Culpable: Conflict of Interest | Episode 7 (October 6, 2025)

Episode Overview

In this episode of Culpable, host Dennis Cooper continues the deep dive into the suspicious 1998 death of 17-year-old Danny Violette in rural Ohio. The focus shifts to allegations of conflicts of interest, the messy web of small-town relationships, and new leads that challenge long-standing theories. The episode interviews former and current investigators, analyzes redacted documents, revisits old rumors, and reveals ongoing challenges in seeking justice and closure.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Discovery of a Conflict of Interest

• (03:36, 39:30, 42:20)
  • Michael Curtis, a criminal justice professor, expresses concern over conflicts of interest in the original investigation. He points out that individuals, particularly a local officer related to one of the last people to see Danny alive, worked the case—a clear violation of investigative neutrality, even in small towns.
  • “There are some individuals that will work in this case that should not have been worked in this case...But I will tell you that the conflict in this case is bad.” — Michael Curtis (03:36, 39:30)
  • The situation is compared to minor traffic cases where officers recuse themselves if there is a personal connection; more should have been done here in this major case.

2. Mike White’s Unofficial Involvement & Perspective

• (07:02–16:50, 51:46)
  • Mike White, a retired police chief and criminal justice professor, was brought in (2014) to review the cold case with fresh eyes. He was not from the implicated agencies, suggesting he offered a more objective perspective.
  • Struggles to recover a complete case file, much of which was poorly stored and likely incomplete.
  • Early investigation involved missing files, redacted documents, and possible mishandling by family-connected officers.
  • Maintains skepticism about murder as the manner of death, citing lack of motive but is convinced the death involved foul play because someone moved Danny's body after death.
  • “Strangulation is not the preferred method of homicide…I Don’t see any signs of homicide.” — Mike White (10:20)
  • Trusts polygraphs as investigative tools but emphasizes factual case analysis over test results.

3. Re-examination of Friday Night & Timeline Confusion

• (24:16–32:44)
  • The timeline of Danny’s last known hours is muddied by conflicting accounts and rumors, especially regarding the Friday night acid use and where Danny spent his final hours.
  • Charlotte (mother of Danny's friend Matt) provides an inconsistent account during a recent police follow-up, echoing confusion about the night's details and who was present.
  • Detectives highlight that Charlotte is strangely the only one to answer, “Where were you when Danny died?” immediately, referencing a night no one can pinpoint.
  • "I haven't had anybody ask me about poor old Danny like forever..." — Charlotte (21:46)
  • The theory that Danny died at Charlotte’s house stems from “multiple corroborating informants”—but is still based on unreliable, drug-involved sources.
  • “The shitty rumors ruined my family’s name.” — Matt (Danny’s friend) (34:02, quoting his message)

4. Rumors, Informants, and the Family Connection

• (13:31–15:48, 21:16–28:44, 34:02–38:16)
  • The persistent rumors about Danny dying at Charlotte’s house are “direct admissions” from at least one informant, per Mike White, rather than mere small-town gossip—but Charlotte adamantly denies these in both contemporary and past interviews.
  • The recent follow-up interview with Charlotte reveals little new, and she feels victimized by the rumors and by the public’s suspicious eye.
  • Matt, through a written message (34:02–38:16), denounces the rumors and clarifies key details: he, Adam, and Danny obtained acid, and Danny suffered a serious health episode on Friday night, but Matt’s last encounter with Danny was at a friend’s, not Charlotte’s house.
  • Both Charlotte and Matt warn that informants were seeking to curry favor with police (including Matt’s uncle), further muddying credible lines of inquiry.

5. Case File Omissions & Investigative Gaps

• (43:07–48:19)
  • Michael Curtis and Dennis discover that crucial details from Friday night’s events (Danny’s time at Matt’s house before Judd’s) were omitted from official records.
  • Speculation arises that these omissions may be either simple oversights or an effect of the conflict of interest.
  • “You can’t overlook this...That’s an egregious omission.” — Michael Curtis (46:37)
  • There is frustration among the review team and students that, while strides have been made, such an omission is egregious for a case of this magnitude.

6. A New Alleged Eyewitness & Hints at the Truth

• (48:54–50:49)
  • Curtis is told a firsthand account by an informant who claims to have witnessed the event that killed Danny, placing themselves at the scene.
  • When this was presented to original investigators, the reaction was unsettlingly muted, with “silence” instead of disbelief.
  • Without corroboration or a confession, this remains only another lead, handed off to current detectives (Duncan and Gillum) for follow-up.

7. DNA Testing: Promise and Frustration

• (51:46–53:43)
  • Efforts to pursue advanced DNA testing using preserved evidence were organized by the family with support from Curtis and investigative partners.
  • Funding and a lab were secured, but at the last moment, the release of evidence for independent testing was stonewalled, raising further questions about transparency.
  • “If it’s closed and you don’t intend to reopen it, what are you worried about?” — Michael Curtis (53:12)

8. Where the Case Stands & What’s Next

• (53:43–54:00)
  • Host Dennis Cooper announces a follow-up interview with Matt to be released as a bonus episode, promising to share more from someone at the center of the most hotly debated moments.
  • The series finale is teased for the upcoming week, with continued hope for resolution as new leads are explored.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Conflict of Interest:
  “There’s a general conflict here...I can’t do that investigation. I’m not impartial. Now we’re talking about a possible manslaughter or homicide. There’s no freaking way that the conflict wasn’t recognized. None.” — Michael Curtis (42:20)
• On Investigative Frustration:
  “You can’t overlook this...That’s an egregious omission.” — Michael Curtis (46:37)
• On Original Detective Response:
  “There wasn’t righteous indignation...it was really silence.” — Michael Curtis, reflecting on discussing new information with the original investigators (49:51)
• On Informant Credibility:
  “But then in another way, you get two drug addicts saying the same thing…that kind of, strangely enough, lends a sense of credibility to it.” — Mike White (12:39)
• Family’s Perspective on Rumors:
  “The shitty rumors ruined my family’s name...as soon as they knew my uncle was a cop they would just somehow volunteer info about us, thinking it would help them.” — Matt (34:02)
• On the Limits of DNA Evidence:
  “If it’s closed and you don’t intend to reopen it, what are you worried about?” — Michael Curtis (53:12)

Key Timestamps

• 03:36 / 39:30 / 42:20 – Professor Curtis on conflicts of interest and investigative neutrality
• 07:02–16:50 – Mike White’s 2014 review & struggle to obtain a complete case file
• 21:16–32:44 – Interview with Charlotte; conflicting timelines
• 34:02–38:16 – Matt’s written account; consequences of rumors
• 43:07–48:19 – Discovery of case file omissions and investigative bias
• 48:54–50:49 – Curtis on new firsthand informant account
• 51:46–53:43 – Family’s DNA testing plan meets bureaucratic resistance

Summary for New Listeners

“Conflict of Interest” lays bare the problems endemic to small-town investigations, especially for cold cases complicated by family ties among police and witnesses. Despite persistent rumors, recent interviews and reviews reveal inconsistencies and gaps in the official record. Professor Michael Curtis and retired investigator Mike White offer both critique and cautious hope—highlighting how a combination of diligent outside review, modern DNA analysis, and possible new witness testimony could finally bring clarity. The episode is a study in how cases can drift toward resolution or remain stagnant if not handled with scrupulous objectivity and transparency.

The episode closes with announcement of a forthcoming bonus interview with Matt and a sense that, even more than 25 years later, accountability—and answers—may finally be within reach.

For anyone with information about the case, listeners are invited to contact culpablepodcast.com or the Huron County Sheriff’s Office.