The Murder of Trent DiGiuro | Show Notes

Transcripts

Copyright Protected, please cite source if used.

Part 1 of 2:

Speaker 1 (00:00):

Warning: The podcast you’re about to listen to may contain graphic descriptions of violent acts and injury. Listener discretion is advised.

Wendy (00:09):

Welcome to the Murder Police podcast.

Wendy (00:11):

(silence)

Wendy (00:51):

Hey, David, it was amazing to see how well our first ever episodes were received by listeners two weeks ago.

David (00:58):

Yeah, I know. I was grateful for the interest and support we’ve had.

Wendy (01:01):

And all over the world too.

David (01:02):

Yeah, that took me by surprise a little bit. I wasn’t expecting that. And I was really excited to see people from Ireland.

Wendy (01:08):

Well, of course you were.

David (01:09):

Well, that’s where my family’s from, many years ago. And as a matter of fact, if any listeners in Ireland are Lyon’s or know of any, I’d love to hear from them.

Wendy (01:16):

Okay. Well, moving along.

David (01:18):

Yeah, moving along.

Wendy (01:19):

So back to why we’re here today. Tell me a little bit about this case.

David (01:23):

Well, what we have is part one right now of a two-part case, regarding the 1994 murder of University of Kentucky football player, Trent DiGiuro.

Wendy (01:33):

Two parts?

David (01:34):

Yeah. The second part will drop in two weeks, and that’s on our every other Tuesday episode schedule that we have. As the listeners are about to find out, this is a very intricate and complex case, and it really needs that much time to be told.

Wendy (01:47):

Well, who is presenting this case?

David (01:49):

That’s the best part, a good friend of mine, and more importantly, one of a handful of true mentors for me during my career, Dan Gibbons. Dan was the sergeant over the homicide unit in Lexington, Kentucky when the murder occurred in 1994. He’s going to talk about the investigation from a supervisory perspective, which is a little different from the investigator perspective.

Wendy (02:10):

And how so?

David (02:11):

When you’re on the ground working a case, you’re low to the ground and you’re busy in countless task and movements in the case. The supervisor, Dan, in this case, hovers a little higher. They’re never managing the case itself, but they’re making sure everybody has what they need, and most importantly, watching for things that could be a problem that the investigator might miss, that could develop into an issue later.

Wendy (02:36):

So he wasn’t even working the case?

David (02:37):

No, but Dan did roll up his sleeves and got involved. But the difference is, is that he never micromanaged the case. And I can tell you now that detectives don’t handle micromanagement very well at all. The difference for Dan in this case is, he’s what I would say as a genuine leader, as opposed to a manager, and in our business, that’s a big deal. We’re also going to hear from Ray “the D.A.” Larson again, the Commonwealth’s attorney at the time. Listeners will recall that we had Ray on these last episodes during the murder of Haley McHone and they know what he brings to the case. I’d have to say that the word seasoned may not do justice to Ray’s experiences and wisdom.

Wendy (03:15):

So tell me, what about this case makes it so unique?

David (03:15):

A lot of things, and the listeners are going to pick up on that through these two parts when they listen. For starters, the case rolls right past that coveted 48-hour mark that we all know is real and that we shoot for. It goes from hours to days to weeks and eventually years. And that’s despite some incredibly specific evidence that was in the case, but the listeners will find it eventually falls because of one person coming forward.

Wendy (03:41):

That’s what I gathered when we recorded this. So, with that being said, let’s jump right in and listen.

Wendy (03:48):

Dan, just what is this case about?

Dan Gibbons (03:51):

Well, it has to do with the death of a young man, three days shy of his birthday, involved a long held revenge motive. It’s one of those cases that comes along during a career very infrequently in this area.

Ray Larson (04:11):

Why? Why the infrequently?

Dan Gibbons (04:15):

So many of the cases that the police investigators encounter had to do with what I would call a sudden heat and passion type of thing. It’s spur of the moment decision, a bad result that basically comes down to the police pretty well know who’s responsible for the crime, and it’s just a matter of pulling together the evidence to prove it. This was one of those cases. That’s more of a who done it, where you really don’t have anything other than a limited amount of physical evidence, a limited number of eyewitnesses. And because of that, it makes the challenge much greater in bringing someone before the court.

Wendy (04:56):

Well, Dan, can you tell us a little bit about yourself?

Dan Gibbons (05:00):

I’m retired Lexington Police Department. I served with them for 25 years: 13 of those years I was a part of the Homicide Investigations Unit, seven of the 13 as the supervisor of that unit. And then, I mean, the other times I’ve served in sections that deal with drug investigations, burglary investigations, and things of that nature. But the huge portion of my career was as an investigator.

Wendy (05:25):

Well, how did you get involved in this case? Were you just sitting it home and your phone rang? Or what step initially was taken when you learned of this Trent DiGiuro homicide?

Dan Gibbons (05:38):

There were actually two persons present at the time the shooting occurred. Those individuals, once they determined that there was a significant injury to Trent, called 911 which resulted in police dispatch. The officers arrived on the scene. They determined that he was very seriously injured. Emergency response units arrived on the scene, transported him within just a couple of minutes to the closest hospital, and within 30 minutes he was pronounced dead at the hospital.

David (06:11):

What was he doing, Dan, when the shooting happened? What kind of environment was he in?

Dan Gibbons (06:16):

This, like I said, he was, I think, three days shy of his 21st birthday, friends had gathered at the house where Trent lived just a couple of blocks off the campus of the university to give him a birthday celebration. And it was more of an open house where people were coming and going, not like everybody stayed for the entire evening. So it was essentially a small gathering of people. It was kind of on the tail end of the party, it was winding down, Trent was sitting in a chair on the front porch on one end of the porch. These two other individuals witnesses, for lack of a better term, were actually on the other end of the porch, engaged in a conversation with each other, and a single shot rang out 2:40 in the morning or so. And then when they finally determined that Trent had been injured from that shot, when they determined that it was a shot and not a car backfire or fireworks or something of that nature, that’s when they called the police.

David (07:23):

And on the university, that’s University of Kentucky in Lexington, right?

Dan Gibbons (07:26):

Yes.

David (07:28):

And he was a student there?

Dan Gibbons (07:28):

He was a student.

David (07:29):

Was he involved with athletics, with the football team? Can you tell a little bit about that?

Dan Gibbons (07:34):

I can, a little bit. He had enrolled at the university as a freshman in 1991. He had taken the steps to walk on to the football team and got accepted. He was a practice player essentially for a couple of years, and finally got some playing time in 1993. And that playing time continued to develop over the course of time to the point that he was getting ready to start his senior season and he was going to be a starting right guard for the team.

David (08:05):

Good deal. What happened after that, after they arrived, how did homicide get involved after patrol arrived at the scene?

Dan Gibbons (08:15):

Back at that time, when a homicide occurred, we had… And I don’t remember exactly off the top of my head exactly how many members there were in the unit but there were probably in the neighborhood of 10 members of the homicide unit. They were all called to the scene to participate in this, to become involved in doing the various things that need to be done. That was just kind of a standard protocol that when uniform officers arrived on the scene, they determined that they had a crime of this nature and they would do a call out, and the entire unit responded.

David (08:48):

What does patrol do, waiting for homicide? Is there anything that’s expected with them when the detectives arrive?

Dan Gibbons (08:53):

Oh, sure. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, they play a big role. Primarily, their job is to initially identify and protect the crime scene. That’s going to entail doing a quick cursory search of the area to determine if there’s any evidence that’s visibly present or readily identifiable. It’s going to be taking the time to actually mark that off, to barricade it off with what’s just typically called crime scene tape to kind of define the parameters of what they want to be focused on it. It’s going to involve trying to identify any and all witnesses that might have something to add to learning what had transpired up to that point.

Dan Gibbons (09:39):

And it’s going to be even doing some very cursory preliminary interviews with those people. It could possibly even, a commander on the scene may take the step to say, “We’re going to initiate a neighborhood investigation.” And they would assign patrol officers then to go door to door, or writing down license numbers of cars, or trying to talk to people at their homes or identifying anybody that might have been in the area at the time. So that’s primarily going to be their job, is to protect the scene and try to identify witnesses.

David (10:11):

Gotcha. And how did we determine who gets assigned the homicide investigation back then? Was there a process for that, for who drew the case?

Dan Gibbons (10:20):

In all honesty, I mean, it was kind of random, but a lot of times it was based upon an officer’s caseload. If we had an investigator who had already drawn a homicide investigation two days before, for example, and obviously we wouldn’t want to add to that person’s caseload by assigning a new one to that person. And it might very well be that, it’s just kind of keeping track of who’s got what assigned to them and how actively involved in they are and how large the scale the cases are that they have. There was one other component that came into play occasionally. I don’t think it really did on this one that much. But a lot of times, the first officer on the scene may have information and may show a willingness to be actively engaged. And in order to bring their knowledge of what they learned up to that point to the case and in order to maybe give them some experience, occasionally we would transfer that person in temporarily to the homicide unit to work alongside someone else.

Ray Larson (11:17):

Sure. So, Dan, tell me about, you’re there and you’ve got a dead person that’s been shot, and you’re there as the supervisor of the homicide unit, what do you do next?

Dan Gibbons (11:34):

Well, hopefully, patrol has adequately identified the crime scene area and gotten it protected sufficiently. And I think then, we’re going to take a step back as the investigations team, and we’re going to let our crime scene technicians come in and they’re going to do the things that you see a lot of times on TV, through movies like CSI and things of that nature. They’re going to process the scene for evidence. They’re going to look for fingerprints. They’re going to look for blood samples. In a shooting case, they’re going to look for spent projectiles, they’re going to look for casings. I mean, they’re going to look for anything, whatever it might be that would provide them with some sort of a lead or a place to start trying to determine who’s responsible.

Ray Larson (12:20):

Who, in this kind of a situation, one of the things that’s always bothered me as a prosecutor is, how are the loved ones notified of a death of a loved one.

Dan Gibbons (12:37):

And again, that comes case by case, having distance, like in this case, there was some physical distance from where Trent’s parents lived, that makes it a little bit harder to make notification. Ideally, someone who can display and can show a lot of compassion is going to be asked to take on the task of finding family and making that notification. In a case like this, where you don’t really have any family local, the family is actually a couple of hours away, then we could even do that over the telephone. That’s not ideal certainly, but it does happen.

Ray Larson (13:23):

So, here you are, what kind of evidence did you have? What kind of leads did you have at three o’clock in the morning on July, the 17th, 1994?

Dan Gibbons (13:38):

The responding officers that were on the scene initially, they identified what they thought was the crime scene. They put their barrier tape up to protect it. They posted officers there to watch, to make sure that no one entered the scene and contaminated it anyway. And they had done some cursory interviews with the people that were present. Essentially, what they were able to tell the investigators when they arrived was, that these three people, Trent and the other two witnesses were sitting on the porch, this loud shot rang out. The two witnesses looked up, they saw no vehicles in the area, they saw no pedestrians in the area, they wasn’t really sure exactly what the sound was, and made a comment, “Trent, what was that?” And got no response. And then, when they checked and they saw that he had been injured, he was unresponsive. And that’s when they called the police.

Dan Gibbons (14:34):

Once the investigators get there, the crime scene technicians arrived, they began processing the crime scene itself. With no more information that we had available to us at that time, it was really important that we do what we could. And we’re talking about three o’clock in the morning, and there’s not a lot of lighting in that area. Finding physical evidence were at a little bit of a disadvantage, given the elements. We started looking for, what are the possible scenarios to help us maybe direct our investigative effort. The way this was situated and where the injury was on the victim, thought there was a possibility that someone had maybe walked up, graveled driveway between the two houses to the side of the porch, where Trent was seated, and possibly shot him with a handgun.

Dan Gibbons (15:27):

So, we searched that area obviously for any spent shell casings or footprints or anything of that nature. We also thought it was a possibility that someone was across the street and fired a shot. But again, not knowing where the shot came from exactly, it was hard to identify what areas to search. At that time of night, doing a broad search of that entire area just really wasn’t feasible. We tried to theorize a little bit as to what could have happened and then we tried to wait until we got more information, the medical examiner’s office, until we got more information from our crime scene tech officers.

Ray Larson (16:09):

In the medical examiner’s office, was Trent’s body taken to the custody of his body taken by the coroner?

Dan Gibbons (16:18):

Correct.

Ray Larson (16:18):

And what is the coroner order?

Dan Gibbons (16:21):

Well, the coroner has the responsibility for determining cause and manner of death. And they’ll use information from the police investigation. They’ll use information from an autopsy conducted by the medical examiner to make that determination. Once the coroner collects the body from the hospital, they take it to a facility, and then the medical examiner performs the autopsy and then prepares a subsequent report.

Ray Larson (16:49):

And the medical examiner, did he obtain any evidence from the body of Trent DiGiuro?

Dan Gibbons (16:58):

He did. He did determine that cause of death was a single gunshot wound to the head. The shot actually entered the orifice of the left ear. Through the course of the autopsy, they were able to recover fragments of a bullet that had caused death. And this is not a structured bullet that they recovered, this-

Ray Larson (17:24):

I don’t know what that means.

Dan Gibbons (17:26):

Well, I mean, you know what a bullet looks like.

Ray Larson (17:28):

Yeah.

Dan Gibbons (17:28):

I mean, most people do. The bullet is totally fragmented. Once it entered, it fragments into many, many, many small pieces of lead and copper. There was items obtained through the course of the autopsy, and they did provide evidence for us, but not to the extent that you would have if that bullet was fully intact.

Ray Larson (17:54):

So, you get the pieces of the bullet as an investigator, then what do you do with it, with all of those pieces?

Dan Gibbons (18:04):

Well, I mean, obviously they’re going to get logged into as evidence. They’re going to be given a specific number for tracking and making sure that we don’t have a problem putting them back as the item that was actually recovered.

Ray Larson (18:19):

Right.

Dan Gibbons (18:20):

Those items, once they get logged in, then they’re going to be submitted to, for us, the Kentucky State Police Crime Lab, or they’ll undergo a variety of different tests to see what information they can yield for us. And hopefully that information would be something that would, number one, in the early stages, give us a lead to follow up, but then it could also be, in the latter stages, be used as evidence against someone who’s been charged.

Ray Larson (18:51):

And did they give you some information about those bullet fragments that lets you conclude anything?

Dan Gibbons (18:58):

I did. Somewhat limited, but they did. Yes. They determined that the round had been fired from a specific caliber weapon. They were able to speculate and theorize a little bit based on an educated guess that it was a particular type of weapon. And they gave us the configuration of the gun itself that fired that particular shot. So we had some idea as an investigations team as to what type of weapon we were looking for, and quite honestly, the type of weapon went a long way toward giving us a little understanding of what had transpired. We felt pretty certain, after hearing the information from the medical examiner, that the theory that someone walked up between the houses and shot him from just a few feet away with this particular weapon, just wasn’t a very valid summary. We felt like we needed to look in another direction other than that scenario. It was helpful.

Ray Larson (20:00):

What kind of gun did the Kentucky State Police Crime Lab suggested it likely was?

Dan Gibbons (20:08):

They concluded pretty definitively that it was a .243 caliber rifle. And then they were able to say specifically that the round, the weapon, had a barrel that had four grooves with a right hand twist. And it’s those grooves and the rate of twist that they’re cut into the barrel, that helps identify the bullet.

Ray Larson (20:31):

It’s kind of like a fingerprint on a bullet.

Dan Gibbons (20:34):

That’s correct. Yes.

Ray Larson (20:35):

So a .243 rifle, did you learn anything about the common nature of those guns? Were they common? Or were they rare? What did you know?

Dan Gibbons (20:50):

.243 caliber rifles are a fairly common rifle. There’s a lot of those in production. There was some educated speculation that they could pin it down to a particular type, particular brand of weapon, but it wasn’t an absolute based upon the evidence that they had. But it did give us the ability to start looking. And when we would pursue a lead, one of the first things we would look at is, number one, is it a .243 caliber? And number two, does it fit the type of weapon that the ballistics examination had told us it very well could be?

Wendy (21:34):

We will be right back after this important message we want to share.

Speaker 1 (21:41):

In the wake of the senseless and evil act that took young Trent DiGiuro’s life, his family created the Trent DiGiuro Foundation to keep his name alive and to help students succeed. As stated so well on the foundation’s website, the Trent DiGiuro Foundation was established to raise funds for, and make contributions to, various educational scholarship funds and scholarships in the name of Trent DiGiuro. The foundation is dedicated to keeping Trent’s memory alive. All proceeds are used to support scholarships at three high schools in Oldham County, Kentucky and at the University of Kentucky. The foundation website can be found at trentdigiurofoundation.org. And we will put a link to this on our show notes, which are located at murderpolicepodcast.com. Do us a favor and spend some time at the foundation website and more importantly, consider making a donation to this very worthy cause to help keep Trent in our collective memories. Now, back to the podcast.

Ray Larson (22:47):

Did you find any rifles that fit the description of the bullet?

Dan Gibbons (22:53):

This was at the time, in my opinion, a very high profile investigation. And because of that, it prompted a lot of calls from the public with information. Once we distributed the type of weapon that we were looking for, we received numerous calls that pointed us in direction of people who had those caliber weapons, and we pursued every one of those. And none of those came back as being the weapon that fired that round.

Ray Larson (23:28):

Dan, you got this information about the rifle and you got this information about the markings on the fragments taken from Trent’s head. So where do you go from here?

Dan Gibbons (23:41):

Well, again, the evidence that we had really was fairly limited. We thought our best approach was to conduct interviews with as many of the people that knew him as we could possibly find. We wanted to do a comprehensive canvas of the neighborhood, just to see if we could find anyone that could provide information. Along those lines, we assigned our team various assignments to begin the process of those two things primarily. So we took and actually made an effort on the night of the offense to go door to door. But again, it’s three o’clock in the morning, and a lot of times people just don’t come to the door at three o’clock in the morning. We put forth that effort, kept record of everyone we talked to and what they had to say.

Dan Gibbons (24:35):

We then went back the next day and expanded our crime scene search, looking for anything that we couldn’t find during the darkness around the time that the offense occurred. We actually made a list of every residence in every direction for several blocks and assigned that list out to various investigators, with the instruction that they go door to door and that they go back as often as they need to in order to make contact with someone at every residence on that list, and to determine, did they see, did they hear anything that night, who was in the house that night, talk to each person that you identify as being friends and even some family members of Trent’s, and assign those to investigators for them to locate those people into a comprehensive investigation with them.

Dan Gibbons (25:31):

And the goal of that particular effort was to find if there was anything related to Trent and Trent’s past that might generate a motive for why someone would want to shoot this young man. So those were the primary efforts at that time. Again, it was a very high profile case. And because it was so public, we got a lot of phone calls to the point that we actually had to develop, I guess, a roster of tip sheets and who was assigned to that tip to follow up because we followed up on every tip we got. We put forth, for an extended period of time, those efforts trying to generate any kind of lead that would give us a motive, any kind of lead that would point us into direction of who the offender might be, or anything that might even lead us to any evidence that might be relevant to it. And that went on for a long time.

Dan Gibbons (26:29):

It resulted in numerous calls that pointed us in the direction of people that owned guns, that possibly could match the description, and we followed up on each one of those. We took the steps to go and locate the individual that owned the weapon that was named in the tip. We would conduct interviews with them. We actually went through the process of collecting their weapons and submitting those weapons to the state police crime lab, to have them compared to the evidence that was recovered during autopsy. And none of those weapons that were collected during that effort resulted in a tangible identification. Going door to door in the neighborhood had absolutely generated very little evidence. A few people heard a loud bang in the middle of the night, saw nothing. Beyond that, it really didn’t generate anything other than, “Well, I knew who lived there. I know the victim. I’ve talked to him a couple times in passing,” things of that nature.

Dan Gibbons (27:34):

The expanded physical search of the area during the next day, during the daylight hours, yielded no additional evidence other than, in the turf under a tree caddy corner from the residence across the intersection, from where that residence is located, one of our investigators found a couple of divots in the turf, in the dirt, in the grass that was there. And those divots were positioned in such a way that it could make one think that it was an intention left by a bipod that is commonly used on rifles of .243 caliber. We didn’t know that that’s what it was, but it was significant enough that we recorded it. Our crime scene technicians photographed it and preserved it. Not really leading us to anyone or to any other evidence, it was just the fact that we developed through the course of this.

Dan Gibbons (28:40):

In talking to the friends that we interviewed, our pursuit was, what could have happened in Trent’s life that might make someone angry enough that they would want to take this type of revenge out on him? And we learned that Trent was… He was a pretty good sized fellow. He was 6’2″, 270 pounds. Quite honestly, everyone we spoke to said there was no doubt he was the strongest player on the University of Kentucky football team, bench pressing in the neighborhood of 400 plus pounds. He was a pretty strong guy. And everyone that we talked to said, they called him a big Teddy bear. And they looked at him as their protector. Anytime something happened that created a verbal or physical altercation, they reported that Trent was there to stand up, to protect him to, to stand guard over him.

Dan Gibbons (29:46):

So there were times when there were verbal altercations. There were times when there were some physical altercations, none major by any stretch of the imagination, but we thought, could this be a revenge motive where he’s made someone mad and they just came back and took this action as a retaliatory measure? We heard things from various people that we determined to be more speculation or theorizing than actually coming from any kind of fact, things like, he was so big and so strong, was he involved with using steroids? Who was his dealer? Did he steal something from someone? Did he rip some dealer off? There were all kinds of speculation along those lines, and those leads were investigated thoroughly, and none of that ever proved to be the truth.

Ray Larson (30:39):

I mean, these things that you’re talking about, following up on these leads, how long did this stretch your investigation into the murder of Trent DiGiuro?

Dan Gibbons (30:56):

This went for several years. We’re talking about a crime that occurred in 1994, and didn’t really gain any significant traction as far as identifying the offender until 2000. So it went for several years where we were following up on leads, and of course, those leads, they would come in frequently in the beginning, so much so that it took a lot of extra man hours just to stay on top of following up on the tips. We would see those tips start to become fewer and fewer as time passed. And at that time, there were programs that were being done to reenact these types of crimes. And that was done on this case, trying to generate a lead that might become tangible. And of course, when you do a show like America’s Most Wanted, that’s a national show, you get a lot of tips.

Ray Larson (32:02):

I bet.

Dan Gibbons (32:04):

And it did. It generated a lot of information, but again, all of those leads that came in, we followed up on, some of them were leads that were cross country, and we were able to use other police agencies to help us follow up on those. But none of those tips really ever came to any tangible belief that we knew who we were looking for.

Ray Larson (32:29):

Dan, as the prosecutor, in this case, I stayed in close contact with the parents of Trent DiGiuro, Mike and Anne DiGiuro, and Mike always said, “Somebody knows something out there, and sooner or later, they’re going to tell us.” He had great faith that somebody would come forward and tell.

Dan Gibbons (32:58):

And he had conveyed that to me from time to time. I got calls from Mike and I got calls from Anne on a regular basis, just checking in because they were, in my opinion, they seemed somewhat, desperate may not be the right word, but they certainly wanted to know what had happened.

Wendy (33:19):

Well, sure. And I think as a parent, any parent would want to know who and why has done this to my child. And furthermore, why six years into it, do we still not know?

Dan Gibbons (33:34):

Right.

Wendy (33:34):

And I’m guessing that they were wondering, like most people would, what are you doing during this time when the leads are just dead ends and they’re going nowhere, where do you, as an investigator, go from that point? When nothing is turning up, what do you do then? And all the while, I’m assuming more cases are piling on, so you’re trying to prioritize what’s coming in versus what still hasn’t been solved. How do you handle that?

Dan Gibbons (34:01):

As this time passes, when our investigators are pursuing all these tips that come in, you’re right, other cases continue to come. And that’s important because the unit that handles the homicides at that time for the police department, not only did they investigate suspicious deaths and homicides, they also investigated all levels of assault. They investigated sexual assaults, they investigated harassing communications. So all of those complaints continued to come in during the course of years that we were investigating this case. And my posture with our unit was always, when you look at a case on this side that’s a homicide investigation, and you look at a case over here that’s a harassing communications matter, in your eyes, as the investigator, you’re going to put more emphasis on the homicide. But in all honesty, the victim of this harassing communications has nothing more important to them in their life at that time than that harassing communications.

Wendy (35:11):

Right. And I’m imagining that they may look at it like they may be the next victim, and maybe it’s not as intense as their thinking it is, but in their mind, I would think I would want you to focus on my case and exclusively my case because that’s important to me, without knowing that you have all these other cases. And I think many people don’t realize that in the back scenes, you’ve got a lot of other stuff going on that’s really more important than mine.

Dan Gibbons (35:37):

Right. And I always made it clear to our investigators that it wasn’t acceptable to use the excuse I’ve got 50 other cases to work as an example of why I can’t work on yours.

Wendy (35:46):

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Dan Gibbons (35:48):

That wasn’t acceptable. You had to give some time to these other cases, but clearly, this homicide was important and it stayed important through the course of the entire investigation. We got tips on things that were generated pretty quickly after the offense occurred. Things like, during the party, there were a couple of men that walked up to the party and asked to join in, and they weren’t known by the people that were at the party. So they were told, “No, sorry. It’s a private birthday gathering. So sorry, no.” So what is the possibility that that offended them and they came back and did this?

Wendy (36:28):

Right.

Dan Gibbons (36:29):

There was information provided that while the police were on the scene investigating this, there was a vehicle that drove down Woodland Avenue and that there was a person in the back seat of the vehicle that kind of leaned out, stuck his arm out the window, and the witnesses said, pointed like he had a gun in his hand at the crime scene. Well, is that someone returning to the scene? What is that exactly? And all of those were followed up on. And again, none of them produced a tangible suspect or a tangible motive. So we looked at things like motives or leads as a random drive-by shooting. Is it possible that somebody were out, roaming around at three o’clock in the morning and saw guys sitting on the front porch and just shot him randomly with no way of knowing if that there’s any connection at all?

Dan Gibbons (37:25):

We looked at the fact that, could someone in the neighborhood have gotten upset because there was a party and sounds did echo at three o’clock in the morning? Was it loud enough that it angered someone and that’s the way they took care of it? Was there an argument at the party, that maybe two people got into an argument over? We looked at all of those things and none of them provided any tangible information. Then, there was a call that came in from an individual who declined to identify himself, that individual talked about there being tunnels underneath the UK campus, and that there were people who lived in the tunnels and that they would come out at night and they would actually assault people.

Dan Gibbons (38:10):

From a police officer who receives that kind of information, you really don’t give it a lot of credibility, not because they’re saying there’s tunnels under the campus because there are utility tunnels that run into the campus, but because the tip was so vague. There are people that live in the tunnels. There are people that come out and commit assaults. Didn’t give a whole lot of credibility to that tip, but we did enough on it to verify that, yeah, there were tunnels, and we actually went and walked through, and there was some evidence that people had been in the tunnels, but not evidence that people were living in-

Wendy (38:48):

Not mysterious tunnel people who’s-

Dan Gibbons (38:50):

Exactly.

Wendy (38:50):

… coming out, hunting Lexington of air of the night.

Dan Gibbons (38:52):

Right. A short time after that first call came in, this same person called in a second time and just wanted to know what we found out about the tunnels, and then asked through the course of that conversation, if he could call back again and see if we learned anything more. But then, several weeks passed and that third call never came, but it finally did, there was no mention of the tunnels during that call, it was strictly, this person now had a couple of suspects that he wanted to name, and he provided us their names. We researched it. There was nothing that tied those individuals to Trent in any way.

Dan Gibbons (39:34):

And then, it started coming around that this fellow was obviously obsessed because he kept calling back, and we finally managed to secure his identity. So we were able to do some research on him. And what we found was that, he lived in an adjoining county, to Fayette County. He lived on a piece of property that was owned by his parents, that he was an avid shooter, owned multiple guns, was a very good shot. By all reports, he spent a lot of time on the firing range practicing.

Wendy (40:09):

So, at this point, your interest is peaked, thinking, is this our guy since he’s such a good shooter?

Dan Gibbons (40:16):

That’s right. Because we’re looking at a shot that most people would say was an expert marksman, and so now we’ve got a tip that leads us to an individual who is providing something that ties to that in one way. We locate this guy and we do all the things that investigators would do. We conducted interview. We compile the information that we had to that point. We actually do a search of his residence and we found things that just added to the belief that the information that he was giving us probably was not accurate valid information. But it was still there, we couldn’t find anything that could eliminate, but we didn’t find anything that tied him to it either.

Dan Gibbons (41:03):

But there were things that were on the plate, like he had a family member that lived within eyesight of where this crime occurred. From the family member’s back porch was a straight visual line to where Trent was sitting when he got shot. We found things that made us believe that this fellow was under the illusion that he and Trent looked so much alike that they could be mistaken for twins. Through the course of it all, he thought maybe he was supposed to be the target, not Trent, but it looked so much like somebody got it wrong. We spent a lot of time following up on this information and trying to either tie him to the murder or eliminate him as a suspect. And that went on for an extended period of time, and we were never able to get to a point that we were comfortable with one way or the other.

Wendy (41:56):

So, I guess, did you ever at any point say to him, “Did you do this?”

Dan Gibbons (42:00):

Of course.

Wendy (42:00):

And he just said no?

Dan Gibbons (42:02):

He denied it. Right. He denied it. And there was no evidence to put him at the crime scene. There was just a lot of circumstantial facts that this many years into an investigation, without having had anything tangible-

Wendy (42:17):

It’s something.

Dan Gibbons (42:18):

… was something to pursue and we did pursue it, pursued it pretty aggressively. And again, like all the others, it finally got to the point where it kind of went cold.

Wendy (42:27):

Another dead end.

Dan Gibbons (42:29):

Another dead end. So that kind of gets us up to the point where we finally got a tangible lead. It was a phone call that one of our investigators received from an attorney who was representing a person who had information that related directly to the shooting and that person was willing to provide it.

Wendy (42:55):

Hey, you know there’s more to this story, so go download the next episode like the true crime fan that you are.

Speaker 1 (43:00):

The Murder Police podcast is hosted by Wendy and David Lyons and was created to honor the lives of crime victims so their names are never forgotten. This podcast is produced, recorded, and edited by David Lyons. The Murder Police podcast can be found on your favorite Apple or Android podcast platform as well as at murderpolicepodcast.com, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. If you have enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe for more and give us a five-star review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you download your podcast from. And please, tell your friends.

Speaker 1 (43:31):

(silence)

Speaker 1 (44:43):

Lock it down, Judy.

Part 2 of 2:

David (00:00):

Warning, the podcast you’re about to listen to may contain graphic descriptions of violent acts and injury. Listener discretion is advised.

Wendy (00:09):

Welcome to The Murder Police Podcast.

David (00:54):

So Wendy, now that we’re about to listen to part two of the murder of Trent DiGiuro, was there anything that grabbed you in part one?

Wendy (01:02):

Oh man, I would have a hard time picking any one thing out. Just listening to the other leads that were followed, I’d never heard about those before, tunnels under the University of Kentucky campus, that’s crazy.

David (01:14):

Yeah, that was nuts. I remember walking those tunnels with Dan after we got that tip and that incredible labyrinth was there that we went through. And of course, it never went anywhere. It was a lead down into a dead end. But the thing is that the reason that we have more details is that when these cases are produced for television shows and documentaries, there’s big time constraints for those productions. And they’re just too tight to get in a lot of interesting details. That’s exactly what makes this podcast unique. For example, myself, I just got to the homicide unit right before Trent was killed and Dan had assigned me tons of things to do to keep me involved in the case. I remember actually going to Chicago with Dan to follow a tip. And get this, this was the tip, that Trent was murdered to settle a mob killing from decades before. And I remember we went up there and actually talked to a guy that was allegedly involved and it didn’t pan out, it didn’t go anywhere. But it demonstrates that in these cases that every lead gets followed, every lead gets followed.

Wendy (02:16):

Well when we left off, Dan said they received a phone call that changed the course of the case after literally years of dead ends. So let’s jump back in and see where this goes.

Dan Gibbons (02:29):

And again, like all the others, it finally got to the point where it went cold.

Wendy (02:34):

Another dead end.

Dan Gibbons (02:35):

Another dead end. So that gets us up to the point of where we finally got a tangible lead. It was a phone call that one of our investigators received from an attorney who was representing a person who had information that related directly to the shooting, and that person was willing to provide it, but just didn’t necessarily want to be the witness that took the witness stand to tell the world about it.

Wendy (03:07):

So the person wanted to remain anonymous and not involved, but wanted the information out there.

Dan Gibbons (03:13):

Correct.

Wendy (03:13):

So I guess if I were maybe in your shoes, I’d be thinking, “Why now? Why have you waited all these years?” And have you seen that before? Do people just wait years before they come clean?

Dan Gibbons (03:33):

To be quite honest with you, I’ve seen that happen, not for this length of time. This was an extended period of time for someone to sit on that information.

Wendy (03:33):

Yeah. I would think if you’re going to hold it for nearly six years, why let it out now?

Dan Gibbons (03:37):

But it goes back to what Ray had said a few minutes ago. Trent’s dad was always of the belief that someone knew something and that they would be willing to come forward with it at some point in time. Periodically, the news media would broadcast little tidbits about well it’s the anniversary of the Trent DiGiuro death. And it was one of those that was aired that this person saw on TV and said to themself something along the lines of, “I’ve got to tell somebody what I know. The parents deserve to know.”

Wendy (04:15):

Right.

Dan Gibbons (04:16):

That’s when this person made contact with this person that was a friend and was an attorney, provided the information, and then that’s when the attorney made the call and spoke with one of our investigators. The attorney calls into the police department speaks with one of our investigators who’s on this case and provides information that his client is a former girlfriend of an individual. And that within a period of time, shortly after the offense, this individual had told her that he was the one responsible for shooting Trent. There was a small piece of information also provided that the weapon had been taken after the fact by this suspect’s father for safekeeping, or for concealment, or for whatever purpose, unknown, that information was specific enough that it dealt directly with the crime that we felt like it had to be followed upon. But that information is considered stale because of the age of it. It had to be refreshed.

Dan Gibbons (05:30):

We came up with a game plan that said, “If this person that’s providing the information is willing and able to make contact with this suspect and meet and actually have a conversation with him again, that goes over and has him repeat what he told previously, that that would make the evidence much stronger than having evidence that’s several years old. If there was a way to legally secure the weapon in question, then that could add to it as well because the possibility is there that testing the weapon to the evidence collected at autopsy could help tie an individual to the crime. The investigative effort basically involved number one, convincing this witness to come forward, because at that point, she was extremely reluctant. There was some apprehension, we’re talking about someone who had by a lot of people’s terminology killed someone in cold blood. And because of that, there was some apprehension on her part about coming forward.

Dan Gibbons (06:48):

But through the course of several conversations, she agreed to do that. The investigators put together a plan where she would contact this suspect and say that she was traveling through Lexington with her work and would love to see him and catch up. She did that. She made the call. She made the arrangements. She flew in to Lexington. They met at Blue Grass Airport and in a common area that law enforcement had taken the steps to plant surveillance equipment. So they were able to record their conversation. And during the course of that conversation, he to a degree acknowledged telling her what she had said he had told her. He never came right out and said it again, but he acknowledged having that conversation with her. And then finally, at one point began expressing fear that he was being set up, even to the point of asking her, “Are you setting me up? I’m getting an uneasy feeling here. What are you doing?”

Wendy (07:58):

Okay. So help me understand. So she lures him, or convinces him rather, to meet her on the pretenses that she’s back in town and it’s been a long time, it’s been years. I just want to catch up kind of thing, right?

Dan Gibbons (08:11):

Correct.

Wendy (08:11):

Old girlfriend, let’s see how each other’s been. I guess this was before social media, so if you wanted to meet or catch up, you had to do it the old-fashioned way in person. So I guess does she arrive? Or does he arrive and say, “Hey, I’m here now?” Or how do they make that connection?

Dan Gibbons (08:28):

He was there at the airport waiting.

Wendy (08:31):

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Dan Gibbons (08:32):

And then she arrived on a flight, came into the concourse area, they met up. And then together, they walked to a designated place that the police had arranged for them to come to, a seated area in the bar area at the airport. The police had gone to quite a great length to control this environment completely. They had a particular table in the bar that they had equipped with listening devices of the ability to hear and record what was being said at that table. They had taken the steps to actually have all the other seats in the bar occupied.

Wendy (09:10):

Yes. I was going to say, how do they know where to sit? Or is every table wired? How did they do that?

Dan Gibbons (09:14):

Well even to the point that there were a couple of investigators that were in there seated at this wired table. And when they approached, these two got up and left which left that one table open for them to sit at.

Wendy (09:28):

So we’re going to sit wherever we can because now there’s an open table here.

Dan Gibbons (09:28):

So the police took great pains to control the environment, to control placements so that they would be sure that the conversation that took place, they were able to hear it.

Wendy (09:41):

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Dan Gibbons (09:42):

To some degree, for her safety, but-

Wendy (09:44):

Right, right.

Dan Gibbons (09:44):

But also-

Wendy (09:45):

Also, to get him to talk about it.

Dan Gibbons (09:46):

For the evidence component as well.

Wendy (09:47):

Sure.

Dan Gibbons (09:48):

So they did that and they were able to obtain the recording. And that recording becomes critical to solving this investigation.

Wendy (09:55):

And I imagine, he’s probably wondering after all these years, “We’re here to catch up, why are you bringing that up again?” If I were he, I would think, “Here we go again. Oh, I was hoping she forgot about this or hoping it wouldn’t come back to haunt me because I’ve been in the clear for all these years now.”

Dan Gibbons (10:14):

Well at some point, I think that must have dawned on him because he did start questioning her motives, to the extent of saying, “Hey, I’m starting to get a bad vibe here. You’re not setting me up are you?”

Wendy (10:25):

Oh, I bet.

Dan Gibbons (10:26):

So yeah, I mean it did come to I guess a possible realization on his part that there was something a little odd about the time lapse of the conversation. Something made him a little bit apprehensive.

Wendy (10:39):

Yeah, and here we go again, back to this.

Dan Gibbons (10:41):

Yeah. But the recording of that conversation became what I would consider to be a critical piece of evidence, and in this case as it moved forward. There had been conversation that this suspect had had with this witness about the weapon. But again, that evidence was stale. It was old. And in order to pursue it and to try to recover that weapon, the police had to take steps to refresh or get evidence to give them the right to be looking for it legally. The weapon was considered to be potentially a piece of critical evidence. Through the course of the investigation, the police investigators obtained a search warrant. And through the course of searching, found a 243 caliber rifle, collected the rifle and did as they do any piece of evidence, they booked it in, transported it to the Kentucky State Police Crime Lab where a ballistics examination was done.

Dan Gibbons (11:41):

The end result of that examination is that the bullet that was recovered at autopsy, the markings on those fragments, were consistent with the weapon that the police had recovered. But the ballistics examiner was not able to say with absolute certainty that that gun had fired the shot. But it was somewhat tangible in that it was consistent and could have been fired. And that’s the first weapon that we had provided to the lab for testing that we got that result on.

Ray Larson (12:11):

You had provided a number of other 243 rifles, and they came back and said it was not fired from these.

Dan Gibbons (12:20):

Yes.

Ray Larson (12:22):

And this is the only one that was consistent with being fired from this weapon.

Dan Gibbons (12:26):

That’s right.

Ray Larson (12:26):

Okay.

Dan Gibbons (12:27):

That’s right.

Wendy (12:28):

So now, what is this person, this suspect during this time, I’m assuming he knows that you’re retrieving these weapons, is he just not having much to say? Or have you interviewed at this point to say, “Hey, we’re going to do a search?” Or what happens in that process?

Dan Gibbons (12:48):

He had not been interviewed up to that point. But he was encountered during the course of the search and was actually taken into custody on other charges. There was an interview conducted after that. And the interview was basically a denial of any involvement.

David (13:04):

Did he offer up any alibi or anything?

Dan Gibbons (13:07):

Well his story changed a little bit from the beginning to the end of it. I think at one point, he wasn’t at home, so he wasn’t there. He acknowledged that he knew the victim. He acknowledged that he did in fact live a few doors down the street. Couldn’t remember if it was at the time the shooting occurred or before or after, just didn’t remember. He recalled at one point during interview that he thought he was maybe playing cards with an individual. So he provided some information police could use to either prove or disprove his story, but he never made an admission of guilt.

Wendy (13:48):

Now, was he a local or another student? Or just one of these mysterious tunnel people? Or?

Dan Gibbons (13:54):

No, he was a student at the time of the shooting.

Wendy (13:57):

So same school as Trent.

Dan Gibbons (13:58):

Right.

Wendy (14:00):

Now Dan, who was this person?

Dan Gibbons (14:03):

He was a student at the university. His name is Shane Ragland.

Wendy (14:07):

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Dan Gibbons (14:08):

And he and this person had brought the information forward, had dated for a period of time around the time that the shooting occurred.

Wendy (14:18):

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Dan Gibbons (14:20):

So he was acquainted with Trent and some other friends.

Wendy (14:26):

So I’m imagining, the University of Kentucky’s a relatively good sized campus. So they just knew each other from classes or just friends, dorm mates? What was their situation that they knew each other?

Dan Gibbons (14:40):

Well we actually determined that Shane had pledged a fraternity at the university and that there was another individual who was good friends with Trent who had pledged that same fraternity. So they came to know each other through their pledging. And of course then, Trent got introduced to him through that relationship.

Wendy (15:03):

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Dan Gibbons (15:06):

There was knowledge of who each other was. At the time of the shooting, Shane lived a couple of doors down from where Trent lived.

Wendy (15:15):

But at this point, you’re not thinking there’s been any animosity or any argument over a girlfriend, or anything like that?

Dan Gibbons (15:23):

No. Part of the information that we were given by this former girlfriend was that the motive had to do with this fraternity.

Wendy (15:34):

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Dan Gibbons (15:35):

But it was somewhat vague the information was, because there wasn’t a lot of information that she knew about it. But it did point in the direction of that. So the investigation then took on a little bit of steam in that it gave the investigators a place to go to start looking to see what happened. Information that the former girlfriend had given was that Shane was not allowed to become a part of the fraternity because of an altercation that had taken place. So the police followed up on that. They pursued that lead.

Wendy (16:10):

An altercation with Trent or with just another person?

Dan Gibbons (16:13):

Both actually.

Wendy (16:14):

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Dan Gibbons (16:17):

Both. And not so much an altercation with Trent, but conversation. But again, that information was really limited coming from the ex-girlfriend. It just wasn’t a lot of detail that she could provide in that regard. The investigators began looking into that particular component. And given the information that they had gathered up to that point from the evidence, they felt like they had a pretty good place to start, but understanding the motive completely was not… They just didn’t understand what the motive was completely. They had some things to look at, but they just didn’t really know for sure what the motive was.

Wendy (16:51):

Right. And you’d certainly think it’s some large motive to kill someone over, whether it’s a verbal disagreement, I guess it would make me think there’s some underlying something there that this Shane person would want to retaliate in such a way as to take Trent’s life.

Dan Gibbons (17:08):

Once the investigation got to the point that Shane had been interviewed, then obviously, it loosened up the investigator’s ability to talk to people, to pursue leads, to ask specific questions of people. And what they learned was that there was not necessarily a meeting, but an opportunity where Trent and this other fellow that had pledged the fraternity that was friends and Shane were together and they were at the fraternity house, and some comment was made about the picture of a girl that was in the room.

Wendy (17:48):

We will be right back after this important message we want to share.

David (17:53):

In the wake of this senseless and evil act that took young Trent DiGiuro’s life, his family created the Trent DiGiuro Foundation to keep his name alive and to help students succeed. As stated so well on the foundation’s website, the Trent DiGiuro Foundation was established to raise funds for and make contributions to various educational scholarship funds and scholarships in the name of Trent DiGiuro. The foundation is dedicated to keeping Trent’s memory alive. All proceeds are used to support scholarships at three high schools in Oldham County, Kentucky and at the University of Kentucky. The foundation website can be found at trentdigiurofoundation.org. And we will put a link to this on our show notes which are located at murderpolicepodcast.com. Do us a favor and spend some time at the foundation website. And more importantly, consider making a donation for this very worthy cause to help keep Trent in our collective memories. Now, back to the podcast.

Dan Gibbons (19:00):

And apparently, it was a comment that the girl’s boyfriend eventually took offense at. This boyfriend confronted Shane. There was a physical altercation over it and it was the physical altercation, and then the information that came about from that that Shane actually got denied membership in fraternity because of that.

Wendy (19:26):

Oh.

Dan Gibbons (19:27):

The reports had been that he was, the word that’s been used is blackballed from the fraternity. But I can just simply say that he was denied membership.

Wendy (19:36):

So I guess I would think if the boyfriend of the girl was not Trent I’m guessing, why would he go after Trent instead of the boy that he had the altercation with?

Dan Gibbons (19:49):

Well the investigative leads took us to the other fellow that had pledged the fraternity. And what we learned was that Shane had at some point in time after the fact, quite a bit of time after the fact, had approached this guy and had confronted him about, “Did you tell him what I said?” And apparently, it was a situation where, like I’d said before, Shane was his friend protector and he stepped in and said, “Actually, it was me that did it. If you’ve got a problem with it, you’ve got the problem with me.” And nothing happened. The investigators felt like that that was a situation where maybe he took offense to being called out on it and being said, “If you’ve got a problem with what was said, here I am,” and he didn’t do anything.

Wendy (20:40):

Wow.

Dan Gibbons (20:41):

We felt like at that point, the motive was a revenge type situation.

Wendy (20:48):

So you’ve all have interviewed him at this point and he’s just I guess obviously denying having done this. So where do you go from there? He’s denying, do you have to let him go? Where does that take you?

Dan Gibbons (21:00):

Well I mean the evidence, it was coming together. There were other people that were interviewed that provided information that was relevant. And we had what we felt like was a pretty good case. And of course, the decision as to how do you proceed with it, at what point do you proceed is in part made not only by the police, but by the prosecutors as well. There was always starting to be conversations about are we there yet? That type of thing.

Wendy (21:31):

And he’s released at this point, he’s not being detained or anything. It was just merely an interview with him.

Dan Gibbons (21:38):

No. I mean I think he was actually charged at that point and then he was subsequently charged with this crime and was bonded out. So yeah, he didn’t stay in jail very long.

David (21:48):

Let me go back to that statement that he made, I think he alibied himself. If somebody talks to you, is there value in a suspect lying like there’s a value in them telling the truth? What’s the process? And does it still help you with the case?

Dan Gibbons (22:00):

Well I mean if you could prove that someone has intentionally knowingly lied to you, then that’s… I mean I’ve always felt as an investigator that that was as good evidence as someone admitting it. And in some instances when that happens, it gives other individuals, whether they be someone reading about it in the news or sitting in a jury box, gives them the impression that there’s not a lot of remorse there, that they’re still continuing to lie.

David (22:26):

Where will you go from here when he finally takes the murder charge? What’s it look like after that? And what happens with the case?

Dan Gibbons (22:33):

Shane’s bond was set really high, a million dollars.

Ray Larson (22:36):

Right.

Dan Gibbons (22:37):

And that bond was posted pretty quickly. I mean he wasn’t in jail for an extended period of time after he was charged on the indictment.

Ray Larson (22:44):

So then do you have any idea how long it was before the case went to trial?

Dan Gibbons (22:50):

Several years.

Wendy (22:52):

So you’re saying there was a million dollar bond and he bonded out?

Dan Gibbons (22:56):

Right, yes.

Wendy (22:57):

So then what happens? He bonds out and just waits on a trial? Or?

Dan Gibbons (23:01):

Well at that point, once that charge is placed, it goes to the prosecutor’s office basically. The burden, for lack of a better term, shifts over to the prosecutor’s office to begin preparing for trial. At that point in the police department, the investigators do whatever they can do to support the prosecutor. The prosecutor decides they need someone else interviewed, then the police would go do that interview. If they need to pull records for whatever reason, then the police would go pull it. We become the support staff for the prosecutor’s office.

Wendy (23:34):

For the prosecutors.

Dan Gibbons (23:35):

And that’s basically what happened. Once the indictment was returned and the charge was placed, then the responsibility of how it progressed from there shifts over to the prosecutor’s office.

Wendy (23:44):

So Ray, that then fell into your lap.

Ray Larson (23:46):

That’s exactly right.

Wendy (23:48):

So I guess had you been following this? I know Lexington’s not a huge, huge town. And so had you been following it and you’re thinking, “Well we finally got a break in this?”

Ray Larson (23:57):

Well hell yes I’ve been following it. We work very closely with the police department in these cases, and we’ve been kept up to date on everything that they’ve done or were planning to do. And when it comes to preparing for a trial, there is a lot of preparation that goes on. You can ask Danny and any of the other homicide detectives how many hours they spend preparing to testify, because you have to choreograph a trial like this because you get jurors who really are not supposed to know anything about it. So you have to tell a story that they can understand and that after all is said and done, you hope that you’ve proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt and they convict.

Ray Larson (24:53):

Now, Danny was one of the top detectives we dealt with. And as you can tell from his talking about investigating this case, this trial was a big deal in town. It was very highly publicized and it was hard to get a jury. When you select a jury, you want people that really don’t know anything about the case, or clearly have not made up their mind about it. And this one was publicized just all over all the time.

Wendy (25:30):

Well even national TV, so it sounds like it was a big one.

Ray Larson (25:34):

So it went to trial and it took 17 days to try this case. And the jury returned, they convicted Shane Ragland of murder and he was sentenced to 30 years by the jury. And they appealed it, of course.

Wendy (25:53):

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Ray Larson (25:56):

And one of the issues on appeal was the fact that we had used a new test that had been created by the FBI. It was called a bullet lead test. And you compare the amount of lead in the bullet with other bullets they found during the search warrant. And in the process of that appeal, the FBI then decided that this bullet lead test was not reliable. And so that just pulled the rug out from under our conviction because we’d presented bullet lead evidence. And so the case was reversed.

Wendy (26:41):

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Ray Larson (26:42):

Now, here’s the dilemma, I had told the ex-girlfriend, who was terrified of Shane Ragland and did not want to appear and testify.

Wendy (26:55):

And rightfully so, she was basically wired and unbeknownst to him. And so she’s thinking she’s probably going to have to face him again.

Ray Larson (27:03):

Well… So the case was reversed and it was time to get to think about retrying this case.

Wendy (27:10):

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Ray Larson (27:12):

The difficulty was the ex-girlfriend was so terrified to get involved in this thing at all that I had told her, I said, “Look, if you’ll just testify this time, I promise you will never ever have to do this again.” Well guess what? It was reversed and it was set for retrial. And Danny, I don’t think we would’ve had much luck if we hadn’t had the ex girl testify, do you?

Dan Gibbons (27:45):

No, I don’t.

Ray Larson (27:47):

That’s where we were. Now, the question very simply is my word good or not? The ex-girlfriend relied on it. I talked to the defense lawyer and he said, “We want a trial. We’re not taking anything. We’re not going to plea guilty to anything.” And I said, “Okay. Get ready, buckaroo, we’re going to trial.” He said, “Well let me talk to my client again.” And he came back and he said, “We will plead guilty to a manslaughter in the second degree with a recommendation of eight years,” which meant he had to serve a little more time before he got out. But he-

Wendy (28:30):

Now, how much had he served at this point before bonding out?

Ray Larson (28:34):

Oh, not much. A couple of days. So the bottom line is, and this is very important to family members of victims, they want the person who killed their son or daughter or loved one to admit it, because at this point, he had denied anything to do with the death of Trent DiGiuro. And then in court, he plead guilty to manslaughter in the second, and the judge specifically asks, “Did you shoot Trent DiGiuro?” And he said, “Yes.” Oh, it was a low yes, but he said it. Now, that’s important stuff. That was not the best ending in this thing, but at least this bad guy was convicted.

Wendy (29:27):

So did he serve those eight years?

Ray Larson (29:29):

Yeah. He served eight years.

Wendy (29:32):

He served the eight years.

Ray Larson (29:32):

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Wendy (29:33):

I guess from a family standpoint, I would think, “We went for six years and knew nothing, and you’re just serving barely above that. And you’re out and you’re done.”

Ray Larson (29:46):

Well make no mistake, the DiGiuro family, the police department and the prosecutors aren’t happy with the result.

Wendy (29:59):

Wow. So he served eight years. So a mere eight years, is that the only justice this family, God, is knowing that their son’s murderer served eight years? That’s it.

Dan Gibbons (30:17):

From the criminal side, that is it. But there was a lawsuit that was filed that actually ended up an award for Trent’s state. There was an amount of money that was awarded by the court after hearing the facts for the destruction of his power [inaudible 00:30:35] they were reimbursed for funeral expenses his state was.

Wendy (30:38):

Oh.

Dan Gibbons (30:38):

And then there were punitive damages that were awarded. When it all comes down to it, the lawsuit, the award was in excess of $63 million.

Wendy (30:48):

Wow. And rightfully so. The family deserved every penny of that and more. And that really doesn’t even replace your loss.

Dan Gibbons (30:57):

Yeah. And I mean I’ve heard Trent’s father talk about it. And he’s repeatedly said, “It’s not about the money.”

Wendy (31:06):

No.

Dan Gibbons (31:06):

“It’s not about me or Trent or anyone in Trent’s family having the money. It’s about making sure that someone else doesn’t [inaudible 00:31:15].”

Wendy (31:15):

Sure. Yeah. I mean because what price tag can you put on your child’s life? I certainly wouldn’t take 100 million if someone offered me that in lieu of my child’s life. I think at the end of the day, I’m grateful. I think they’re grateful and they rightfully are owed the money. But still that’s a slap in the face that they have no child because of someone’s decision to kill because they wanted retribution because they didn’t get their way or they were angry or what have you.

Dan Gibbons (31:48):

And that’s the case with not just this matter, but with every death that occurs.

Wendy (31:56):

Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Dan Gibbons (31:56):

I mean that’s the grief process of losing someone, and whether it’s that person’s life lost to the hands of someone who committed an assault or whether it’s because of someone’s careless driving or whatever the facts might be, that loss is a loss no matter what. No matter what caused it, it’s still a loss. And you’re right, money doesn’t make it up.

Wendy (32:19):

Right.

Dan Gibbons (32:19):

So.

Wendy (32:20):

So out walking free and-

Ray Larson (32:22):

Well I don’t know about that. But he’s out.

Wendy (32:24):

But he’s out. He’s out of prison and the family still bears the grief of their loss of their son.

Ray Larson (32:31):

The DiGiuro family has created the Trent DiGiuro Foundation that does a lot of good things.

David (32:43):

Okay. Dan, as we close out a little bit, I was curious after, you’ve got a lot of experience in death investigation, some 13 years as an investigator and supervising investigators. If there was somebody on a police department that was interested in getting to be a homicide investigator or death investigator, what advice would you give them to prepare for that? And what traits and characteristics do you think are important for somebody in that role?

Dan Gibbons (33:10):

In my opinion, the main thing that they need to develop is a really sound technique of documentation. When you go to a situation where you have a case like this that goes on for so many years, even the smartest of people are probably going to forget intricate details that they learned four years ago, five years ago, six years ago. If they’re not written down somewhere, they’re going to forget them. And I find that that’s probably a lot of times, you’ll see people that will feel very, very comfortable with the knowledge that they have at that given moment. But then a few years pass or time passes, that memory fades a little bit. And not only does the information go away, but they know there’s something they’re supposed to remember, they just don’t know what it is. So then their confidence starts to fall down. I would say significant attention to documentation is one of the things as a supervisor that I would look for in someone is considering bringing them in as an investigator in a homicide unit.

Dan Gibbons (34:22):

The other thing, we talked about this before, is you have to have some level of compassion. You have to be able to communicate clearly. You have to be able to use terminology that people understand and not get into constantly using police jargon, because quite honestly, I mean police officers are around police officers all the time every day when they’re at work. And there becomes a language that they use with each other that sometimes a lot of the civilians just don’t understand. I would think good, clear communications, dealing with people with a great deal of compassion and understanding, like I said previously, that whatever you’re talking to them about, that’s the most important thing in their life. And you need to remember that and you need to give that consideration when you’re dealing with them. You just can’t simply say you’re harassing, communication’s not nearly important enough for me to give it credible effort. So I think those are the primary things that I looked for when I brought people into a unit that investigates crimes of violence basically.

David (35:28):

Exactly. So it’s fair to say if somebody was a patrol officer, they’re being watched, then their work is probably being watched, right?

Dan Gibbons (35:34):

Right. And that was part of what we did back when I was supervising that unit. If the first officer on the scene, if he came and he expressed and he showed an interest in the case and learning more, then I had no problem at all requesting a temporary transfer for him coming to the unit to give him the opportunity to put forth his best foot, to make sure that I had an opportunity to see who he was, what I was seeing, just a cursory effort on his part that would go away quickly, or was that who he was? And we actually brought several people into the homicide unit based upon that approach. In fact, I think there was one fellow that came in as a result of this case that came in and stayed for a while.

David (36:17):

Good to know. Ray, let me toss it at you as a prosecutor, because you’re going to end up with that work that these people produce. What are you looking at and what do you want to see in a homicide investigator that brings a case to you?

Ray Larson (36:28):

The ability to communicate, because how they communicate with a jury is important. For example, if I would ask Danny a question, he’d listen to the question looking at me. And then when he answered, he’d look at the jury. And it’s just those little communication skills that are critical. Now, he’s talking about documentation, every one of these detectives, when they come and take the witness stand, they bring with them a five or six inch thick notebook about the investigation. And when a question comes up, they can find the spot in their documentation and answer the question. And it’s impressive to watch.

Wendy (37:16):

Yeah. And I agree, Ray. I think that those are great traits. If you have investigators that can reference their books or I can see how that certainly would be helpful in the courtroom. Aside of that, as a person that’s not in law enforcement or prosecutor, if I were a victim’s family, I think what would be most important to me would just be to have someone that listens, someone that wants to let me know that they are compassionate enough about me and my story to listen to me, because I feel like if you’ve lost someone, you have nothing. You don’t even have an answer of who did it or why it was done. But to know that a detective is there for me, that he may not have an answer right now, but to be told that he’s keeping up with my story, he hasn’t forgotten me, he’s doing all he can, I think that means a lot to the person that that’s all they have. That’s all they have right now.

Wendy (38:21):

Thank God that’s not happened to me as a victim’s family. But I think that I would have to say to detectives that want to be a homicide investigator, listen to your people, listen to that family. They don’t realize that you have other cases that are piling on. But to them, their case is the most important and they want to be heard and give their family a voice and that their family isn’t forgotten. So gentlemen, Dan, Ray, David, thank you all so much for your time and your input and your exceptional knowledge that you’ve shared with us today. And we appreciate it greatly. And we will see you on the next episode.

David (39:00):

The Murder Police Podcast is hosted by Wendy and David Lyons and was created to honor the lives of crime victims so their names are never forgotten. This podcast is produced, recorded and edited by David Lyons. The Murder Police Podcast can be found on your favorite Apple or Android podcast platform, as well as at murderpolicepodcast.com, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. If you have enjoyed this podcast, please subscribe for more and give us a five star review on Apple Podcast or wherever you download your podcast from. And please tell your friends. Lock it down, Judy.