Murder Sheet – "Extra! Extra! The Shooting of Maria Velasquez: Charges Filed"

Date: November 17, 2025
Hosts: Áine Cain (A), Kevin Greenlee (B)

Overview of the Episode

This episode covers the recent breaking news of charges filed against Kurt Anderson, a homeowner in Boone County, Indiana, who fatally shot Maria Florinda Rios Perez de Velasquez—a housekeeper—through his closed, locked door. Cain and Greenlee analyze the incident using court documents, explore the implications of Indiana’s castle doctrine, and reflect on the legal and moral ramifications of the case. The episode emphasizes the tragic loss of life, the responsibilities of gun ownership, and raises crucial questions about the standards required for using deadly force under self-defense laws.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Case Summary and Background

• Maria Velasquez, a 32-year-old mother of four, was working as a house cleaner. Early in the morning on November 5th, 2025, she went to clean what she and her husband believed was a model home in Whitestown, Indiana (Boone County).
• Due to a mix-up with addresses/GPS, Maria and her husband mistakenly went to Kurt Anderson’s home, attempting to enter using a provided key.
• Anderson, fearing a home invasion, retrieved his firearm and shot through the door, striking Maria in the head and killing her.
  • A: "She died in her husband's arms. This is an immense tragedy." (06:07)
• Law enforcement found no evidence of forced entry or aggressive attempts to break down the door.

2. Indiana Castle Doctrine Explained

• Indiana’s castle doctrine gives homeowners the right to use force, even deadly force, if they reasonably fear imminent harm by an intruder. However, whether Anderson’s fear was reasonable is central to this case.
  • B: "The key thing in this case to remember is Indiana has a castle doctrine...The question...is whether or not a person has a reasonable fear or whether that person just has any fear at all." (05:08)
• The legal distinction between reasonable and actual (subjective) fear will likely be at the heart of upcoming court arguments.

3. Critical Examination of Evidence

• Police investigation found the door’s deadbolt and handle locked, no signs of force, and even a layer of dust was undisturbed.
  • B: "[Quoting PCA]...no handprints or any evidence of forceful contact with the structure of the door itself. Further, there were no evidence or scratches." (09:39)
  • A: "There was nothing that would indicate that they were about to break down the door." (10:21)
• The absence of forceful attempts undermines Anderson’s claim that he was responding to a violent threat.

4. Kurt Anderson’s Account

• Anderson described being startled awake after only a few hours of sleep, hearing commotion at his front door, and believing someone was trying to force entry.
• He and his wife had a "safe room." Anderson retrieved his handgun—never fired since purchase, only prior firearms experience was his Navy service as a psychiatric RN.
  • A: "[On having a safe room:] There's being kind of, like, frankly paranoid... and then there's being aware, adept in using a gun... so that you can be a responsible gun user and owner." (16:12)
  • B: "If you own guns, you should use them regularly, keep up to date on how to use them, go to the range, make sure you know what you're doing." (20:47)
• Anderson stated he did not announce himself or warn the people at his door before firing.
  • A: "The problem for me here is that you're going from that to shooting through a door... that's an escalation that boggles the mind." (26:11)

5. Hosts’ Analysis of Reasonableness & Gun Responsibility

• Both hosts stress that responsible gun ownership means knowing when and how to use force—never firing blindly.
  • B: "One thing gun owners tell me is you never fire your gun unless you know exactly what you're aiming at." (22:02)
  • A: "This man had no business owning a gun...If you're not going to be familiarizing yourself with the weapon..." (37:07)
• Cain and Greenlee both agree Anderson was acting out of fear, not malice, yet maintain this is not justification for his actions under any reasonable standard.
  • A: "I do not believe this man set out to murder or kill anyone that day. He was frightened. That being said, I don't think anybody's extreme fear entitles them to take a life..." (31:05)
  • B: "I hope…it matters whether or not [the fear] was reasonable, because I don't want to live in a society...where a person has license to kill other people just because they have a fear for their life..." (33:15)

6. Maria’s Husband’s Statement

• He confirmed their intent was only to clean; they attempted entry with keys as instructed, did not bang or yell or try to force entry.
• After the shot, he realized what happened and tried to render aid.
  • A: "He didn't ever hear anything inside. He didn't hear yelling, he didn't hear movement. Just the one shot..." (40:23)
• The GPS led them repeatedly to the wrong address.
  • A: "It was just a mistake. It was an error and it should have been cleared up with a conversation..." (41:26)

7. Legal Questions Moving Forward

• Prosecutor Kent Eastwood views the case as voluntary manslaughter, moving forward with that charge.
• The defense, led by attorney Guy Relford, is expected to argue Anderson’s fear, not the reasonableness, should be the legal standard.
  • A: "The question is, is it so scary that it justifies shooting through a dead, bolted, locked door?" (43:56)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• A (on tragedy): "She died in her husband's arms. This is an immense tragedy." (06:07)
• B (on legal standard): "The question...is whether or not a person has a reasonable fear or whether that person just has any fear at all." (05:08)
• A (on evidence): "There was nothing that would indicate that they were about to break down the door." (10:21)
• B (on responsible gun ownership): "You never fire your gun unless you know exactly what you're aiming at." (22:02)
• A (on escalation): "The problem for me here is that you're going from that to shooting through a door... that's an escalation that boggles the mind." (26:11)
• A (on accountability): "This man had no business owning a gun...if you're not going to be familiarizing yourself with the weapon." (37:07)
• A (on outcome): "It was just a mistake. It was an error and it should have been cleared up with a conversation..." (41:26)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [05:08] – Indiana Castle Doctrine and its legal implications
• [09:39] – Physical evidence: no forced entry, no aggression at the door
• [12:44] – Anderson's description of his household and the incident
• [20:47] – Discussion on responsible gun ownership
• [22:02] – Gun safety: "never fire unless you know exactly what you're aiming at"
• [26:11] – Analysis of escalation and lack of warning before shooting
• [31:05] – Host reflection on fear vs. responsibility
• [33:15] – Legal analysis: Reasonableness of fear
• [40:23] – Testimony from Maria's husband & context on entry attempt
• [43:56] – Prosecutor's charge and anticipated legal defense

Wrap-Up

Cain and Greenlee conclude with a strong statement on the difference between having the legal right to own and use a gun and being responsible enough to do so. They argue the tragedy could have been avoided with de-escalation or simple communication and highlight how the case will likely set important legal precedent for self-defense cases in Indiana.

The episode is measured, empathetic, and informative, blending legal analysis with compassionate storytelling.