The Defense of Robert Atrops

Summary

13th Juror Podcast

Episode: The Defense of Robert Atrops

Host: Brandi Churchwell

Date: March 12, 2026

---

Overview

In this episode, Brandi Churchwell explores the defense’s case in the trial of Robert Atrops, a man accused of murdering his wife, Deborah, in 1988—a crime that went unsolved for more than thirty years until cold case investigators revisited the evidence. Where last week’s episode detailed the prosecution’s argument, this installment gives a thorough, courtroom-style examination of how the defense interrogated assumptions, challenged forensic evidence, and raised questions about tunnel vision in the original investigation. Set against the emotionally charged backdrop of old wounds and unresolved loss, Brandi offers listeners an immersive seat in the jury box—testing what constitutes “reasonable doubt” in a case defined by uncertainty.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Defense's Narrative: Was the Right Man Charged?

• Competing Marital Narratives

  • The prosecution painted a marriage teetering on divorce, suggesting motive.
  • The defense countered this by emphasizing that Robert saw their struggles as temporary and noted practical evidence: Debra still received mail at their home and co-signed a loan with Robert just months before her death ([03:00]).
  • After Deborah’s death, Robert discovered sides of her life he’d never known—relationships and conversations that complicated their story.

  Quote:

  "According to Robert, the problems in his marriage were difficult but temporary. A rough patch, not an ending." – Brandi Churchwell ([04:20])

Tunnel Vision and Confirmation Bias

• Focus on Robert from the Outset

  • The defense argued investigators fell prey to tunnel vision, building a case around Robert from day one and discarding or neglecting leads that didn’t fit this conclusion ([09:19]).
  • An expert explained confirmation bias: seeking out evidence that supports a pre-held belief and ignoring contrary information.

  Quote:

  "The suspect-based investigation, they said, starts with a conclusion and works backward, searching for evidence that supports it. And the danger in that approach, the defense argued, is that anything that doesn't fit the theory gets ignored." – Brandi Churchwell ([10:23])

• Examples of Neglected Leads

  • Dan, a coworker whose name appeared in Debra’s calendar and about whom police were directly tipped, was never interviewed.
  • Debra’s financial records were never explored, though her purse and wallet were missing, in contrast to the deep scrutiny applied to Robert’s phone records.

  Quote:

  "If investigators truly wanted answers, why weren't those leads pursued? According to the defense, they weren't, because they didn't support the theory that Robert was the killer." – Brandi Churchwell ([12:41])

The Federal Grant & Investigative Pressure

• Solvability Pressure
  • Case selection fueled by federal funding criteria may have encouraged a focus on Robert, who fit a prosecutable narrative and was instrumental to securing and maintaining the grant ([14:09]).
  • Defense warned that such “pressure to produce results can also lead to forcing evidence to fit a narrative instead of letting evidence speak for itself.”

Forensic Evidence Under Scrutiny

• DNA Evidence

  • DNA on Debra’s jacket was a complex mix, inconclusive until the third attempt with altered parameters—statistically robust for other contributors but only marginally supportive for Robert.
  • DNA was found on a part of the coat that could be explained by ordinary contact.

  Quote:

  "The defense argued the DNA proves only one thing: Robert may have had direct or indirect contact with the back of Debra's jacket at some point, nothing more. Is that enough to indict a man for murder?" – Brandi Churchwell ([15:40])

• Soil Analysis

  • Soil found on Debra’s car matched Robert’s yard only in color and composition—common across the region, with “indistinguishable” not meaning “identical.”
  • The tire tracks at Robert’s yard didn’t even match Debra’s car ([16:08]).

• Site Familiarity

  • Prosecution claimed Robert’s job made him familiar with the dump site, but even his boss couldn’t confirm direct knowledge, pointing to more “stretching” of evidence ([16:50]).

The Pivotal Phone Calls

• Unexplained Gaps in Records

  • The prosecution used missing phone records to allege Robert lied. The defense called a phone company systems engineer who credibly explained that phone billing systems frequently failed in the late 1980s, sometimes omitting large blocks of calls from records ([19:11]).
  • Roberts’s actions—his repeated contact with police and search efforts—were framed by the defense as earnest, not calculated.

  Quote:

  "According to the defense, there was a perfectly plausible explanation, one investigators never seriously considered." – Brandi Churchwell ([20:10])

Inconsistent Accounts: Memory vs. Deception

• The defense presented expert testimony on memory, arguing Robert’s shifting details over 30 years (routes driven, calls made) were natural, not evidence of guilt ([21:30]).
• Notably, Robert never altered his core assertion: that he did not kill his wife.

Other Suspects: The Men Left Uninvestigated

• Jeff Freeberg

  • An ex-boyfriend, deeply involved in Debra’s life, received only a perfunctory, 7-minute interview with no effort to verify his alibi ([22:50]).

• John Pearson

  • Key revelation: John Pearson’s semen found inside Debra during new forensic tests, linking them sexually in close proximity to the time of her death.
  • Pearson resisted cooperation with law enforcement for over a year and, during the process, explicitly told family members, “he was afraid because his DNA was everywhere” ([27:20]).
  • After multiple evasions, legal maneuvers, and, finally, a police chase and subsequent suicide, the defense posed Pearson’s behavior as a source of significant reasonable doubt ([28:30]).

  Quote:

  “He said he was afraid because his DNA was everywhere… The defense asked jurors to consider whether Pierson's actions, his fear, his avoidance, his statements about DNA and his refusal to testify raised questions that were never fully answered." – Brandi Churchwell ([28:17])

Verdict & Aftermath

• Jury found Robert Atrops guilty after six hours of deliberation ([31:18]).

• At sentencing, his daughter, Rihanna, delivered a powerful statement about losing both her mother and, now, her father ([32:24]).

  Quote:

  "She told the judge that her father had been the best father she could have asked for... Now, she said, she's being robbed of the one person who was there for all of those milestones. Her father." – Brandi Churchwell ([32:31])

• Robert received a life sentence, eligible for parole in 2048 at age 93.

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• The Heart of Reasonable Doubt

  “This case asks us to sit with where that line is drawn between doubt that is uncomfortable and doubt that is reasonable... Because even when a case is closed, the cost of unanswered questions can linger for a lifetime.” – Brandi Churchwell ([34:10])

---

Important Timestamps

• 03:00 – Defense's alternative narrative of Robert and Debra’s marriage
• 09:19 – Introduction of confirmation bias and tunnel vision argument
• 15:40 – Undermining the conclusiveness of the DNA evidence
• 19:11 – Technical explanation of missing phone calls
• 21:30 – Memory expert testifies to the malleability of recollection
• 22:50 – Neglected investigation into Jeff Freeberg
• 27:20-28:30 – John Pearson’s evasive, alarming conduct and its implications
• 31:18 – Jury verdict and sentencing
• 32:24 – Rihanna Atrops’ statement to the court
• 34:10 – Exploration of what “reasonable doubt” means in hard cases

---

Tone and Language

Brandi Churchwell’s narration remains impartial, composed, and deeply empathetic. She regularly foregrounds the emotional complexity underlying both the legal proceedings and the families’ experiences, culminating in a nuanced meditation on justice, certainty, and the high cost of unresolved doubt.

---

Conclusion

This episode delves beyond the headlines and forensic facts, prompting listeners to self-reflect on the role of bias, evidentiary gaps, and subjective judgment in the justice system. It is especially compelling for those interested in how cold cases challenge what we think we know, and how “proof” is never as clear as the story told on either side of the courtroom.

---

Follow the 13th Juror Podcast on Instagram @thirteenthjurorpodcast for more updates and case discussions.

Transcript

[Tech Enthusiast]

There's a difference between liking a house and actually getting it. Redfin is built to close that gap. Redfin agents close twice as many deals as other agents, so when you find a home you love, you're not a step behind when it's time to make an offer. That means less watching great homes disappear and more zeroing in on the one you'll actually end up calling home. Redfin helps turn saved listings into real addresses. Get [e-mail] own the dream by Order

[Advertiser]

of the Peaky Blinders Academy Award winner Cillian Murphy returns alongside an all star cast including Rebecca Ferguson, Tim Roth, Sophie Rundle with Academy Award nominee Barry Keoghan and Emmy Award winner Stephen Graham. In Netflix's upcoming film Peaky Blinders, the Immortal Man Tommy Shelby must face his own demons and choose whether to confront his legacy or burn it to the ground. Peaky the Immortal man is in select theaters March 6th and on Netflix March 20th.

[Mackenzie]

Rated R. My name is Mackenzie and I started a GoFundMe for the adoptive mother of a nonverbal autistic child. The mother had lost her job because she wasn't able to find adequate care for this autistic child, so she really needed some help with living expenses, paying some back bills. So I launched a GoFundMe to help support them during this crisis, and we raised about $10,000 within just a couple of months. I think that the surprising thing was by telling a clear story and just like really being very clear about what we needed, we had some really generous donations from people who were really moved by the situation that this family was struggling with.

[Brandi Churchwell]

GoFundMe is the world's number one fundraising platform, trusted by over 200 million people. Start Start your GoFundMe today at gofundme.com that's gofundme.com, gofundme.com this podcast is supported by GoFundMe. Last week we walked through the state's case against Robert Aatrops. Prosecutors revealed that after more than 30 years, new forensic testing finally solved the cold case. They pointed to missing phone calls that left Robert's alibi unconfirmed, soil on Deborah's car that appeared to match soil from Robert's yard, a professional connection to the construction site where her body was found, and crucially, DNA on the collar of her jacket that they said pointed directly to Robert. According to the state, all of it added up to one conclusion. Robert Aatrobs murdered his wife in 1988 and got away with it for decades. But here's the problem After a full trial, after thousands of pages of reports, after hours of testimony, the defense says the case still leaves more questions than answers. They may have a cause of death, but they can't say where Deborah was killed, who was there, or how the crime actually unfolded. And without those answers, the defense asks, can this case really rise to proof beyond a reasonable doubt? According to the defense, this case was never built on evidence. It was built on assumptions, on filling in blanks, with speculation, on molding uncertainty into a story that sounds convincing until it's examined closely. If the jurors stop following the narrative and start looking at the evidence itself, the defense says, something else comes into focus. Another man in Deborah Atrop's life. Someone who was forensically linked to her through DNA. A man who the defense says was went to extraordinary lengths to avoid cold case detectives and, according to testimony, a man who privately worried that this murder would come back to him because his DNA was everywhere. So the question becomes, while investigators were laser focused on Robert Aatrobs, were they looking at the wrong man all along? The prosecution says new evidence finally led them to the right man. The defense says misinterpreted evidence led to the arrest of an innocent man. But it's the jurors who had the final say. This is the 13Zero podcast, where we break down real court cases and put you in the juror's seat. Two sides, the same evidence. You decide what to believe. I'm your host, Brandi Churchwell. Today's episode is Oregon vs Robert Aatrobs, Part 2. The defense. In the spring of 1988, Robert Aatrops believed his life was unfolding exactly as he had hoped it would. He was newly married to a woman he loved. He was building a home on land next to his family. He had steady work. The couple was in the process of adopting a baby girl. By the end of that same year, everything had collapsed. Robert was suddenly a single father, grieving the brutal murder of his wife while trying to care for an infant. After Debra's death, he learned that there were parts of her life he hadn't known about. Relationships she had kept from him, conversations she'd had with co workers that didn't match what he believed was happening in their marriage. At the same time, Robert found himself under suspicion for her murder. He had to question everything, not only what happened to Debra, but everything he thought he understood about their life together. The prosecution presented Deborah and Robert's marriage as one that was clearly headed toward divorce. But the defense told jurors that Robert did not see it that way. There were no divorce papers. Debra still had mail sent to the log cabin they built together. And In September of 1988, three months after she moved into her Salem apartment, Debra co signed a loan with Robert for home improvements. According to the defense, Robert believed Debra would not have signed onto debt for a home she never intended to return to. According to Robert, the problems in his marriage were difficult but temporary. A rough patch, not an ending. It was only after Deborah was gone that Robert began to learn how differently she had described their relationship to others. Then came the Debra had been seeing other men without his knowledge. According to the defense, Robert was left trying to reconcile two completely different versions of his marriage. The one he lived and the one he learned about after Debra's death. All of this, the defense argued, happened while Robert was navigating the shock of losing his wife, raising a baby alone, and trying to process a violent crime that shattered his life. And it was during this period, arguably the darkest time Robert had ever known, that he became the primary suspect in Deborah Atrop's murder. But why? According to the defense, Robert became the focus not because of evidence, but because of assumption. They argue Robert was a worried husband who did what many people would do. Made calls, asked questions, and tried to find his missing wife. And now, decades later, those same actions are being reframed as suspicious. The defense says this is a classic case of tunnel vision, where investigators locked onto Robert early and never truly looked away, even as evidence failed to confirm their theory. They argue the state filled gaps with speculation, interpreted ambiguous evidence in the most damaging way possible, and ignored other viable suspects while trying to force the evidence to fit one narrative. According to the defense, there is far more to this case than the story the prosecution told based on the evidence and testimony they presented. This is the defense's story. Ugh.

[Tech Enthusiast]

I barely got any sleep last night.

[Brandi Churchwell]

What? Why?

[Tech Enthusiast]

I spent hours fighting with AI all because I was trying to make a website. It started out okay, but then I got stuck just trying to change one button. Okay, okay, relax. Just try wix Harmony. What's that? It's wix's new website builder. Lets you switch back and forth between AI tools and hands on editing anytime. So I'm not just prompting and praying?

[Brandi Churchwell]

Nope.

[Tech Enthusiast]

Just try it for [e-mail] Harmony.

[Advertiser]

Your new home is now ready. Dr. Horton. America's builder has new homes that are ready today. With new construction communities throughout the Puget Sound and Central Washington areas And more coming, Dr. Horton has the right home for you. Dr. Horton, we're still building, with more construction, more communities and more homes available every day. Tap your screen now or visit drhorton.com to find your new home now ready, Dr. Horton, America's builder, an equal housing opportunity builder.

[Brandi Churchwell]

Could confirmation bias really influence an investigation enough to charge the wrong person? The defense told jurors it absolutely could, and that it happens more often than people realize. To explain that, the defense called an expert to testify about confirmation bias, the tendency we all have to seek out information that confirms what we already believe while discounting or overlooking information that contradicts it, according to that expert. Experience doesn't protect against this. In fact, sometimes it reinforces it. The defense made a point of saying that this was not about accusing detectives of bad intentions. The investigators in this case, they said, were experienced and capable. But no one is immune from unconscious bias. Not police officers, not prosecutors and not jurors, according to the defense. Within days of Deborah Atrop's murder, investigators settled on Robert as their suspect, and for the next two years they focused almost exclusively on trying to build a case against him. When that effort failed, when they couldn't move forward with charges, the case essentially ground to a halt. The defense asked jurors to consider what that meant. If the investigation had truly been evidence based, following facts wherever they lead, why was there no case after two years? The defense argued this wasn't an investigation driven by evidence but by a suspect. The suspect based investigation, they said, starts with a conclusion and works backward, searching for evidence that supports it. And the danger in that approach, the defense argued, is that anything that doesn't fit the theory gets ignored. 37 years later, when the cold case unit reopened the file, the defense says the same problem followed. The file already told one story. Robert did it, and that story shaped how everything else was interpreted, not because anyone wanted to get it wrong, but because that's how confirmation bias works. The defense pointed to Robert's calls to police as a clear example. Prosecutors argued it was suspicious that Robert kept calling 911 the night Debra disappeared. But the defense reminded jurors that the calls were played in court. And in those recordings, Robert was doing exactly what police told him to do. When dispatch told him to call back in an hour, he did. When they told him to drive the route and report back, he did. When they told him to contact the sheriff's department, he did. According to the defense, these were not the actions of someone staging an alibi. They were the actions of a man following instructions, trying to find his missing wife. But once investigators believed Robert was Guilty. Those same actions were reinterpreted as suspicious. The defense argued that confirmation bias didn't just affect how evidence was interpreted, but it affected what evidence was even investigated. They gave jurors several examples of leads that were never meaningfully followed because they didn't point toward Robert. One involved a man named Dan, a co worker at Welland Industries. Debra had written his name in her calendar, noting plans to have lunch with him. More concerning, someone from Welland called police and specifically named Dan as a possible suspect, telling investigators they believed he may have been involved in Debra's murder. According to the defense, police never followed up. They never even interviewed him. Another unexplored avenue was Debra's bank records. Her purse, which contained her wallet and banking information, was missing and never recovered. Investigators spent countless hours pulling Robert's phone records, checking more than 50 payphones, trying to disprove his alibi. But they never examined Debra's financial records to see if money had been withdrawn. After her disappearance. The defense asked jurors a simple question. If investigators truly wanted answers, why weren't those leads pursued? According to the defense, they weren't, because they didn't support the theory that Robert was the killer. When the case was reopened in 2021, the defense argued, the pressure intensified. The county had received a prestigious federal grant to fund cold case investigations. Only a handful of these grants were awarded nationwide each year, and part of the criteria is solvability cases that the prosecutors believe they can actually bring to trial. Out of the 14 potential cold cases in the county, only one was reopened. Deborah Atrop's case. The case carried the entire grant for three years and was later used to justify additional funding. The defense argued that kind of pressure matters. Investigators and prosecutors want to do good work. They want to help victims. They need to justify the funding. But pressure to produce results can also lead to forcing evidence to fit a narrative instead of letting evidence speak for itself. The defense then turned to the centerpiece of the prosecution's case. DNA. Prosecutors told jurors that DNA on Deborah's jacket linked Robert Aatrops to the murder. But under cross examination, the defense argued that the DNA evidence was far less definitive than it sounded. The sample taken from the collar and shoulder area of Deborah's coat was a complex mixture of four DNA samples. Analysts struggled to interpret it. The Strmics software was run multiple times, and the first two times, Robert Aatrobs was excluded as a contributor. Only on the third attempt, after changing parameters, was Robert included, According to the defense. The analysts continued adjusting the settings until an Inclusion was produced that included assigning one profile to their adopted daughter, Rihanna, even though the system had initially excluded her during peer review. Another analyst questioned whether that profile was even female. But the assignment remained because it produced an inclusion for Robert. Statistically, Robert's inclusion was 132 times more likely than not. But the defense compared that to the other contributors in the same sample, whose probabilities exceeded 1 million million. In that context, the defense argued, 132 is not a powerful number. It's barely above the threshold. And even then, the DNA was not found in the car. It was not found under Deborah's fingernails. It wasn't found at the scene. It was a tiny amount of DNA on the back, collar, and shoulder of her coat. Robert and Debra shared a child. They still saw each other. They had attended a party together a week or so before her death. According to the defense, if that DNA belonged to Robert, it could easily be transfer DNA from handling the coat or even through contact with their baby. The defense argued the DNA proves only one Robert may have had direct or indirect contact with the back of Debra's jacket at some point, nothing more. Is that enough to indict a man for murder? The soil evidence, the defense argued, suffered from the same problem. Their experts testified that the type of soil found in Robert's yard is common throughout the region, even dozens of miles away. They criticized the use of subjective color charts and explained that indistinguishable does not mean from the same place. It simply means no differences were found In a region with uniform soil composition, that result is expected. The defense also pointed out that the tire tracks found in Robert's yard, where the sample came from, did not match the tires on Debra's car. Prosecutors had even referred to soil analysis as a niche science. And the defense argued that a niche science without probabilities, without certainty, should not decide a murder case. Finally, the defense addressed the claim that Robert's work tied him to the site where Deborah's body was found. Robert's former boss testified that the area fell within Robert's sales territory, but also admitted he didn't know whether Robert had ever worked with that site or even knew about it. Specifically, the defense argued that assuming familiarity simply because it was in a general territory was a leap, one more example of stretching evidence to fit a theory. And they asked jurors to consider this. If Robert left the car there, why would he keep calling police, urging them to search? Why wouldn't he immediately direct them to Salem, where Deborah lived? According to the defense, the answer is simple. Robert wasn't trying to cover anything up, he was trying to find his wife. So what made Robert Aytrop seem suspicious in the first place? According to the defense, it all started with the missing phone call calls.

[Advertiser]

How many times have you wished you could be in two places at once? With wix, you practically can. Wix's website builder is packed with powerful AI tools to make running your business online easier. Build a full site just by talking with AI, get an AI agent to manage your sales and marketing, or work like a 10 person team even if it's just you. So you don't need superpowers to get everything done, you just need Wix. Try it now for free at wix.com USAA knows Dynamic Duos can save the day like superheroes and sidekicks or auto and home insurance. With usaa, you can bundle your auto and home and save up to 10%. Tap the banner to learn more and get a'@usaa.com bundle restrictions apply.

[Brandi Churchwell]

Some cases fade from headlines, Some never made it there to begin with. I'm Ashley Flowers and on my podcast the Deck, I tell you the stories of cold cases featured on playing cards distributed in prisons designed to spark new leads and bring long overdue justice. Because these stories deserve to be heard and the loved ones of these victims still deserve answers, are you ready to be dealt in? Listen to the Deck now, wherever you get your podcasts. Robert told investigators that between roughly 9:30pm and 11:30pm on the night Debra disappeared, he made a series of phone calls from his phone trying to locate her. The people he called confirmed those calls happened. But when police pulled Robert's phone records, those calls weren't there. Only one call appeared on the records, a call made at 11:34pm to the sheriff's office. From that moment on, the defense argued, the entire direction of the investigation shifted. Instead of asking why the calls were missing, investigators assumed Robert was lying and focused their efforts on proving it. Police checked more than 50 payphones in the area. They searched records from multiple calling card companies. They seized Robert's known calling cards. Nothing ever showed those calls. Still, Robert maintained the same thing. He made the calls from home and didn't know why they weren't recorded. According to the defense, there was a perfectly plausible explanation, one investigators never seriously considered. They called a witness named Kevin Williams, a former phone company employee who helped design and troubleshoot long distance billing systems in the late 1980s. Williams explained that at the time, the system had two separate one to connect calls and one to bill them and those systems failed more, more often than people realized. There were periods when calls would connect and go through, but the billing component wouldn't record them. When that happened, calls would not appear on anyone's phone records. Entire blocks of calls could be lost. To test whether that could explain Robert's missing calls, the defense looked at payphone records the state had already collected. What they found was striking. Between 8pm and 10pm that night, no calls were recorded on any payphones in the surrounding area. According to Williams, that kind of gap is exactly what you'd expect if the billing system had gone down. The defense asked jurors to consider if investigators in 1988 had explored that possibility. Instead of assuming Robert was lying, would the case have taken a different path? Another piece of evidence that the state relied on was Robert's changing account of events in 1988. Robert told police he made the calls from home, dialing directly. More than 30 years later, during a surprise interview, he said he thought he may have used a calling card. Other details changed, too. The route he drove and exactly who he called that night. The prosecution framed those changes as lies. The defense framed them as memory. They called an expert to explain how memory actually works, especially over decades. Memory isn't a recording, she testified. It's reconstructive over time. Memories are influenced by outside information, conversations, police interviews, media coverage, court proceedings. People don't realize it's happening, but their brains fill in gaps, blending what they experienced with what they later learned. And Robert wasn't given time to Prepare for that 2022 interview. Detectives showed up unannounced and asked him to recall minute details from a single night more than three decades earlier. The defense argued that what stuck with Robert wasn't the order of the phone calls or which route he drove. It was losing his wife. They also pointed out a double standard. When Robert's memory faded, the state called it deception. When police officers or state witnesses testified differently than they had years earlier, the prosecution called it the passage of time. But according to the defense, one part of Robert's story never changed. He said he did not murder his wife. The defense reminded jurors that Robert never avoided police. He repeatedly contacted them. He followed instructions. He cooperated fully. He consented to searches. Officers on scene described him as emotional and visibly upset when Deborah's body was found. Friends testified that Robert loved Debra. Even Debra's close friends and family told investigators that they had never seen or heard of physical violence between the two, despite knowing them well. According to the defense, Robert wasn't acting Like a man hiding a crime. He was acting like a man trying to understand a nightmare. And yet, they argued. Everything he did, every call, every inconsistency, every moment of grief was later reinterpreted through a single lens. Guilt. Which brings the defense to their central question. If the evidence against Robert can be explained by system failures, memory, science, and human behavior under stress, then who else should investigators have been looking at? And that's where the defense says the story takes a very different turn. One man the defense said investigators ignored was Jeff Freeberg. Jeff wasn't a stranger. He wasn't a name investigators stumbled upon years later. He was someone Debra knew well. Someone she had dated seriously before Robert. According to witnesses, Jeff lived within walking distance to Debra in Salem. And when her marriage began to unravel, she reconnected with him. Jeff helped Deborah set up her apartment. He built a crib for her daughter. He even gave her money to buy the Honda Accord she would later be found in. And on the morning of Debra's disappearance, she had even gone to Jeff's apartment. But the police interview of Jeff Freeberg lasted only seven minutes. In that interview, they did not ask where he went that night. They did not ask where he got dinner. They did not verify whether anyone saw him at the hotel where he claimed to be. His alibi was never confirmed. And then investigators moved on. The defense also reminded jurors that Jeff's relationship with Debra had ended abruptly and not on the best of terms. Jeff told police that after giving Debra $8,000 to buy her Honda Accord, he stopped by her apartment unexpectedly and found her with another man. Jeff said Debra appeared uncomfortable. That's when he realized she was seeing someone else. The defense was careful not to accuse Jeff of murder. Instead, they asked Juris to think critically about the investigation. Here was a man who had been intimate with Debra, saw her the day she died, had an unverified alibi, and was interviewed for only seven minutes. Yet, according to the defense, Jeff Freeberg was quickly ruled out. Not because evidence demanded it, but because investigators had already decided who. Who they believed was responsible. But Jeff wasn't the only man in Deborah Atrop's life. And according to the defense, he wasn't the one investigators should have been the most concerned about. The defense told jurors that before they could decide whether Robert Aytrops was guilty, they had to confront a simple fact. Another man's DNA was found inside Deborah Atrops body. In 1988, John Pearson worked at Wellen Industries. He was older than Deborah Aatrops. Married with two young sons, and at the time Deborah Aatrops disappeared, had moved out of the family home and was living alone in a trailer. What investigators did not know in 1988, but what the defense says fundamentally changed this case, is that John Pearson and Deborah Aatrops had been sexually involved shortly before her death. Back in the late 1980s, the state crime lab failed to detect semen or sperm on the vaginal swabs taken during Debra's autopsy. But when the case was reopened decades later, the Oregon State Police crime lab reexamined the same evidence. This time, they found sperm and semen, and that DNA was linked to John Pearson. That revelation alone, the defense argued, should have reframed the entire investigation. But instead, they say, it exposed how narrowly focused the case had become. Shortly after Deborah Atrop's murder, John Pierson moved back in with his wife and children. They remained together for years and didn't divorce until 2002. At the time, no one knew he had been intimately involved with Debra. Just before she died 33 years later, that changed. In 2021, John Pearson received a phone call from Detective Winfield, a cold case investigator now assigned to Deborah Atrop's murder. Detective Winfield told Pierson that he was investigating the case and needed a DNA sample. But Pierson did not cooperate. Detective Winfield instructed him to clear an old civil warrant, essentially a missed court appearance in an unrelated matter, so he could come in, be interviewed and provide DNA. Pearson refused, saying he believed the call might be a scam. Months passed. Nothing happened. Detectives eventually contacted Pierson's ex wife, Debbie Pearson, who told them that John had called her asking about the old warrant. He said he was on his way to turn himself in, then changed his mind and turned around, convinced it was a setup. By this point, nearly half a year had gone by. John Pearson still had not cleared the warrant, still had not given DNA d. Detective Winfield left another voicemail, more direct this time, warning Pierson that if he didn't address the warrant, he would be arrested at a time and place not of his choosing. It was after that message that John Pearson made a series of frantic phone calls to family members. He called his sister and his brother in law, who was a retired attorney. According to their testimony, Pierson sounded nervous, afraid. He told them he was worried the police were going to pin the murder on him. And he said something that the defense says should have stopped investigators in their tracks. He said he was afraid because his DNA was everywhere. Within days, his family urged him to hire a criminal defense attorney. An attorney contacted Detective Winfield on Pearson's behalf. Winfield told the attorney that John Pearson was not a suspect at that time, but that detectives still needed his DNA. Even then, Pierson continued to avoid cooperation. Nearly a year passed before detectives finally forced the issue by coordinating with local police to arrest Pierson on the outstanding warrant. Only after that arrest, after more than a year of evasion, did John Pierson finally provide a DNA sample. But the story didn't end there. Months later, near the anniversary of Deborah Atrop's death, police responded to a call at a bar in Prineville. The man involved was John Pearson. When officers attempted to speak with him, Pearson fled, leading police on a high speed chase through a residential neighborhood. He was eventually arrested and charged with felony eluding DUI and resisting arrest. Despite all of this, John Pearson later testified before a grand jury in this case. Appearing remotely from his attorney's office, he disclosed a detail he had never shared with law enforcement. In 1988, he told prosecutors he knew about Deborah's hair appointment the night she disappeared. More than that, he said, they were supposed to have dinner together either that night after the appointment or the following evening. Another year passed. Detectives then discovered John Pearson had yet another warrant, this time for failing to appear in his felony elude case. Detective Winfield began searching for him again. Calls went unanswered. Messages were ignored. Each time a voicemail was left, Pierson would immediately check it, then call his attorney. Detectives contacted his son, his ex wife, his attorney. Eventually, they learned that Pearson's son and daughter in law had moved into his home and claimed John was living on the road. No one knew where. With trial approaching, prosecutors obtained a material witness warrant authorizing John Pearson's arrest. To ensure his testimony, local and federal authorities tracked him to Fort Mojave, Arizona. When law enforcement arrived to serve the warrant, John Pearson was inside a trailer. Officers told him they could see him. Pearson responded, I see you too. Instead of opening the door, John Pearson raised a gun to his head and pulled the trigger. Prosecutors argued Pierson was not avoiding responsibility for murder, but trying to avoid jail on unrelated charges. They told jurors his suicide had nothing to do with Deborah Atrop's murder. But the defense asked jurors to consider whether Pierson's actions, his fear, his avoidance, his statements about DNA and his refusal to testify raised questions that were never fully answered. And whether those unanswered questions mattered when discussed, inciting reasonable doubt. Because in the defense's view, John Pearson should have been investigated more closely long before this case ever went to trial. Throughout the trial Robert Aytrop sat in a courtroom filled with supporters, friends, family, and people who had known him for decades. That kind of visible support is rare in murder cases, especially in one that's nearly 40 years old. After closing arguments, the jury began deliberations. They deliberated for just over six hours, and on April 17, 2025, the jury reached its verdict. When it was read, the courtroom fell completely silent. Robert Aatrobs was found guilty. Robert's daughter Reanna, the eight month old baby at the center of this case, was now in her mid-30s. She did not get to hug her father or comfort him, and she has not been able to since. During victim impact statements, Rihanna stood before the court and spoke about the life she lived without her mother and the father who raised her alone. She told the judge that her father had been the best father she could have asked for, that he never once spoke negatively about her mother. Not once, not in 36 years. She told the court that someone robbed her of getting to have a life with her mother, and she spent 36 years without her mom there for all of her milestones. Now, she said, she's being robbed of the one person who was there for all of those milestones. Her father. She told the judge, I need him in my life. She asked the judge not to take away the only parent she's ever known. Robert Aatrox was sentenced to life in prison. He will be eligible for parole in 2048 at the age of 93. Circumstantial evidence is meant to work like a mosaic. Each piece on its own may seem incomplete, but put together, jurors are asked to use inference to connect the dots and to see the larger picture. That process is not only allowed in court, it's expected, but this case forces a harder question. How much inference is too much? And at what point does filling in gaps become speculation rather than proof? Here, the jury was presented with evidence that required them to assume where Deborah Aatrops was killed, assume who was with her, assume how the crime unfolded, and assume that unanswered questions could be resolved by likelihood rather than certainty. The law does not require absolute certainty, but it does require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And this case asks us to sit with where that line is drawn between doubt that is uncomfortable and doubt that is reasonable. Cold cases are often celebrated when they are finally solved. They offer long awaited answers. They allow families to close a chapter that has been left open for decades. But what happens when the people closer to the victim don't believe the right person was convicted? What happens when the closing of one case opens a new chapter of grief and loss. What happens when justice, as defined by the court, feels incompatible with the truth as experienced by the family? In this case, the verdict did not bring unity. It brought division. It did not end the story. It reshaped it. And perhaps that is the hardest part of all. Because cases like this remind us that verdicts resolve legal questions, but they don't always resolve human ones. Because even when a case is closed, the cost of unanswered questions can linger for a lifetime. Thirteenth Juror is an Audio Chuck production hosted by Brandy Churchwell. Ashley Flowers is executive producer. You can follow 13th Juror on Instagram @Thirteenth Juror podcast. I think Chuck would approve.

[Advertiser]

Ugh.

[Tech Enthusiast]

I barely got any sleep last night.

[Brandi Churchwell]

What? Why?

[Tech Enthusiast]

I spent hours fighting with AI. All because I was trying to make a website. It started out okay, but then I got stuck just trying to change one button. Okay, okay, relax. Just try wix Harmony. What's that? It's wix's new website builder. Lets you switch back and forth between AI tools and hands on editing anytime. So I'm not just prompting and praying?

[Brandi Churchwell]

Nope.

[Tech Enthusiast]

Just try it for [e-mail] Harmony LifeLock

[Advertiser]

how can I help?

[Brandi Churchwell]

The IRS said I filed my return, but I haven't.

[Advertiser]

One in four taxpaying Americans has paid the price of identity fraud.

[Tech Enthusiast]

What do I do?

[Brandi Churchwell]

My refund though. I'm freaking out. Don't worry, I can fix this.

[Advertiser]

Lifelock fixes identity theft, guaranteed and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.

[Tech Enthusiast]

I'm so relieved.

[Brandi Churchwell]

No problem.

[Advertiser]

I'll be with you every step of the way. One in four was a fraud. Paying American. Not anymore. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com Special offer terms apply.