't want to call it contamination. Additionally, Detective Wilson spent months trying to obtain another DNA sample from a series of breast swabs in Sonia's sexual assault kit. And I think that's a smart move, right? You do know going in that you have this issue potentially with the fingernail clippings and the DNA found under the fingernails. So let's try to find something else. Just make it stronger, right? Yeah. And they were able to get a DNA profile that was consistent with Michael Glazebrough.

So that meant prosecutors had two samples of his DNA on her body. And they had to feel so much more confident going in. with that second sample. Detective Wilson told CTV News that this was what they needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Michael Glazebrook was the killer. Glazebrook was arrested on August 14, 2021. After detectives conducted surveillance and saw him leaving his home, he was charged with first-degree murder.

40 years, Gibbs, since the murder. A long time. His trial started in early, 2003 and lasted eight days. Criminalists with the California Department of Justice testified that Michael's DNA was found underneath Sonia's broken fingernail and on a swab taken from her right breast. Just wondering what this guy was thinking this whole time. I got through it.

I'm in the clear. You know, I'm going to live my life. Do my own thing. Driving my school bus and ump my little league games. Yeah. I don't know if ump is a. is a verb or not, but I'm using it as one.

No, I think about that quite a bit. You do have a number of people throughout history, and you have a bunch of them right now sitting at home, knowing that they got away with some type of violent crime, whether it be murder, sexual assault, or something like that. And my thought has always been. Some of these people have to lay awake at night, wondering is DNA somehow going to connect me at some point in time and the police are just going to

knock on my door. Yeah. But it is also at the same time very sad that, you know, a young woman's life was cut so short. And here this guy has been out doing his thing for 40 years. He's lived a really, I don't know how good it was. but a lengthy life already. Yeah. On February 6, 2023,

the jury convicted Michael Glazebrook of first-degree murder. The jury found true a special circumstance allegation that the murder occurred during the commission or attempted commission of a rape. The jury also found true an enhancement that Glazebrook used a deadly weapon in the commission of the crime. And obviously, we know first-degree murder is a single. series as it gets, but they also always try to tack on these special circumstances or these enhancements because, you know, that may mean the difference between parole, no parole,

life or death. Now, we know we're in California, so. Well, I think you tack on in everything you can. Yeah. Sonia's daughter, Sasha, said after the conviction per KSBW, the family just wanted to express our tremendous gratitude for this team Sonia was a wonderful woman and we're so happy to see justice for her. And I cannot even imagine what it would be like to not have that finality for, you know, 40 years and then to finally get it, you know, for a jury to conclusively say, yes, this is the person who took your loved one's life. I don't know that you would be calling it a celebration,

but it would have to be some type of good feeling. Yeah. I don't know what the right word for it would be. But that's a long time. It is a long time. Even if deep in their heart, they knew it was this guy all along. I almost feel like you'd be relieved. Yeah.

Relief might be a good word. Justice. You know, I don't know. On June 7, 2023, Glazebrook was sentenced to life in prison. The conviction exonerated Sonia's husband Michael Stone. We kind of forgot about him for a little while. Yeah.

Right. He was under the microscope initially for molesting his own child. And then it seemed like because of that, a lot of people thought, well, maybe he was the killer. And so we just talked about the family not knowing for 40 years, okay, you have to believe that there's, a cloud of suspicion hanging over his head. And I'm sure it had to be awkward for him many times. Well, because, you know, he still has a daughter. He still has in-laws and all of that.

There are going to be interactions with people. And some of those interactions, I would agree. They would have been awkward. Michael did an interview with the union in February, 2023. He said that years after Sonia died, he started dating a woman named Renette Sinam, a former Nevada City Council member, a previous girlfriend, contacted Renet, and told her that Michael killed his wife, that he was a child molester, and that he had beaten her up. Michael said, all these things about me, which most people wouldn't believe, but Renette and I were

in a brand new relationship. So she just cut off from me. He alleged that she interfered with his attempts to get housing in Nevada City and that she told homeowners not to do business with him. Michael explained they backed out of the deal. They were so scared. By the time she got done with them, they were standing on the loft. They wouldn't even come down to talk to me. The homeowner in question, Richard McCutcheon told the union that he had concerns about Michael. Because of information, he shared himself. He went with another buyer because the escrow ran out. He out of time. He said he never spoke to Renette. So I don't know what the truth is there, but I don't think there's any doubt that if you're a person like Michael Stone,

who a lot of suspicion has been cast on, even though he was cleared by officials, things are not going to be the same for you. No, you know, rumor mills are. I mean, they can just really take off and they're hard to squash. Once they're out there, they're out there. Yeah. And there could be a lot of people who don't know that the police actually cleared you. They just have it in their mind this entire time that, well, there's a good chance you did it. Michael said he later moved to British Columbia where his daughter was living with family. He returned to Nevada City in July 2002. After hearing the case had been solved, around the time Michael heard about the new trial, Glazebrook's defense called his acquaintances, saying they were

investigating a criminal case involving Stone. So after all this time and after the arrest of Michael Glazebrook, Michael Stone was still known as the guy who killed his wife. Wow. Glazebrook's attorneys also subpoenaed Michael's ex-Rennett Senna to testify at trial because she had previously been in contact with officials about Stone. But the judge did not allow her testimony. And I don't know what her testimony would have been.

Yeah, everything she heard was hearsay. Secondhand. Yeah. The deputy DA of Monterey County would say Michael Stone absolutely did not murder his wife. According to the union, Michael works with other people who have gone through trauma and offers trauma awareness, integration and mediation classes at a yoga center in Nevada City. Sasha Stone is now in her 40s and has become an abstract. advocate for victims' rights and restorative justice, which encourages offenders to take responsibility and recognize the harm they cause through discussions with the victim and the community.

Some pretty big steps there. Yeah. And I do think you see a lot of times a person so affected, you know, by a murder or, you know, something to that degree, they feel the neat to get involved with some of these different types of things. In April 2023, Sasha was the inspiration speaker for the National Crime Victims' Rights Week in Salinas, California. She said, I wish I could say that the impacts of trauma and violent crimes could be something we could just shake off, but it takes so much more. It takes building inner strength and stamina, human humility, compassion, grace, generosity,

forgiveness. She said about her mother, she was a best friend to a group of Montreal adventurous kids who grew up together and eventually moved down to California to pursue their dreams. She was a beautiful bride. She was a wife. She was a hardworking, business-minded, independent, talented young seamstress. She was my mother. You know, some tough things to say. But very moving.

Yeah. Very moving. And, you know, we talked about how we, you know, you feel. bad for Michael Stone. Obviously, you feel really bad for Sasha. Of course, yeah. You know, here's a woman now in her 40s who didn't get to spend much time with her mother. No, not much at all. She was taken away from her when she was very, very young. So as we wrap this one up, Gibbs, you know, it took over 40 years and two trials. But investigators were eventually able to get justice for Sonia Herrick Stone and her family,

I think her case is an example of how advancements in DNA technology can solve cold cases and prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And I always go back to that term reasonable doubt. You know, when we're going through cases from the 70s and the early 80s,

even back into the 60s, in my head, when I try to put myself into the place, of a juror, I can often find quite a bit of reasonable doubt. Yeah. I think DNA has really set the bar. And I'm sure there will be something that surpasses it. But, you know, when you say or prove that there's no way that this could be anyone other than the defendant, there's a one in 46 quadrillion chance.

I don't even know what a quadrillion is. can't even put that into perspective. Big number. It's a big, big number. You are taking a lot of reasonable doubt away. Now, you can still make the argument, and I'm sure the defense did. How did that blood get there? You know, okay, we concede it's his, but do we know for sure how it got there?

Well, I don't think Glazebrook did himself any favors when he waffled on his story of having this romantic relationship of being there on the day of the murder. Because that is kind of the one thing that could have potentially caused some reasonable doubt. Right. Now, you had all these other people saying she didn't even know him. They weren't having an affair. But if he was, if they were intimate, if he was there that day, it could help explain.

And maybe there's one juror who would say, well, I have some reasonable doubt. But when you tell the detectives, hey, I wasn't there. Now you got a problem. Yeah, you do. I think what is missing from this case and a lot of that is because, you know, I don't know that Michael's talked all that much is what was the motive? You know, in a lot of cases that we do, there seems to be a pretty clear cut motive. You know, it's either greed or it's love or whatever.

Sometimes we have serial killers who just. want to kill people. I don't know that this was this guy because unless something comes out later, it seems like he lived for like 40 years not doing much in the in the way of criminality. So what was the underlying motive? Yeah, I don't know if maybe he grew an infatuation or became infatuated with Sonia saw an opportunity, decided to. to possibly commit a sexual assault. It went badly and he ended up killing her. I just don't know.

It's a good speculation. It's the best thing I can come up with because if they weren't having a relationship, there's no motive there. He'd only lived there a number of months. But unless he comes out and tells us, then we're just left to kind of speculate. But that's it for our episode on Michael. Glazebrook. We got some voicemails. You want to check those out? Let's hear him.

Hey, Mike and Debbie. My name is Hannah and I've been a long-time listener. I am on the current episode listening to Alejandro Rojas and I have been dying at how you have been pronouncing the Washington state names. I currently live in Arizona, but I used to be in Washington and how you have pronounced Callum, Van Quallum, had me laughing. And then you kept saying Sequim or C-S-C-C-C-W-I-M or something like that. But how you pronounce that area is actually squim. Yeah, it sounds a lot different than what it actually is. But I just want to let you know that you were, in fact,

pronouncing those names wrong. It was really funny to listen to. Keep your own time you pick-in and have a great day. So got a lot of voicemails, a lot of emails about this mispronunciation. This city name is spelled S-E-Q-E-K. U-I-E-M, something like that. I don't know. I don't have it right in front of me.

How you get squim out of that, I have no idea. I don't know either. And, oh, I'm surprised because normally you would say, well, I knew, but I just didn't tell you. No, and I think Hana called you out on it. No, I definitely mispronounced it. You know, it's just, it's like some of those ones in Oklahoma. Yeah. They're not said.

anywhere near the way that they are spelled. They are not. And so, yeah. Now, I'm sure I will hopefully remember that. If we have another case that involves squim. Yeah. Well, I'm glad Hannah, you know, let you know. As did about 40 other people.

Yeah. And I appreciate it. Don't get me wrong. Hi, my name Chantel. I am calling from the UK. I've rang you before, but it's been a long time. I'm specifically calling from Newcastle upon time. which is in the northeast of England.

I just wanted to comment about the person in the last episode. I can't remember the name of the episode now, but they were scolding you almost for pronouncing pronouncing Edinburgh wrong. And actually they pronounce it wrong as well. It's not Edinburgh either. It's Edinburgh. Edinburgh, that's it.

So you were actually pretty much closer than they were. I think her name was Rebecca, but I'm not quite sure of their name. But anyway, for future reference, it is Edinburgh. And that's pretty much how everyone in the UK will kind of say exceptions of having different accents. But there is no Edinburgh or Edinburgh. And in fact, we laugh when people say Edinburgh, much more than we laugh at when people say Edinburgh. So, yeah. And stay safe and keep your own time ticking.

And I'm afraid to say that I am Team Gibby. Cheers, bye. she's afraid to say it. Why are you afraid? Why? No, I got a lot of shit about the Edinburgh too. And that one I was mad at myself about because I had heard it pronounced correctly a lot. Yeah.

Whether it had something to do with, you know, soccer or, you know, whatever. I had heard that name. But for some reason, I just, I blanked on it. I just like to say, E to the B. You know what I'm saying? Boom, done. E to the B, which is how they say it over there. Absolutely.

In certain sections. Yeah, not every. Not everybody. Be in the in crowd. Right. Just certain people say it that way. But, you know, we love when people give us a hard time about mispronunciations. And it's part of the reason why, you know, we could look up every city name.

We could. But we don't. But we don't. Because then it wouldn't give people a chance to write. in or calling. And more importantly, you should say you are happy to be Team Ghibie. I'm afraid to say that I'm glad to say you should be afraid. I'm happy to say anything like that would be great followed by Team Ghibie. We got some mailbag gives. Lindsay Jenkins sent us in some of her artwork. I think she sent in some before. But these are really cool. They have magnets on

the back. So they're for the studio fridge. I love it. Yeah. And Steve Fitzpatrick. sitting in a Harley Chip and a Harley Pint from McAnall. Oh, yeah. Up north. But he did say at the end of his letter, I am Team Ghibie all the way. Did he say, I'm sad to say? I'm afraid to say. Yeah.

I fear for my life, but I am Team Ghiby all the way. Thanks, man. Yeah, we appreciate all that. All right, buddy, that is it for another episode of True Crime all the time. So for Mike and givey, stay safe and keep your own time ticking. Thank you.