Podcast Summary: Drop Dead Serious with Ashleigh Banfield

Episode: DID COURT SCREW-UP LEAD TO DOUBLE MURDER? | Ohio Murders: Spencer and Monique Tepe, Michael McKee

Release Date: January 16, 2026

Overview:

In this gripping episode, Ashleigh Banfield investigates a bizarre clerical court error that may have triggered a double homicide in Ohio, delving into the murder of Spencer and Monique Tepe and the involvement of Monique’s ex-husband, Dr. Michael McKee. The episode explores how a mistaken court notice—sent nearly nine years after Monique and Michael’s divorce—could have reignited old animosities and potentially acted as a catalyst for tragedy. Banfield interviews a former family court judge, family members, legal experts, and a homicide detective, dissecting the error’s possible impact, the security of the victims’ home, and forensic details like gunshot residue.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Mysterious Court Docket Error

Main Theme:

• A notice for a hearing in Monique and Michael's closed divorce case appeared on the court docket nearly nine years after their finalized split.
• Clerical error or deliberate act? The episode investigates.

Details & Reactions:

• Ashleigh Banfield explains the situation and potential consequences (02:35):

  “A mysterious notice appeared on a court docket in Columbus, Ohio. The court had scheduled a hearing for this past September in the matter of the McKee Sabaturski divorce. I know. With you. What on earth could that mean?”

• Notices were reportedly sent out to both parties, raising the question: did this error 'trigger' Dr. McKee?

2. Exploring Psychological Triggers

Banfield and her guests probe whether receiving a notice about a long-closed divorce could destabilize someone already considered volatile.

• Court Clerk / Judge Tarlika Nunes Navarro’s warning (15:55):

  “These are massive issues… Imagine Mo, when she received notice of this. If she received notice... and what if he received notice and he started looking her up?... It could have triggered something.”

• Banfield and Navarro both agree the emotional volatility surrounding family court is significant:

  "What do you think the potential is for a trigger just to get a notice? You're up for a hearing with your ex?"
  Navarro: "Highly likely." (17:29)

• Notable quote from Jack Ford, relayed by Banfield:

  “He would rather sit beside murderers than sit in family court cases with those parties.” (16:55)

3. Abuse, Threats, and the History of Monique & Dr. Michael McKee

• Rob Misla (Monique’s brother-in-law) recounts Monique’s pain and fear (19:00):

  "She would just call him her ex-husband and just how much of a monster he was, to be honest, emotionally abusive and threatening. And she did everything she could to extricate herself from that situation..."

• Banfield:

  “Relatives say that she talked openly about the emotional abuse that she suffered at the hands of Dr. Michael McKee...” (18:20)

• Despite the harrowing past, there’s no evidence that Monique and Michael had been in recent contact.

4. The Reality and Impact of the Court Notice

• Angenette Levy (Law & Crime Network) confirms the clerical mistake’s reality (21:51):

  "I think that it's not that uncommon... my friend... had something similar, just some wonky things that had happened with her divorce case in Franklin County... It was just like a mistake, an error."

• The process may have meant either party received notification, potentially reopening old wounds.

• Banfield observes:

  "If notice did reach Dr. McKee, how would that have landed? Did it bring up old emotions?" (27:50)

5. The Break-In: How Did the Killer Get In?

Banfield and retired homicide detective Dana Farbacher analyze the seeming impossibility of entering a “Fort Knox”-like house without forced entry (31:09).

Possible Entry Scenarios:

• Circumventing alarm/security (31:27)
• Guessing keycodes — exes often know birthdays or important numbers (32:22)
• Unlocked window or door, then locking it again (33:15)
• Being let in under false pretenses—a less likely scenario (34:36)

Farbacher on vulnerabilities:

"We're creatures of habit, and we like to use numbers we're comfortable with to make it easier to remember. So is it possible… that they used a birthday, Social Security number..." (32:22)

Crime Scene Complications:

• Friends entered the home before police—the crime scene was contaminated, potentially helping a defense. (30:57)

Questions over Vehicle:

• Police use the phrase "in possession of a vehicle," not necessarily "his car," suggesting McKee may have borrowed or otherwise obtained a different vehicle (35:59).

6. Forensic Deep Dive: Gunshot Residue (GSR)

Banfield is intrigued by GSR's role as a silent, often overlooked but damning forensic indicator.

GSR Basics & Significance:

• Banfield:

  "You can pick up your spent shell casings. You can even ditch the gun. But murders have been solved in even craftier ways, and that's because GSR is a whole other kettle of fish." (36:56)

• Leonard Romero (forensic firearms expert) (38:07):

  “Although it’s invisible… it is a very valuable clue in some instances to go ahead and associate a person with firing or being in the presence of [a] fire[d gun].”

Transfer & Detection:

• GSR is extremely transferable—hands, forearms, clothes, car interiors, can linger through attempts to clean (39:49, 40:30).
• Romero:

  “If he had multiple weapons and he was touching those weapons during that time before they were able to go ahead and bag his hands... it's a possibility...those positive results can come from him actually touching...those other weapons.” (39:16)

• GSR can stay on individuals and objects depending on activities post-shooting—washing, sweating, handling items, etc.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Banfield on the bizarre timing of the court notice (06:10):

  “That divorce was over and done with almost a decade ago. So what did Monique and Michael know about this scheduled hearing?... There's no evidence that this bizarre blip had anything to do with the murders, which happened three months after the appearance date. But we've discovered some things that matter.”

• Judge Navarro on how these errors can have real-life consequences (15:55):

  “These are massive issues… what if he received notice and he started looking her up? ...In June, these notices were sent out. By the end of June, he could have started researching her, and...it could have triggered something...sometimes it's too late.”

• Farbacher on forced entry (31:27):

  “I have to believe with modern technology, it may be possible that he could have circumvented any sort of an alarm system... It’s a multitude of things…”

• Romero on GSR (38:25):

  “It’s correct. Yes. Although it’s invisible. That’s the big difference...You can't see it, the person that's shooting the firearm. But it is a very valuable clue…”

Key Timestamps

• 02:35 — Banfield lays out the court error’s mystery.
• 10:44 — Introduction of retired judge Tarlika Nunes Navarro for legal insight.
• 13:14 — Court procedures and error plausibility.
• 15:55 — Judge Navarro on the psychological effect of family court notices.
• 17:29 — Discussion on triggering potential of receiving a court hearing notice.
• 19:00 — Rob Misla on Monique's abusive first marriage.
• 21:51 — Angenette Levy explains how court error likely occurred.
• 27:50 — Deep dive into who might have received the court notice.
• 31:09 — Banfield and Farbacher on the home’s security and theories on entry.
• 32:22 — Discussion of keycode vulnerabilities.
• 33:15 — Detective explains forensic clues for window entry.
• 36:56 — Banfield begins the GSR explanation.
• 38:07 — Interview with forensic firearms expert Leonard Romero.
• 40:30 — Explaining GSR’s transferability and persistence.

Episode Tone

The tone is incisive, candid, and occasionally irreverent—Banfield brings decades of true crime reporting experience, balancing deep empathy for victims with a tenacious drive to uncover system flaws. There are moments of dark humor and industry-insider analysis ("I love gunshot residue. I know it's weird..."), but always with a focus on the gravity of the crimes discussed.

Conclusion

This episode of "Drop Dead Serious" offers an in-depth, multidimensional look at how small bureaucratic errors can play catastrophic roles in real people's lives—especially when domestic violence, psychological fragility, and system glitches intersect. Banfield’s journalism, combined with firsthand experts and family voices, paints a vivid, troubling portrait of both the legal system’s fallibility and the unpredictable ways in which the past can intrude on the present, sometimes with fatal consequences.