Murder Sheet: The Cheat Sheet – Victims and Voir Dire

Air Date: January 2, 2026
Hosts: Áine Cain (C), journalist; Kevin Greenlee (B), attorney

Overview

In this “Cheat Sheet” installment of the Murder Sheet, Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee present updates and insights on four cases: two cold-case developments involving murder victims, and two legal stories highlighting public access and right-to-counsel issues in the criminal justice system. The episode blends detailed case reporting with legal analysis, personal anecdotes, and the hosts’ trademark banter to explore how victims and legal safeguards are treated in the American justice system.

Key Discussion Points & Case Summaries

1. Judy Lord Case (Concord, New Hampshire, 1975)

Segment: [05:08–13:38]

• Overview:
  Judy Lord, a 22-year-old mother, was murdered in her Concord apartment. She was found dead after her landlord entered due to overdue rent and her baby’s cries. The scene indicated sexual assault and strangulation, with her 17-month-old son unharmed.

• Suspect Analysis:
  Her neighbor, Ernest Stanberry (aka Ernest W. Gable), was investigated early on due to a pattern of criminal behavior and a stormy relationship with Lord. He reportedly broke into her apartment and frightened her, with physical evidence (his prints, African American hairs) tying him to the scene.

  “He once let himself into her apartment at 2am 10 days before the murder and was telling her that he wanted to see her naked… His fingerprints were on her window as if he’d been sliding it open.” — Áine Cain [07:09]

• Later Developments:
  Despite the strong suspicions, the case went cold. Gable moved to California and was murdered there in 1987. Recently, New Hampshire Cold Case Unit determined that with today’s evidence, they would have charged him, closing the case unofficially.

• Host Reaction:
  Áine reflects on why Stanberry/Gable wasn’t previously prosecuted, criticizing the failure to act:

  “…why was this guy allowed to just run around and do this stuff and, like, break into people’s apartments…?” — Cain [08:57]

2. Sasikala and Anish Nara Case (Mapleshade, New Jersey, 2017)

Segment: [13:38–18:34]

• Overview:
  Sasikala Nara, 38, and her 6-year-old son Anish were found brutally murdered in their apartment. The crime was initially suspected to be motivated either by family strife or hate crime, given the victims’ Indian origin.

• Break in the Case:
  In 2019, investigators discovered a drop of blood at the scene not belonging to the family. A co-worker, Nazir Hamid, emerged as a person of interest due to a possible grudge and his residence nearby. Hamid returned to India six months after the murders and refused to give a DNA sample.
  Eventually, investigators collected a sample from his company-issued laptop in India, confirming it matched the unidentified blood.

• Current Status:
  Hamid has been charged, but extradition proceedings remain unresolved.

  “In November of 2025, prosecutors announced that Hamid has been charged with murder and related offenses… They’re still seeking his extradition back to the United States.” — Cain [18:34]

• Host Reflection:
  Áine and Kevin praise the persistence of investigators, but express frustration at the ongoing extradition struggle and the horror of the crime.

3. Public Access & Voir Dire Decision (Colorado, 2020: State vs. Sandoval)

Segment: [19:12–31:18]

• Case Background:
  During jury selection for Sandoval’s murder trial, a large prospective jury pool meant no in-room space for spectators. The court offered a livestream as an alternative, but no in-person public access for voir dire.

• Legal Issue:
  The Appeals Court ruled this violated public access rights and ordered a new trial:

  “By not letting members of the public sit in the courtroom during jury selection, public access violated. He needs a new trial.” — Greenlee [24:40]

• Analysis:
  Áine challenges the court’s rigid stance against livestreaming as sufficient access, noting:

  “…when is being there in person [so] sacrosanct, but technology that would actually allow even more people to access it is not good enough?” — Cain [25:06]

  Both hosts regard the decision as extreme, but recognize the seriousness of public transparency in courts.

• Memorable Quote:

  “If the state has that power to do that to the guy down the street... in theory, they also have the power to do that to you. So it’s all of our responsibilities…” — Greenlee [20:36]

4. Right to Counsel Issues (Mississippi, Appeal – William ‘Polo’ Edwards)

Segment: [31:58–44:06]

• Case Overview:
  Edwards, convicted of murder, sought new counsel a week before trial; the judge denied a continuance even though the prosecution had no objection to a delay. Edwards was left to “represent himself” or go ahead unprepared, an action that violated his right to counsel.

• Analysis:
  The hosts criticize the judge’s refusal to delay:

  “…when a judge makes a decision that almost could be read as, like, a fit of pique, then that’s not a good thing… It’s a murder trial.” — Cain [35:07]

  Further, the judge also inappropriately instructed the jury to disregard defense suggestions that evidence could have been tampered with, undermining the defense’s case.

  “[The judge told the jury:] ‘There is no evidence sufficient that there was any tampering with any evidence. You are instructed to disregard any indication of manipulation or tampering…’ So she’s basically telling them what to conclude.” — Greenlee [40:18]

• Legal Principle:
  The right to counsel is nonnegotiable, especially in murder trials. The judge’s handling is seen as a likely cause for appeal and retrial.

Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Áine on public access:
  “We don’t have the people who have the framework or the knowledge to actually interpret what they’re seeing. We have a lot of eyeballs. Not a lot of people attached to brains that understand it.” [21:27]

• Kevin on technology in court:
  “There are justices and judges out there who I don’t think fully appreciate the role of technology in giving the public access …” [23:37]

• Áine on judicial overreach:
  “You just don’t say that to the jury… you want to keep everything very nice and respectful because otherwise you could be seriously violating someone’s rights.” [43:09]

Timestamps for Notable Segments

| Time | Segment/Topic | |----------|------------------------------------------------------------| | 05:08 | Judy Lord murder case summary and suspect discussion | | 13:38 | Sasikala and Anish Nara murder, discovery, and charges | | 19:12 | Colorado appeals ruling on public access to voir dire | | 31:58 | Mississippi appeal: right to counsel & judicial conduct | | 53:32 | Personal anecdote: Áine and her dog, Albus Dumbledore |

Anecdotes & Tone

Throughout, the hosts maintain their signature blend of sharp wit, journalistic rigor, and conversational informality. Notable is Áine’s story about searching for her runaway dog in penguin pajamas, which closes the episode with warmth and self-deprecating humor [53:32].

"...This strange child is wearing penguin pajamas and screaming the name of a fictional wizard." — Cain [53:51]

Overall Takeaways

• Case Updates: Two cold cases see major developments thanks to DNA evidence and persistent investigation.
• Legal Principles: Courts’ commitment to public access and defendants’ right to counsel remain deeply relevant, but technological and procedural change causes tension.
• Host Dynamic: Áine and Kevin’s interplay injects levity and perspective, inviting listeners to question, learn, and care about true crime and justice.

For Listeners

No prior knowledge of the cases is required to follow the episode—the hosts supply context and explanation throughout. Legal points are explained accessibly, and the storytelling remains engaging for true crime newcomers and experts alike.

End of Summary