Legally Brunette Presents: ‘Til Death Do Us Part - Linda Stermer’s Double Attack

Summary

Podcast Summary: Legally Brunette Presents: ‘Til Death Do Us Part – Linda Stermer’s Double Attack

Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes Present
Host: Emily Simpson with Shane (guest/co-host)
Date: May 17, 2026
Episode Theme:
Exploring the infamous Michigan case of Linda Stermer—a woman twice convicted of murdering her husband Todd by setting their house on fire and running over him with their family van, followed by years of legal twists, family division, and heated debate over guilt, evidence, motivation, and justice.

---

Main Episode Theme

The episode focuses on the 2007 death of Todd Stermer, the subsequent conviction of his wife Linda Stermer, and the tangled web of legal, familial, and forensic complexities involved. Through lively banter and sometimes irreverent commentary, Emily and Shane explore the details of the crime, the vacated conviction, Linda’s years of freedom, her retrial and second conviction, and the tragic impact on the Stermer family.

---

Case Overview & Timeline

[02:35]

• Host Introduction: Emily Simpson and Shane set the tone for their true-crime franchise: notorious cases of spousal murder.
• Case Selection: The Linda Stermer case—a listener recommendation—is introduced.
• Basic Facts:
  • Crime date: January 7, 2007, Van Buren County, Michigan.
  • Prosecutors’ Claim: Linda set fire to the family home, then ran over Todd with the family van.
  • Motive Alleged: Affair and desire for insurance payout.
  • Linda’s Claim: Fire was an accident; running over Todd was accidental in chaos after he escaped.
  • Outcome: First convicted in 2010, sentenced to life without parole; conviction later vacated for unfair trial; retried and reconvicted in April 2025.

“As long as there’s marriages, there will be murders.” — Emily [03:05]

---

The Stermer Family Background

[05:52]

• Linda and Todd: Met in 1989, both age 25. Linda had two daughters from a previous relationship (Ashley and Brittany). Together had two sons (Trevor and Trenton) and informally adopted Linda’s nephew, Corey.
• Marital Issues:
  • Troubled marriage, mutual accusations of domestic abuse, financial strain.
  • Affair: Linda began an affair with coworker Chris Williams in 2006.
  • Discovery: Todd found out about the affair on Jan 6, 2007, asked for divorce.
• Children’s Perspectives:
  • Two sons believe Linda drugged Todd and orchestrated his death; daughters support Linda, alleging Todd was abusive.
  • Sons allege being sent away before the fire, denied a chance to say goodbye.

---

The Fire, Death, and Investigation

[09:04]

• Day of Crime:
  • Prosecution: Linda drugged Todd, struck him, doused him with gasoline, set house alight, ran him over.
  • Linda: Claims to have been in the basement, ran upstairs when she heard yelling, saw Todd on fire, fled in panic trying to get help with van (barefoot, no phone, despite owning two).
  • Physical Evidence:
    • Oxycodone found in Todd’s urine, not blood (timing ambiguous).
    • Gasoline found on Todd’s body and clothes.
    • Blood on undercarriage and front of van, blunt force trauma to Todd’s head.
    • Questionable: Whether trauma came from blunt object or van.
  • Burning History:
    • Todd’s two previous homes had reportedly burned down (insurance-related speculation).

“She continues to maintain her innocence and has stated that her legal team is confident that this conviction will also be overturned.” — Emily [34:08]

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Circumstantial Evidence vs. Hard Proof

• Skepticism of Linda’s Story:
  • Shane questions plausibility: “You ever just catch on fire?” [10:44]
  • Emily (sarcastic): “You play with matches? Fireworks?” [10:47]
• Cell Phones and Help:
  • Linda claimed no phones, despite owning two.
  • Shane questions choices: “She could go to the neighbor’s house… even if rural.” [15:15]
• Financial Motive:
  • Severe financial problems, Todd in debt, history of house fires.
  • Emily: “He burns homes and he collects the insurance proceeds.” [22:49]
• Behavior Around the Event:
  • Sons allege Linda kept them from their dad.
  • Linda bought only $11 in gas that day, possibly suspicious [20:52]
  • Claims about muddy terrain, van’s inability to move, Todd found near the vehicle, injuries unexplained by fire alone.

“Most people would help their husband on fire. She ran over him.” — Shane [24:15]

---

Legal Proceedings: Conviction, Appeals, Retrial

[24:53], [27:40], [31:00]

• First Conviction (2010):
  • Linda convicted, received life sentence.
• Appeal & Vacated Conviction:
  • Federal court granted conditional writ of habeas corpus in 2018 citing ineffective counsel (no fire expert presented by the defense).
  • Noted prosecutors overstated/character-assassinated Linda; defense did not object or counter.
  • Linda released pending retrial—lived free almost 7 years between 2018 and new sentencing in 2025.
• Retrial (2025):
  • Similar evidence, new legal counsel, same result: guilty verdict, unanimous jury.
  • Defense tried to present alternate theories, referenced past abuse; jury sided with prosecution.
• Notable Courtroom Quote ([34:20]):
  • Judge’s sentencing:

    “You lit your husband on fire and burned him alive. When he made it out of the house and you had a chance to reconsider your actions, you instead doubled down and ran him over with your car. I cannot fathom the suffering he endured in his last moments of life… only a sentence of life without the possibility of parole can properly punish you for the heinous acts you’ve committed in burning your husband alive and leaving your children without that imprint forever.”

---

Family Fracture & Aftermath

[36:09]

• Siblings Divided:
  • Sons (Trevor, Trenton, Corey) convinced of guilt, testified against her.
  • Daughters (Ashley, Brittany) are loyal, maintain mother’s innocence, and cite Todd’s abuse.
  • Family now estranged; “the two sets of siblings reportedly no longer speak as of 2025” [37:20]
  • Corey testified Linda pressured the sons to lie about the marriage.
  • Ashley and Brittany pursued additional fire investigation on Linda's behalf.

---

Hot Takes, Humor & Philosophical Questions

• Repeated Marital Crime:
  • Ongoing belief that cases like these are endless: “As long as there’s marriages, there will be murders.” [03:05]
• Cynicism re: Legal Process:
  • Seven years of freedom between sentences seen as an odd “prison intermission.”
  • Shane: “That could be a reality show. Like, in between—like, prison sentences in between.” [29:33]
• Motivation & Empathy:
  • Emily explores why Linda might have done it, considering both the financial and domestic angles.
  • Shane remains consistently suspicious of excuses and “sympathizers,” preferring to stick to hard physical evidence.
  • Shane: "Would you date a woman who burned her husband and ran him over?" [38:34]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• [03:05] Emily: “As long as there’s marriages, there will be murders.”
• [10:44] Shane: “I’m 50. I’ve never caught on fire. And I’ve played with fire.”
• [15:15] Shane: “She could go to the neighbor’s house. Are they in some…”
• [22:49] Emily: "He burns homes and he collects the insurance proceeds."
• [24:15] Shane: “Most people would help their husband on fire. She ran over him.”
• [34:20] Judge (quoted by Emily): “You lit your husband on fire and burned him alive. When he made it out of the house and you had a chance to reconsider your actions, you instead doubled down and ran him over with your car…"
• [29:33] Shane: "That could be a reality show. Like, in between—like, prison sentences in between.”
• [38:34] Emily: “Would you date a woman that went to prison for burning her husband alive and running over him with a van?”

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:35] — Episode intro and case selection.
• [05:52] — Background on Linda, Todd, and the family.
• [09:04] — Discovery of the crime, initial theories, and evidence.
• [14:13] — Forensic details: gasoline, van injuries, fire story scrutiny.
• [24:53] — Legal challenges, habeas corpus, and years of release.
• [31:00] — Retrial and new conviction.
• [34:20] — Judge’s scathing sentencing remarks.
• [36:09] — Family ramifications and siblings divided.
• [38:09] — Linda’s current fate, podcast hosts’ final reflections.

---

Tone and Dynamics

• Language & Tone:
  • Informal, conversational, at times darkly humorous, with irreverence toward both criminals and the justice system. There’s a clear dynamic: Emily is deeply narrative-driven, seeking to understand events in context; Shane provides skeptical, matter-of-fact, and often sarcastic commentary.
• Style:
  • Banter mixes with detail-heavy true-crime analysis. Touches of empathy, but no-nonsense approach to evidence.

---

Takeaways

• The podcast delivers an accessible, comprehensive, and sometimes sardonic review of a highly polarizing true-crime case.
• Legal technicalities can profoundly alter the course of justice, resulting in significant interludes of freedom between convictions.
• Family members’ opposing loyalties drive deep divisions, showing how murder cases shatter lives far beyond victim and perpetrator.
• Despite procedural issues and appeals, circumstantial and physical evidence maintained a pivotal role in back-to-back convictions.
• Irreverent humor ("prison intermission," hypothetical reality shows, “I’m 50, I’ve never caught on fire…”) underlines the absurdities and pathos of real-life crime.

---

Recommended Follow-up:

• For those seeking more details: “48 Hours” episode on the Stermer case.
• Explore host Emily Simpson’s “Legally Brunette” podcast for similar content.

---

For Listener Reference:
Skip to [02:35] for case content; background, banter, hypotheses, and detailed true-crime storytelling follow through to [39:47].
Advertisements and extraneous sections are omitted from this summary.

Transcript

[A]

This is an iHeart podcast.

[B]

Guaranteed Human Amazon Health AI presents painful

[A]

thoughts why did I search the Internet for answers to my cold sore problem? Now I'm stuck down a rabbit hole

[C]

filled with images of alarmingly graphic sores in various stages of ooze.

[D]

I can clear my search history, but

[A]

I can never unsee that.

[B]

Don't go down the rabbit hole. Amazon Health AI gets you the right care fast. Healthcare just got less painful.

[E]

From sauce to dust to nuggets, it's Taco Bell's new Diablo Dusted Crispy Chicken Nuggets. Are they mild? If they were mild, they'd have to change the name to Little Rascal Nuggets or Minor Nuisance Nuggets. Definitely Diablo New Diablo Dusted Crispy Chicken Nuggets. A brand new classic only a Taco bell at participating U.S. taco Bell locations for a limited time and while supplies last.

[D]

This is Bethenny Frankel from Just Be with Bethenny Frankel. My babies, Biggie and Smalls get the best of everything. So I am excited to make Chewy. My go to Chewy has it all and it ships fast. They also handle the serious stuff like prescriptions, pet insurance and telehealth vet visits. And their 247 customer service actually understands dog moms like me. And it's not just for dogs and cats. Not no matter what kind of pet parent you are. Chewy makes everything feel easy and personal. For life with pets, the answer is chewy. Save $20 on your first order with free shipping at chewpanions.chewy.com JustBee okay real talk.

[C]

I am very much a different pair for every mood kind of girl. And that's exactly why I love Diff eyewear. Like some days I want something sleek and put together and other days I want to throw on a bold pair and just feel like that girl girl, you know? Diff makes stylish sunglasses and prescription frames and the range is so good they get that you're not just one vibe. You're like 12 vibes and depending on the day and the playlist and honestly the weather and here's the part that actually makes you feel good about it. Every Diff purchase gives back so you look amazing and you're doing something meaningful. That's the combo right there. So go check them out. It's diffiwear.com define your style. So seriously, go look right now because you will not leave empty handed. I'm just warning you that's diff eyewear.com again. Diff eyewear.com

[A]

hi guys, welcome to Till death do Us Part. I will be your host today. Emily Simpson with Shane Again, till death do us Part. We like to discuss cases that have to do with wives who have murdered their husbands or husbands who have murdered their wives. And I'm telling you, there seems to be no indication that we will ever run out of education.

[E]

It's not an economy based crime.

[A]

Every time I think, oh my gosh, are we ever going to run out of cases?

[E]

As long as there's marriages.

[A]

As long as there's marriages, there will be murders. You're right. Okay. All right, let's just go through a brief synopsis of this case also. This case, by the way, was recommended. So thank you guys. I truly do appreciate that you guys listen. And then you also have cases that you recommend. So this was recommended to me. The woman's name? This is the wife. Her name is Linda Stermer. And she was convicted of killing her husband Todd Stermer at their home in Van Buren County, Michigan. This was back in 2007. So we're going to take a little, little time machine here and go back to 2007. According to the prosecution, on the night of January 7, 2007, Linda set fire to the family home and then ran over Todd with the family van as he tried to escape the burning house.

[E]

The family van.

[A]

The family van. Todd died from the injuries. Prosecutors argued that Linda was motivated by a combination of an extramarital affair and a desire to collect life insurance money. Linda has always maintained her innocence, claiming that the fire was accidental and that she struck Todd with the van by accident after he emerged from the burning house. She was convicted of first degree murder back in 2010 and then sentenced again to life in prison without parole.

[E]

So she, like the house, caught on fire and she got in the van to drive away and then left the husband behind and he tried to get in the family van and she ran over him.

[A]

Yeah, we're going to talk more about that because we're going to go more in, in depth as to what actually occurred. If, if, and I want your opinion on it because you always, you always have great opinions over there saying so.

[E]

Interesting facts.

[A]

However, Linda's conviction was vacated in when a federal judge decided she didn't get a fair trial the first time. So she actually had two trials. She was let out of prison after spending almost nine years there. Not long after her release, Linda was retried. So she went to trial for a second time and a jury re sentenced her in April of 2025. So this is recently.

[E]

So she got found guilty twice and sentenced twice.

[A]

Yes. Despite everything, Linda has continued to maintain her innocence throughout. There's also, if you guys are interested, there is a, I believe it's 48 hours. There is a 48 hours episode about this case. And they interview Linda. So you can actually watch that if you want to.

[E]

Oh, be like 48 hours within the reporting of the crime.

[A]

So the 48 hours time period is the time period when she is home after her first trial and then she was granted a retrial. So she's home for a little bit. So they do a 48 hours. They interview her, but it's prior to her being convicted the second time.

[E]

Oh, okay.

[A]

So she's actually somewhat free during that time period that she does this interview and she does this 48 Hours episode. So.

[E]

Interesting.

[A]

All right, let's go through a little timeline. Let's talk about the early lives in the marriage. So Linda met Todd Stermer in 1989 when they were both 25 years old. She had separated from a previous partner and had two young daughters from that relationship. There were Ashley and Brittany. Ashley and Brittany, obviously are adults now, and they are in the episode. They interview them towards the end.

[E]

Okay.

[A]

In August of 1993, Linda and Todd are married, and then they have two sons together, Trevor and Trenton. Their household also included Linda's nephew, Corey. Todd took him in to raise as his own after Corey came from a difficult home situation. I think Corey was two at the time. The way Linda presents it is that Todd said, why don't you have Corey come live with us and we'll raise him? So there's the two daughters that she had previously that Todd raises. And the way she describes it is Todd was happy to marry her with the two daughters. Like he, he wanted to be a family man. He wanted to get married.

[E]

Of course, he didn't know she was a killer.

[A]

Well, he was unaware at that point. Linda and Todd's marriage was reportedly turbulent. And with later testimony surfacing that there were accusations of domestic abuse on both sides and as well as financial strain. Then we get to 2006. Linda begins an affair with a coworker named Chris Williams.

[E]

She had the affair.

[A]

She had the affair like he had the affair.

[E]

So she wanted to kill him.

[A]

She had the affair. She had an affair.

[E]

So she wants to kill him?

[A]

I, I, I guess, I mean, or he just irritates her. I don't know. But she has an affair.

[E]

I irritate you. Don't get any idea.

[A]

All right. Williams later Testified that the affair lasted until about a month after Todd's death in 2007. So on January 6th of 2007, Todd discovered Linda's affair with Chris Williams and told her that he wanted a divorce. I think that's. You have to pay attention to the dates here. That's January 6th of 2007. Allegedly, Todd discovers the affair and tells her that he wants a divorce. So on the night of January 7, 2007. So this is the next day, according to Linda's two sons, she sent them out of the house. She didn't even allow them to say goodbye to their dad, who they believe was drugged by her at that point. The two sons are also in this 48 Hours episode.

[E]

These are now her. His sons. Right?

[A]

They're his biological sons.

[E]

They had children together.

[A]

Two boys together. And this is their mother. Yeah, they interview the sons. They're. They're adults, you know. Now they interview them in this 48 Hours episode. The sons are no fans of their mother at. By. By any. By any means at all. Well, that's a good thing, they claim. Well, the daughter. The daughter stand by her.

[E]

That's a bad thing.

[A]

So. But the sons don't want anything to do with her mom. So the sons claim that they. She was trying to get them out of the house. I guess she was trying to send them to a movie or telling them to go to a movie with a friend.

[E]

I don't know. You just need to be gone.

[A]

Yeah, just get out. And they believe that she drugged the husband at that point, because I guess they said something to the effect of he was sleeping and they wanted to go in and say goodbye to him, and she wouldn't let them go in the room.

[D]

He did.

[A]

According to the autopsy, they did find oxy in his system, but it was not in his blood. It was found in his urine. And I guess that means. I guess that means it had been in the system for a while.

[E]

Oh, okay.

[A]

So I don't. I don't know if that means that she's the one that gave him the oxy or that he had taken it and then it was out of his blood system and into his urine. But I don't know. That's a fact that came up during trial. According to the prosecution, Linda struck Todd with an object while he slept or shortly before the fire, doused him in the living room with gasoline and set the house ablaze. Linda claims that she was in the basement doing laundry around 3pm and that Todd was in the living room and that she heard A blood curdling scream. That was her husband. And that she ran up the stairs. And that when she ran up the stairs he was on fire. And so the fire was so bad that she couldn't help him or intervene in any way. She had to just get out of the house.

[E]

So that's when he was so on fire.

[A]

He was so on fire that she

[E]

had to leave, that she had to

[A]

leave now also, I don't know if

[E]

you mentioned it, how much time had passed between the supposed he caught on fire magically and when the children left?

[A]

I don't know. I believe she was trying to get them out of the house earlier that day. And then she claims that she was doing laundry at 3pm and then that's when she heard a scream.

[E]

Okay.

[A]

And then that's when she ran into the living room. And he's on fire.

[E]

You're gonna get into it. But what's her explanation how he caught on fire?

[A]

Oh, she claims I'm.

[E]

I'm 50. I've never caught on fire.

[A]

You've never caught on fire?

[E]

And I've played with fire. And I've never caught on fire.

[A]

How have you played with fire? What do you mean?

[E]

You play with matches? Fireworks.

[A]

Oh yeah. Shane's a big fan of fireworks. When we first got married.

[E]

No, not anymore. Not anymore.

[A]

No. But when we were first married, we lived in Utah. Shane set up all these. I will never forget. You set up all those. What were those? Those pipes.

[E]

I built all these. All these pipes. It was like 10, 15 pipes.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

Let's put ball rockets in all of them. Launch them all at the same time.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

Hey, that's beside the point.

[A]

Okay, you didn't.

[E]

I never caught on fire. So what's her explanation as to how he caught on fire?

[A]

She claims that he had like an oil lamp and that he. And that he liked oil lamps and so he must have been doing something with an oil lamp. I don't know. Also, the house that they live in, he built the house himself. And if you, you can kind of see the home, it doesn't look like it's structurally sound. It doesn't look like it was built correctly. It looks like it was kind of amateurish. Amateurish and kind of haphazardly put together.

[E]

Expect with a guy that I play the oil lamps.

[A]

Yeah, exactly.

[B]

Amazon Health AI presents Painful Thoughts I.

[E]

I can't stop scratching my downtown. Yeah, but I'm not itching to go downtown and tell a receptionist I'm here to talk about my downtown.

[A]

Some things you'd Rather type than say out loud.

[B]

There's no question too embarrassing for Amazon Health. AI chat your symptoms and get virtual care 24. 7 Healthcare just got less painful.

[D]

This is Bethenny Frankel from Just Be with Bethany Frankel. Biggie and Smalls are my little soulmates and I love them in that ridiculous way only pet people understand. That is why I am so excited to try Chewy. They have over a hundred thousand products, all the food, treats, toys, supplements my boys could ever need. Everything ships fast, which is huge. Chewy also handles the serious stuff, prescriptions, pet insurance, telehealth, vet visits and they're even opening vet clinics across the country. Brilliant. And their 24.7customer service feels like talking to people who truly get it. The kind of people who understand why you would buy insane dog costumes and not get judged for it. Plus the one year satisfaction guarantee means if my boys turn their noses up at something I can return it with no stress. So excited for how Chewy helps me take care of Biggie and Smalls so I can focus on loving them the way I do. For life with pets. The answer is chewy. Save $20 on your first order with free shipping at chupanions.chewy.com just be okay

[C]

so can we talk about defi wear for a second because I'm a little obsessed. They have the cutest sunglasses and prescription frames and honestly the vibe is like whatever you're feeling that day, there is a pair for it. Chill day. Got you going out. Got you. And every purchase gives back, which I love. Go to diff eyewear.com and define your style. That's diffiwear.com youm're welcome.

[B]

Craving bold, authentic taste without kitchen chaos. True nature meets Hawaiian Kahlua Pork delivers slow roasted tenderness with smoky tropical notes. Pre cooked perfection. 30 years supplying the finest restaurants, chances are you've already had their pork heat in 2 minutes. Shred for plates or bowls, complaints turn to second helpings and laughter. Real meat, real flavor. Go to TrueNatureMeats.com code free meat for 20% off plus free New York strip Texas smoked brisket and Mediterranean chicken with Code Free meat@truenature meats.com

[A]

so according to the prosecution, they claim that Linda struck Todd with something while he was asleep, doused him in the living room with gasoline and then set the house ablaze and then ran out of the house. Todd ran out of the front door with his upper body engulfed in flames. Linda then climbed into the family van and and ran him over in the driveway. Here's what she says in the interview. She claims that because the fire was so bad, she couldn't get to him. So she leaves the house, and she jumps into the family van, which, by the way, had the keys in it, ready to go. She also claims that she didn't have access to a cell phone, even though Linda owns two cell phones.

[E]

That's my next question. Was she did all this before she called?

[A]

Yes, she claims that she didn't have a cell phone on her, even though she owned two cell phones. She jumps into the van, and according to her, she's trying to go get help. Drive somewhere to go get help.

[E]

She's gonna drive to the fire station.

[A]

Yeah, she's gonna drive somewhere, knock on the door to get help, but she can't get the van.

[E]

She could go to the neighbor's house. Are they in some.

[A]

No, they're in, like, a rural area.

[E]

Okay. So it's far away.

[A]

It's far away. But she claims that she's trying to drive the van to go get help, but she's unable to get the van because it's muddy and the tires are spinning. But then she claim, like, looks out the window of the van and Todd is laying, you know, burned, laying next to the van.

[E]

Ran over at this point.

[A]

Not ran over. She claims that she just sees him out of the window of the van and that she jumps out of the van or she yells at him to get in the van or something. I think she's like, get in the van.

[E]

Get in the van.

[A]

Stop messing around. I know you're badly burned, but get in the van. He doesn't get in the van, obviously. And so she claims that she tried to drive the van around to this sandy area of the home so that she could get traction on tires so that she could go get help. What? I.

[E]

She just. She had to drive somewhere to then get Sam on the tires.

[A]

Yeah. To get traction.

[E]

It doesn't make sense.

[A]

On the tires.

[E]

Okay. At this point, is he not getting in the van? Because he's like, no, you're trying to kill me. You set me on fire.

[A]

I. Well, he's not talking. He's badly burned.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

And he's outside. And then she claims that she drove the van to get to the sandy area, but then she goes back, and then the neighbors call 911. I believe there's some neighbors that see the house on fire. But the interesting thing is he is bloody and he's almost dead by the time that the ambulance gets there. They do try to use a Defibrillator or something. And I think they do try to give him cpr, but he's so badly burned that it's impossible. I do think he's breathing slightly in the end, but he ends up dying. But he also has injuries on the top of his head as if he was trauma. And there's also blood on the van and on the undercarriage of the van. She.

[E]

Any tire tracks on him?

[A]

Maybe, but you couldn't see them because the body was so badly burned. But there's blood on the van, the front of the van, and on the undercarriage of the van. And he has blunt force trauma to his head. I believe once it got to trial, it was never. They were never able to distinguish from the medical examiner whether the blunt force trauma on his head was from being ran over by the van or being hit with some type of object to. I would assume maybe she did drug him to get him incapacitated. Then maybe she did douse him with gasoline and set him on fire. Then I think the expectation was that she was going to drive away and he was going to burn in the house. Right.

[E]

And then she.

[A]

But then when she's driving away and he's. He's managed to come out of the house and he's next to the van, then she's like, now what do I do? Right.

[E]

Well, if she drove away, if he had stayed in the home and just. And. And died from the injuries.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

Then what do you think her story was to be? I. I ran out. I didn't have my phone, so I got my car, and I still drove away to get help.

[A]

I think her story was, I. I was driving to get help, and he just died in the fire.

[E]

Yeah. He ruined her plans.

[A]

Okay. But let me tell you something else, and this is interesting, and I don't really know what to do with this information. Todd owned two homes previous to this one, and they both burned down. Burned down.

[E]

Then they probably run an insurance scam, and that's where she learned, like, oh, I can burn this house down and won't get caught, you know, getting insurance. Some insurance payout.

[A]

So you think he probably intentionally burned the two prior houses down for some type of insurance payout. But then maybe he told her that he did that, and then that's where she got the idea.

[E]

Yeah. Wasn't it the other week when. When it was the. What was it a mom taught the. The daughter taught the mom with the. The husband with the poison. Right.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

So she's like, I did it, and I got away with it.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

So you can do it. So then she's probably thinking, like, oh, we burn homes all the time. It's normal.

[A]

Right.

[E]

And I get away with it. No one questions me.

[A]

All right, so let me just. We talked about this already.

[E]

Information.

[A]

So according to Linda, she was doing laundry in the basement when she heard Todd let out a chilling scream. We talked about. She ran upstairs to find the living room engulfed in flames with Todd in the middle of it, trying to fight the fire. Unable to reach him, she fled the house barefoot, with no jacket and no phone. Again, she owns two cell phones. She has consistently maintained that hitting Todd with the van was a tragic accident and the chaos of the moment. She claims that it was dark, it was raining, it was muddy. She was trying to drive. She was trying to get traction on the tires. And that she accidentally hit him with the van.

[E]

She couldn't see the flames.

[A]

Investigators eventually found gasoline on Todd's body and clothing and discovered that Todd's blood was on the underside of the family van. This was physical evidence that became central to the prosecution's case. The investigation took roughly two and a half years.

[E]

Did I make it up, or did you say that they were. He was upstairs or anything like that?

[A]

Well, she was downstairs in the basement doing laundry. So then when she claims that she heard him scream, she claims she ran up to, like.

[E]

Like he's on the main floor.

[A]

Yeah. Okay.

[E]

Because I'm thinking, why do. Why would someone have gasoline. One, on them, like, all over. Doused on it. But then two. Why would they have a gasoline inside the house? So it's an accelerator, right? Isn't that what they call it? Yeah. I mean, that's suspicious right then and there.

[A]

Well, she had no gasoline on her.

[E]

It's not like he was working on his motorcycle or anything, but he had.

[A]

The. The investigation found that he had gasoline on his clothing, and apparently she was seen. I think there's, you know, video surveillance or whatever. She had gone to a gas station early that morning, and she had bought breakfast and $11 worth of gas. She claims that she filled the family van with the gas, the $11 worth of gas. But there's also a gas.

[E]

What world is $11? Is anyone buying $11?

[A]

2007?

[E]

Well, okay. All right. Still not likely. But.

[A]

And then. But the gas station attendant. But this is. I. This is one of those eyewitness testimonies where it's like, they think maybe that she could. They could have seen her putting gas. Not in the. Maybe in the gas tank, but. All right, so there's that. Her defense attorney was Jeff Getting, who later became Kalamazoo county prosecutor after a five day trial.

[E]

My question would be, did the fan, if they probably didn't do this, but they look at the family van, was it full?

[A]

Oh, did it have it.

[E]

You mean did it have at least

[A]

11 worth of gas?

[E]

Well, if it wasn't full, let's say it was three. A quarter of a tank. Yeah, it's like, well, what'd you do by. What do you mean you filled it up and you bought 11? Or if it's half a tank, who, who goes with a quarter of tank gas and only puts in $11?

[A]

Well, she claims that they had, I don't know, I mean, maybe the excuse is that she only had $11 to put gas in the car. I don't know.

[E]

There are reasons.

[A]

But she claims that she was putting gas in the car so that the boys had the vehicle to be able to use, to be able to leave the house and use the van. But also she says in her interview that Todd was having, or they together, they're married, were having severe financial issues and that he had borrowed like he was in debt $75,000 is what.

[E]

So the previous two payouts of the homes that he burned didn't last long.

[A]

Right. So he was in debt 75,000. He had recently borrowed money from his mom that she was unaware of. And she also claimed that he didn't like to work. I guess she said, she said he had his own company. And then, you know, she said that he sells gloves and some hunting gloves and hunting type of outfits, but he doesn't work very much and he doesn't really. And I'm thinking how do you survive selling gloves and some hunting out?

[E]

He burns homes and he collects the insurance proceeds.

[A]

Right. So I don't know if her intent was to get an insurance payout on that home, but also get rid of the husband so she doesn't have to share the money.

[E]

You have life insurance?

[A]

I never heard anything about any kind of life insurance. And I would assume if they were so financially, you know, and struggling and he didn't really have. She worked, she had a full time job. But maybe they weren't, you know, paying for some type of life insurance policy. I think they were just banking on burning houses down. But I think she learned, and you're right, maybe she learned to burn the house down for the insurance proceeds. But she thought I'll just burn him in it and then I don't have to deal with him.

[E]

Maybe the Previous two homes. She tried to burn a minute and he got out of town.

[A]

I don't know if they were married at that point. I think these were two homes that he had owned previously. Okay, so then Linda appeals her first conviction. She claims that. I mean, just to break it down, there was a lot of. There were a lot of assertions made about why she should be granted a new trial. But I think the. What it really came down to was it was ineffective legal counsel for her. I guess her defense attorney never put on a fire expert. So the prosecution had an expert, an arson expert, but her defense never put on any type of fire.

[E]

Fire science expert.

[A]

Fire fire science expert. And also there were some other things as well. So anyway, she gets granted a new trial, which is.

[E]

I mean, that's kind of why we're an expert. It's like your husband had gasoline all over him. Well, I think that you ran over him. Maybe most people would help their husband on fire. She ran over him.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

I mean, there's a lot of. I know it's all circumstantial, but.

[A]

Well, I think the point. I think the point that she was granted a new trial is because it was ineffective counsel. Her defense attorney didn't put on any type of defense, didn't put on any type of fire expert or do the due diligence that you should do to effectively.

[E]

Yeah, but she. But I was right. She just went back to jail anyway.

[A]

She did, but she got out for a while.

[B]

Amazon Pharmacy presents Painful thoughts it's been

[A]

a long, bumpy road dealing with yet another bladdering infection and driving to the pharmacy to pick up meds. I went over a pothole and a little pee came out. So now I get to stand in line with pee pee pants.

[B]

Next time, skip the pain and get fast free delivery. With Amazon Pharmacy. Healthcare just got less painful.

[D]

This is Bethenny Frankel from Just Be with Bethenny Frankel. Biggie and Smalls are my little soulmates and I love them in that ridiculous way only pet people understand. That is why I am so excited to try Chewy. They have over a hundred thousand products, all the food, treats, toys, supplements my boys could ever need. Everything ships fast, which is huge. Chewy also handles the serious stuff. Prescriptions, pet insurance, telehealth, vet visits, and they're even opening vet clinics across the country. Brilliant. And their 247 customer service feels like talking to people who truly get it. The kind of people who understand why you would buy insane dog costumes and not get judged for it. Plus, the One year satisfaction guarantee means if my boys turn their noses up at something, I can return it with no stress. So excited for how Chewy helps me take care of Biggie and Smalls so I can focus on loving them the way I do for life with pets. The answer is chewy. Save $20 on your first order with free shipping at chewpanions.chewy.com JustBee okay real talk.

[C]

I am very much a different pair for every mood kind of girl. And that's exactly why I love Diff Eyewear. Like some days I want something sleek and put together and other I want to throw on a bold pair and just feel like that girl, you know? Diff makes stylish sunglasses and prescription frames and the range is so good. They get that you're not just one vibe, you're like 12 vibes and depending on the day and the playlist and honestly the weather and here's the part that actually makes you feel good about it. Every Diff purchase gives back. So you look amazing and you're doing something meaningful. That's the combo right there. So go check them out. It's diff eyewear.com define your style. Seriously, go look right now because you will not leave empty handed. I'm just warning you. That's diff eyewear.com again.

[A]

Diff eyewear.com life's nonstop work, family workouts, True nature meets New York strip steak.

[B]

Richly seasoned, pre cooked perfection that melts in your mouth.

[A]

30 years supplying the finest steakhouses. Heat in four minutes. No stress, just nourishing joy.

[E]

Head to TrueNatureMeats.com code free meat for 20% off plus free New York strip

[A]

Texas smoked brisket and Mediterranean chicken with code free [e-mail]. So in 2018, a federal district court granted her a conditional writ of habeas corpus. A conditional writ of habeas corpus is a type of court order that grants a prisoner's petition, meaning that they are found to be illegally detained. Did you know what habeas corpus means? Doesn't it mean like, it means. What does it mean in Latin? I've looked this up before. It literally means like holding on to the body or something, right? Something like that, yeah.

[E]

Holding the body.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

Because you have to, you have to charge them or really some kind of thing.

[A]

Right. So she's claiming that she was in prison illegally because she did not receive a fair trial. Meaning they are both found to be illegally detained, but delays their release or relief, allowing the state or government to correct the legal Error within a specified time frame. So that's how in 2018, she gets released and then she ends up being retried. So the U.S. court of Appeals, I

[E]

just looked it up. So then. So she's released in 2018.

[A]

Huh.

[E]

And then she. The second trial, she was convicted in 2025. So she had almost seven years of freedom. Yeah.

[A]

If you will. Right.

[E]

I wonder what she did with herself for seven years.

[A]

I don't know. Do you want to ask her, like.

[E]

No, I mean, like, did she think, like, oh, I'm going to start a career, I'm going to get a job, I'm going to start dating. Like, did she, like, start to live and then it just got ripped out from her again? Yeah, well, that's because I wouldn't date her.

[A]

The 48 Hours episode is prior to her going back to prison.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

In 2025. She just went back last April. She just went back a year ago.

[E]

She's like, I'm back.

[A]

Yeah. So, I mean, they just get her

[E]

old digs back in their own place.

[A]

To do an updated episod on what she did during those seven years.

[E]

That's.

[A]

That would be interesting. That's what we want to know. We want to know what Linda did for the past seven. That's what I.

[E]

That was the first question I asked.

[A]

I know, but I agree with you.

[E]

That could be a reality show. Like, in between. Like, prison sentences in between.

[A]

Yeah, yeah. Just stuck in the middle.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

Not knowing.

[E]

Kind of like a lame duck. You know? It's like, what do I do?

[A]

Do I get a job? Do I not. Am I going back to prison? I don't know.

[E]

Do I pull out some loans and go to jail and maybe burn a house down?

[A]

The U.S. court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed that ruling and Sturmer v. Warren and the 6th Circuit found that the prosecutor had repeatedly branded Linda a liar, misrepresented her testimony, and disparaged her while bolstering other witnesses during closing arguments. You know, I don't know what. What the. What the fine line is there, but obviously when the prosecutor does a closing argument, he's going to brand her as a liar, because that's their whole.

[E]

That's why you're a defendant. Right. We don't believe. Believe you.

[A]

That's their case. That she. That she burned her husband alive and that she ran over him and that now she's lying about it.

[E]

My client is offended.

[A]

Yes. That they were called a liar.

[E]

Yes.

[A]

They found that getting. This is Linda's defer. Defense attorney Failed to object to these comments and also failed to consult an arson expert who could have rebutted the state's fire cause testimony. The court ruled that she was entitled to a new trial. So this is in 2020. So she's released in 2018.

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

Then on appeal, they say, okay, she. She can get a new trial. This is in 2020. Her trial doesn't start until 2025.

[E]

Right. But. And, and just be clear, her being released had nothing to do with like, being paroled or anything. It had to do with, like, this trial that was thrown out. Yeah.

[A]

Right. And I don't. I don't know what the. This is interesting, too. I don't know what the parameters were of her release before her new trial. Like what, I mean, is she, like,

[E]

she was on house arrest or something?

[A]

She allowed to travel freely?

[E]

Probably not. I'm sure they take her passport.

[A]

I mean, she could go to Costa Rica and get plastic surgery during that time period. We have to make sure that she can be retried.

[E]

She could take her sister's passport and try to go to Costa Rica.

[A]

Exactly. So I wonder what the parameters were during that. Five years before she was tried again in 2025. All right, so now we get to the retrial and her second conviction.

[E]

Seven years.

[A]

Yeah, I know. You're stuck on that. Seven years. Right.

[E]

It's kind of weird. It's like she had a break.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

And then she gets out. She has a little chance. She gets to catch up with the world. Yeah. She has an intermission, and then she gets to see. It's like this is what you're missing.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

And then you go back to jail.

[A]

Yeah. So early 2025, after years of pre. Pretrial proceedings, Linda's retrial finally took place in Van Buren County. Prosecutors again presented the theory that she beat Todd, set the house on fire, and ran him over. You know, there was. There's a witness that testified during her first trial. There were also jailhouse witnesses that testified, but it was hard to follow. I read very in depth details about,

[E]

like what she said that during that

[A]

she admitted to things. But then, then those, you know, would be corroborated with other people that said that they were known liars. I don't know.

[E]

That jailhouse testimony never had blood underneath the car and gasoline on his body.

[A]

Right.

[E]

Well, one of her trying to drive away and running him over.

[A]

Right. One of her co workers testified against her, claiming that Linda said something to the effect of she needed to get home because she needed to get Rid of some coffee cup that she had put drugs in that would sedate her husband. So she testified to that. But then, you know, then, you know, on defense, on cross, she also, you know, has mental problems. And then her. Her, you know, family testifies that she's a known liar. And she and Linda didn't get along at work. They were best friends, but then they had a falling out. So, you know, it's. It's hard when you have conflicting testimony where someone testifies to something they heard or know, and then someone else testifies that that person has mental illness and is a liar. And I can't imagine being a jury and trying to decipher through all the different. But you're right. You just want to focus on the fact that he caught on fire, tried to run out of the house, and

[E]

then got ran over by low hanging fruit.

[A]

Right, Right.

[E]

It's the blood all over the car.

[A]

Right.

[E]

Let's just stick with that coffee cup or whatever.

[A]

Right. So then In April of 2025, which was one year ago, the second jury again found Linda guilty on all charges.

[E]

Was it the same jury they call the same people, like, okay, we got to redo this.

[A]

I believe both juries were unanimous in their decision, too. It wasn't like a majority. I think it was unanimous. Linda was sentenced for the second time to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

[E]

She had two life sentences.

[A]

Two life sentences for one murder, she had two life sentences. Right. She continues to maintain her innocence and has stated that her legal team is confident that this conviction will also be overturned. This is what the judge said to her.

[E]

Judge number two.

[A]

Judge number two, you lit your husband on fire and burned him alive. When he made it out of the house and you had a chance to reconsider your actions, you instead doubled down and ran him over with your car. I cannot fathom the suffering he endured in his last moments of life. And I cannot fathom the damage you've inflicted on Todd's family. His mother, his siblings, and now your grown children. His grown children. But only a sense of life without the possibility of parole can protect others from you and deter others from committing. Like conduct. Like conduct. And only a sentence of life without the possibility of parole can properly punish you for the heinous acts you've committed in burning your husband alive and leaving your children without that imprint forever. I thought that was pretty.

[E]

Yeah. And then he said, and no fire science expert will alleviate you from your crimes.

[A]

Right.

[E]

And I was like, what did the fire science guy do? He's yes, he was burned. Yes. He had gasoline all over him.

[A]

Right.

[E]

And. Well, she claims. She.

[A]

She claims that there's. Because there's photos of other gas cans laying around the property. So she claims that they just. Just had gas.

[E]

It's just such a technicality.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

It's like. Yeah. Could there have been a fire science expert? Absolutely. Should there have been? Probably so. But, like, was that really enough to, like, overturn it and retry it?

[A]

Well, there was also other claims that, you know, the prosecution was, you know, out of line and that the defense attorney should have objected and didn't. I guess everyone's entitled to the best defense that they possibly can have. And I guess they found that she was not. She did not receive, you know, someone that zealously advocated for her. And so they retried her.

[E]

And, you know, it got her seven years out of jail.

[A]

So, you know, now what you deal with is the aftermath of all these children because she has the two daughters from a first relationship, and then she has the two sons, and also then Corey, the adopted son. So the case has devastated and split the Stermer family along sibling lines. This is really sad because now these siblings don't get along because they got the. You've got the two daughters that believe in their mother's innocence and are claiming that Todd was abusive and that he was violent. And then you've got the sons that are saying, that's not true.

[E]

Your mom's crazy.

[A]

All right, so how now these siblings are all broken?

[E]

Yeah, well, that's what the judge said. Right.

[A]

So Linda's three sons, Trevor Trenton, and her nephew Corey, who they raised, believe that she murdered their father and have testified against her. At both trials, Corey testified that Linda's story changed multiple times and that she pressured the boys to lie to the insurance company about the state of the marriage. The sons have publicly stated that they no longer consider her their mother. However, Linda has the two daughters from an earlier relationship. This is Ashley and Brittany, and they both have remained convinced of Linda's innocence. Also, Todd is their stepdad, not their biological.

[E]

Right.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

They've known her longer.

[A]

Britney, one of her daughters, became a driving force in seeking the trial, even reaching out to fire investigator Rob Trinkle to push for a re examination of the fire evidence. Ashley, the other daughter, has spoken publicly about the personal cost of her stance, saying that she lost her brothers because she stood by her mother. The two sets of siblings reportedly no longer speak as of 2025. As of the 2025 sentencing, Todd's surviving Family members, including his sons, confronted Linda in court, telling her she never let them say goodbye to their father.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

So Linda, she's now knowingly.

[E]

Like, she sent them away.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

Knowing they would never see him again. Or at least that was her plan and didn't have the decency. I. Yeah, well, I mean, she's a murderer, so of course she doesn't care about this stuff.

[A]

So. Linda is now in her early 60s, and she is back in the Michigan Department of Corrections serving a life sentence. I don't know if there's ever any parole eligibility for her.

[E]

Yeah, I don't know. She already had. She had seven years off.

[A]

She had seven years. That's good enough for you, huh?

[E]

Yeah.

[A]

Yeah, that's.

[E]

That's a big deal. Imagine if I just gave you seven years free right now. Like, no responsibility. Don't worry about anything you did wrong. Go out and enjoy yourself for seven years.

[A]

Would you date a woman that went to prison for burning her husband alive and running over him with a van?

[E]

No, but there's.

[A]

There's. To each his own. There's probably some. There's someone out there for her.

[E]

That's what I said. So I'm like, she's probably.

[A]

Okay, well, that's my question. And if anyone out there listening knows.

[E]

Was anyone her neighbor during those.

[A]

We want to know. Or worked Linda was doing during those seven years. So if anyone has any information on that, please send it.

[E]

Like. Like, she starts to build a life, and then it's like, nope, go back to prison.

[A]

Well, the question is, do you?

[E]

She starts to binge watch, like, some series. Oh, she, like. Yeah. Creates some, like, hobby, or she, like, builds some Instagram following, and all of them, they ganked away.

[A]

That's what you think of Instagram followings. And. And she was. She was watching a Netflix.

[E]

No, I don't think of her as being a responsible citizen. Oh, so you're just contributing to society

[A]

or watching Netflix and.

[E]

Yeah, probably looking at her next crime.

[A]

Okay. All right. Well, thank you, guys, for listening. Till death do us.

[E]

You have way more sympathy for these killers.

[A]

Every time I try to do a closing. Because you always have five.

[E]

You have these sympathies.

[A]

I don't have sympathy for her.

[E]

Well, you think, like, I'm too hard on them.

[A]

No, they're killers. Yes. Well, at least you're not calling them crooks anymore. You should just call everybody crooked killers. Everybody's a crook.

[E]

Yes.

[A]

Do you have any Megan Markle updates?

[E]

Well, her and Harry fairly. Word is that times are rough, right? Now. And they're really splitting. Yeah. And then everyone's upset because she got paid to go out to Australia.

[A]

Oh.

[E]

And then she had, like, some getaway. Like, all these ladies could pay and go. And apparently she only spoke to them for, like, 20 minutes. And so they're upset that they paid for this getaway with her. Probably like a day spa type.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

You know, environment. And then she didn't really speak and she didn't want anything to do with them. Yeah. She's just a horrible person.

[A]

It's like the swimming with dolphins scam where you pay a bunch of money to, like, swim with dolphins and they're

[E]

like, don't touch the dolphins.

[A]

But really, you just stand in line and then you walk up and you. You get to put your. You get to touch the top of its head, and they take a photo and then they send you on your way. There's no swimming with dolphins.

[E]

No. They act like you're gonna build a relationship with these dolphins and you're gonna hang out and have some memories together.

[A]

I will tell you. The other night, I went to an event, and there was a man there that owns a chocolate company, and he was telling me that he's very good friends with Meghan Markle and that he had just been at her house the other day and that she loves his chocolate, and he had nothing but kind and amazing things to say about her. So I. I wanted to launch into what. What my husband thinks. And then I thought, no, I'm just. I just said, that's great.

[E]

I'm glad you suggest that. He recommends she listen to our podcast.

[A]

No, I did not. Should I have?

[E]

Did you know she's. She's a piece of work.

[A]

I'm sure.

[E]

As ever.

[A]

As ever. Okay. All right.

[E]

Wickless Candles. I mean, the nerve. She just basically selling sticks of wax.

[A]

I. I'm sorry, Shane. Meghan Markle is rage bait. For shame. All right, I'm gonna end it now. Can I. Do you have any final thoughts?

[E]

No. Go.

[A]

Okay. Thank you guys so much for listening. Till death do us part. If you have any cases out there that you would like to recommend, I love recommendations, so please find me on Instagram and send me a message. Also, if you have any feedback or. Or comments, we love to hear it. Please be sure to follow us on our own feed. It's Legally Brunette, and you can listen to Legally Brunette wherever you listen to podcasts. And please be sure to tell your friends and family. So thank you so much for listening. We appreciate you guys so much.

[B]

Streaming May 22nd on Paramount. Plus, the acclaimed series from executive producer Lena Waithe reaches its final chapter. The Shy for seven seasons, these stories, these streets, this community have stayed with us. Now it all leads to this. As friendships are tested, families evolve and secrets refuse to stay buried, one thing is certain. The Chi is more than just a series. It's a legacy. Don't miss the final season. May 22 on the Paramount Premium Plan Sometimes the butt goes through a lot. When the butt speaks, you listen. Preparation H is the butt care expert known for helping people care for their hemorrhoids, offering relief in different forms that adapt to needs and moments. Medicated wipes formulated with witch hazel, aloe and vitamin E to help keep things calm, cool and collected. Rapid relief spray with maximum strength Lidocaine provides fast relief from from itching, burning and swelling. There's also a multi symptom relief cream when broader support is needed. Preparation H treats the issue rather than just masking it. No shame here, only solutions. So if a butt has been begging for a little kindness, wipe and treat for better relief with the number one doctor recommended brand, Preparation H. This is

[D]

Bethenny Frankel from Just Be with Bethenny Frankel. My babies Biggie and Smalls get the best of everything. So I am excited to make Make Chewy. My go to Chewy has it all and it ships fast. They also handle the serious stuff like prescriptions, pet insurance and telehealth vet visits. And their 247 customer service actually understands dog moms like me. And it's not just for dogs and cats. No matter what kind of pet parent you are, Chewy makes everything feel easy and personal. For life with pets, the answer is chewy. Save 20 on your first order with free shipping at chew panions.chewy.com/just be okay.

[C]

So can we talk about defi wear for a second because I'm a little obsessed. They have the cutest sunglasses and prescription frames and honestly the vibe is like whatever you're feeling that day, there is a pair for it. Chill day. Got you going out. Got you. And every purchase gives back, which I love. Go to diffiware.com and define your style. That's diffiwear.com you're welcome.

[A]

This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.