Carnival of Lies ////// Part 4

Summary

True Crime Garage: Carnival of Lies ////// Part 4

Episode Date: June 3, 2026
Hosts: Nic and the Captain

---

Episode Overview

The fourth installment of "Carnival of Lies" picks up with Nic and the Captain revisiting the pivotal evidence in the cold case murder of 5-year-old Timothy Wiltsey. The duo meticulously examines the significance of a blue and white blanket found with Timothy’s remains, the shifting relationships and loyalties in the case, the circumstantial nature of the evidence, legal maneuvers at trial, and the ultimate fate of Timothy’s mother, Michelle Lodzinski. This episode is especially focused on how time, unreliable memories, and flawed evidence built a case that ultimately unraveled on appeal.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Blanket as Crucial Evidence

[03:52 – 12:17]

• The hosts open with an intensive review of the infamous blue and white blanket found with Timothy’s remains; Michelle denied ever having owned it, and her parents supported this denial.
• Investigators attempt to break open the case by interviewing extended family, notably Michelle’s niece, Jennifer.
• Quote (Nic, 09:22):
  "She specifically remembered Timothy using it to wrap himself in that blanket at times when Jennifer was babysitting him."
• The Captain warns about Jennifer's bias due to a personal falling out with Michelle, urging skepticism about her identification of the blanket.
• As more people are interviewed, opinions about whether the blanket belonged to Michelle are split: for every person identifying it, there’s another denying ever seeing it; even Michelle's own parents and former fiancé deny its presence.
• Quote (Captain, 12:17):
  "But the science is going to prove it either way. And when you get nothing, want to talk about a kick in the dick. Right in the dick."
• DNA and material analysis fail to definitively link the blanket to Michelle or Timothy.

---

2. Arrest, Pretrial Battles, and Legal Strategies

[12:54 – 18:19]

• In August 2014, Michelle is arrested and charged with Timothy’s murder after a grand jury indictment—a development met with a mix of relief and grim satisfaction by the community.
• Pretrial rulings become a battleground: the court excludes evidence of Michelle’s faked kidnapping and expert testimony about “women who kill their children,” restricting what the jury can hear.
• Quote (Nic, 14:49):
  "This is one where you really gotta get down in the muck in the mire... that's what you kind of have to do with this case to arrive at any real conclusion."
• The prosecution relies on Michelle’s shifting stories and “ostensible obstruction,” while the defense benefits from the exclusion of prejudicial evidence.

---

3. Contradictory Testimony and the Weakness of Physical Evidence

[18:19 – 24:31]

• The blanket remains central at trial—more witnesses take the stand, but again, recollections are divided; even those close to Michelle contradict each other.
• Photos from Michelle’s apartment never show the blanket. The prosecution focuses instead on Michelle’s evolving narratives and timeline inconsistencies.
• The prosecution adopts a cumulative approach: stacking inconsistencies, disputed timelines, and shifting allegiances to sway the jury.
• The Captain offers skepticism about the strength of this case:
  (23:41, Captain):
  "I think this case is pretty weak. But I understand at some point... you gotta roll the dice."

---

4. Eyewitness Confusion & The "Carnival" Dilemma

[28:57 – 34:05]

• Testimony from carnival attendees is similarly inconclusive:
  • Some witnesses—who didn’t know Timmy or Michelle—think they saw the pair.
  • Others, with more direct knowledge, insist Michelle was alone.
• The possible staging of the carnival disappearance becomes a key argument for the prosecution.

Notable Quote (Nic, 33:51):
"These people that are saying that they saw Timmy, these are not individuals that knew Timmy personally. So these eyewitness accounts... I think these are on both sides... it's kind of a nothing burger."

---

5. The Forensic Science—Or Lack Thereof

[34:05 – 39:38]

• Forensic testimony attempts to debunk accidental movement of the remains—experts state the remains were left at the place of discovery.
• Defense brings in a retired NYPD forensic scientist (Petreko) who casts major doubt:
  • No hair, DNA, or fiber connects blanket to victim, mother, pillowcase, or waistband.
  • Blanket in suspiciously good condition for being outside 11 months; possibly unrelated.
• (Nic, 35:40):
  "It's less of circumstantial evidence or circumstantial case. It's more of circumstantial interpretation."

---

6. Homicide Ruling vs. Unknown Cause of Death

[39:14 – 42:55]

• The medical examiner’s report declared homicide but could not specify cause of death due to decomposition.
• Captain likens the case to trials with “no body,” arguing that without cause of death, it’s nearly impossible to determine criminal culpability.

---

7. The Blurry Case at Trial

[42:55 – 45:42]

• Defense introduces a convoluted alternate suspect story via jailhouse informers, but no names match and no details align.
• Jury deliberations are thrown into chaos when the foreman is ousted for improper independent research. A mistrial is denied.

---

8. Verdict, Sentencing, and Overturn on Appeal

[45:43 – 54:20]

• Michelle is found guilty of first-degree murder, sentenced to 30 years.
• Years later, the verdict is overturned:
  • The appeals court rules the state failed to prove Michelle’s intent for purposeful murder.
  • Michelle is released in October 2021 after her conviction is vacated, prompting divided reactions from family.
• Quote (Nic, 54:16):
  "Her attorney said she cried when told the news and called the decision a victory for convictions based on evidence, not speculation or emotion. Michelle's brother Michael... criticized the ruling, saying it denied justice for Timothy."

---

9. Hosts' Reflections: Guilt, Absence, and Maternal Instincts

[46:55 – 53:07]

• Both hosts debate Michelle’s likely guilt.
  • Captain: Leans guilty due to her shifting stories and suspicious behavior—especially absence and lack of “mama bear” action.
  • Nic:
    • "Her absence is a huge indicator to me that she did this."
    • Notes multiple trips and lack of active searching as red flags.
• However, both admit the state could not meet the burden of proof required for a murder conviction.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• [09:22, Nic]:
  “She specifically remembered Timothy using it to wrap himself in that blanket at times when Jennifer was babysitting him.”

• [12:17, Captain]:
  “But the science is going to prove it either way. And when you get nothing, want to talk about a kick in the dick. Right in the dick.”

• [14:49, Nic]:
  "This is one where you really gotta get down in the muck in the mire... that's what you kind of have to do with this case to arrive at any real conclusion."

• [23:41, Captain]:
  "I think this case is pretty weak. But I understand at some point... you gotta roll the dice."

• [33:51, Nic]:
  "These people that are saying that they saw Timmy, these are not individuals that knew Timmy personally... it's kind of a nothing burger."

• [35:40, Nic]:
  "It's less of circumstantial evidence or circumstantial case. It's more of circumstantial interpretation."

• [46:29, Captain]:
  "Let's just reiterate something, though. Other pieces of evidence... that paint a, a more detailed picture that she is more likely guilty of this than innocent—those weren't allowed at trial..."

• [54:16, Nic]:
  "...called the decision a victory for convictions based on evidence, not speculation or emotion. Michelle's brother Michael... criticized the ruling, saying it denied justice for Timothy."

---

Timeline of Important Segments

• [03:52] – Blanket evidence and interviews with Michelle’s niece
• [09:22] – Jennifer’s identification of the blanket
• [12:54] – Michelle’s arrest and legal maneuvering
• [23:41] – Prosecution builds circumstantial narrative
• [28:57] – Carnival eyewitness testimony
• [34:05] – Scientific evidence (placement and validity of blanket)
• [39:14] – Medical examiner's inconclusive cause of death
• [42:55] – Defense’s alternate suspect theory
• [45:43] – Trial outcome; jury issues
• [54:16] – Appeal decision and Michelle’s release

---

Tone & Style

True to the show’s reputation, the conversation is both thoughtful and irreverent. The hosts balance methodical case breakdowns with their signature humor and colloquial banter ("kick in the dick", "nothing burger", "giant bag of salty dicks"). Their skepticism about both the prosecution and defense keeps the discussion grounded and relatable for armchair detectives.

---

Final Thoughts

This episode is a masterclass in how cold cases, fading memories, ambiguous physical evidence, and legal system constraints can result in a verdict that satisfies no one. The haunting ambiguity at the heart of the story—did Michelle kill her son, or was she wrongly convicted—remains unresolved, but Nic and the Captain expertly illustrate why that’s the case. The journey through this episode highlights the enduring importance of real evidence over speculation and the agonizing consequences when the line between the two is forever blurred.

Transcript

[Mindy Kaling]

It's my first day of work and I need to make a big impression

[Nick]

from executive producer Mindy Kaling.

[Mindy Kaling]

This is our sexual harassment training. Hands off your co workers. Now sign this saying that I trained you or you're fired.

[Nick]

Yes, ma'.

[Mindy Kaling]

Am. Work relationships are too messy.

[Nick]

I just met the woman of my dreams. You gotta chill out and not come on too strong. That goes against my entire personality, but I'll try.

[Captain]

Watch Notsuitable for work now streaming on Hulu and Hulu on Disney for bundle subscribers terms apply.

[Mindy Kaling]

The most memorable gifts aren't found, they're made. Zazzle is a custom marketplace where you pick any product, a mug, a card, a tote, a phone case, and make it personal.

[Nick]

A photo, a name, an inside joke.

[Mindy Kaling]

The kind of gift that actually fits the person. That's what 30 million customers have been coming back to Zazzle for over 20 years to find right now. Save 25% on your first [e-mail] that's zazzle.com make it zamazing SA.

[Nick]

Welcome to True Crime Garage. Wherever you are, whatever you are doing, thanks for listening. I'm your host, Nick, and with me, as always, is a man you may have seen last weekend walking the Vegas strip and a pair of booty shorts with his thumb out. Here is the captain.

[Captain]

Thumb out or thumb in? It's good to be seen and good to see you. Thanks for listening. Thanks for telling a friend.

[Nick]

This week we are drinking Hoser Juice by Double Trouble brewing up in Toronto. Hoser Juice is a triple IPA and trust me, you will feel it. This baby is both heavy duty and delicious. ABV 10.8% garage grade three and three quarter bottle caps out of five. Let's give some thanks and praise to our good wonderful garage friends. First up, a double fisted cheers goes to Cody Lau and Mary Garcia in Woodville, Ohio.

[Captain]

And a big wheelike jib goes out to Savannah and Perth, Australia.

[Nick]

And last but certainly not least, a special shout out to longtime friend of the show, Tim in Michigan. I saw him on YouTube with his band Stealing Copper and he was sporting one of our true crime garage alien skull shirts. So cheers to you, Tim, and cheers to everyone who has contributed to the beer fund.

[Captain]

Yeah, talk Hands in the air. BW N beer run. If you want to support the garage and get something in return, sign up on Patreon or Apple podcast subscription and get our bonus content off the record. If you're not listening, you're missing out. And Colonel, that's enough of the business.

[Nick]

All right, everybody, gather round. Grab A chair, grab a beer. Let's talk some true crime.

[Captain]

Sa.

[Nick]

We are back to this blanket, my friends. We are examining the blanket once again, and so is law enforcement. And we have Michelle, who originally denied when it was found with the remains of her son that she had ever owned a blanket. That blanket, in particular, her mother and father do not recognize it as well. Pressed with this theory about the blanket, she is denying once again ever having seen the blanket or ever owning one like it. To test that theory, however, investigators interviewed other people beyond the scope of just Michelle and her parents. And one of these people would be Michelle's niece, Jennifer, the same niece who had encountered Michelle at the carnival. Shortly after, Michelle says that she realized that she could not find her son Timothy.

[Captain]

1. Just to be clear, this blanket was showed to two people. So she'll be seeing it for the first time.

[Nick]

Well, or as the investigators are hoping, not for the first time.

[Captain]

Right. I mean, the investigators will be showing it to her for the first time, Correct?

[Nick]

Correct. So this is one of those shifts. It's a major shift in the story. Major shift in alliances and loyalties. So Jennifer had once been supportive of Michelle, but time changes people. Time changes those alliances and loyalties.

[Captain]

Yeah. But also, if Michelle just this is the only thing that has happened and she goes to lead a normal, productive life, but she hasn't. She has had run ins with law enforcement over and over.

[Nick]

Well, and that's one thing that I always point out with these cold cases and why investigators should revisit them, or once a year at the very least, just to stir the pot, to check in on everybody. Because alliances, allegiances, loyalties, friendships, relationships, they all change with time. They can change over time, and people change sometimes with time, and that affects their relationship. Now, regardless of what Michelle was doing or what she had been caught doing, we should say that may not have been the major factor in the shift in their relationship. As said, Jennifer was once supportive of Michelle. I don't know. I don't have a hard date of when that changed. But Jennifer's life had changed during this time period as well. She gets married. She has two children of her own. She becomes drug addicted. She's addicted to heroin. She went to Florida for rehabilitation. Now, why she is at. While she's at rehab, while she's in the program, her children go to stay with Michelle. So she must have still been supportive of her at that time. There's no way that she could think that Michelle did something to her own son. And then she's like, hey, could you watch these kids for me for a

[Captain]

while and if one goes missing, no, no big deal.

[Nick]

So while Jennifer is away at rehab, Jennifer's mother and Michelle, together without Jennifer, decide that Jennifer's condition, her situation, is too serious. It's serious enough that they are not going to allow returning the children to Jennifer once she completes the program. So instead, the children are turned over to Jennifer's mother in law. And it sounds like this was somebody that Jennifer really did not like. Jennifer later regained custody, but she viewed Michelle's role in this situation as a betrayal, a deep betrayal. And you think it didn't wear off. It's not something that you just like, all right, that happened and now we're moving on. No, this, this hurt. It cut deep and it stayed fresh. Investigators attempted to use that to reopen a channel. Right. They encouraged Jennifer to message Michelle on Facebook and bring up Timothy's case. Their general hope that Michelle might confess or slip into some incriminating statement. The Facebook exchanges take place, but nothing comes of it. Nothing good for the investigation.

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

Or nothing incriminating regarding Michelle takes place during those exchanges. So the investigators showed Jennifer physical items connected to the evidence to, or at least to the remains that were found. So they show her the blanket, a pillowcase, and a red jacket. Jennifer's reaction was immediate and very specific. And as you were saying, Captain, this is very important because this would be the first time that investigators are showing these items to Jennifer. And as I was saying, in hopes that maybe she had seen them prior to them showing them to her for the first time. They say her reaction's immediate, though. And, and there they say that she told them the blanket had in fact been in Michelle's apartment. And specific. Like I said, she said that she specifically remembered Timothy using it to wrap himself in that blanket at times when Jennifer was babysitting him.

[Captain]

Yeah. But this is a little bit of a double edged sword because you're showing her this information, she knows why you're showing her this blanket. And she already has this vendetta now against Michelle. So I think it's like as law enforcement, you probably are going to get excited because now we're going, okay, this is possibly evidence that we can link her to the crime scene. So that's not good for Michelle. Great for the investigation. But we have to also take it with a little bit of a grain of salt because we go, is Jennifer telling us the truth?

[Nick]

Yeah. And this blanket is going to be an ongoing point of contention in this case because, look, to put it short and Sweet. And to provide no clarity at all on the matter, basically what takes place is they show this blanket to everybody who they think may have seen it at one time in Michelle's possession or inside her apartment. And, and for every person that they can find that says, yes, I've seen that before it was in Michelle's possession or in her apartment, they find another person equally as close to Michelle who says, no, I've never seen it before, and if it was in her apartment, I would have seen it before. So you, you basically get. Let's put roughly a handful of people that say, yes, I've seen it before in her apartment and a handful of people that have been in her apartment equal number of times or maybe even more like her own parents saying, no, I've never seen that item before. And in the end, what's even more troubling regarding this blanket is we know that it was tested or it stated that it was tested when it was originally found with the remains that didn't yield any evidence or clues. Now, we do know that when they're revisiting this angle of the investigation, after talking to Michelle again, after talking to J. Jennifer and others regarding this blanket, in the end, even the material science did not cleanly settle the question of was this blanket Michelle's and Timmy's or not? So they're retesting, they're testing again. Hairs recovered from the blanket and the pillowcase did not match Michelle's DNA. So just one more fact added to a case already crowded with contradictions, accusations, and items that seem to point somewhere without ever fully arriving to a real conclusion. I think they were hoping, look, if we show this blanket to 10 people and nine or 10 of them tell us that I've absolutely seen it in her apartment, we got her. When that didn't happen, when there was. When it was parted down the middle, equal sides, they went to the science, and the science didn't tell them that it belonged to Michelle. Right.

[Captain]

But if you get them to say, hey, this is her blanket, maybe it gets her to crack, you're not going to be able to go to trial with this blanket. And I, I just don't believe you're going to get a conviction just because of this. But with the misinformation, the lies, the. If you could bring other things, you're building a case. But then, man, I. With law enforcement, they're probably going, okay, well, half saw it, half didn't. But the science is going to prove it either way. And when you get nothing, want to talk About a kick in the dick. Right in the dick.

[Nick]

On August 6, 2014, a date that would have been Timothy's 29th birthday, the long dormant case launched forward again in a way that felt extremely overdue. After a sealed indictment was returned by a grand jury, Michelle was arrested in Florida and formally charged with the murder of her son Timothy. For the people who had watched the story twist and stall for years, it was a moment that carried a lot of weight, maybe even some relief. Think about that for a minute. The day that they finally arrest Michelle.

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

Timothy's mother for his murder on that day, if he were alive, he would have been about six years older than, than his mother at the time of his disappearance.

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

Now, from there, the case moved into the grinding machinery of pre trial litigation. Lawyers on both sides brought forward extensive legal arguments, each trying to define what the jury would be allowed to hear and what would be kept outside of the courtroom entirely. This is where I don't think most of us, Joe public here realizes that a lot of times this is when a case can be won before the jury is even brought in for the actual trial. This is going to decide what is allowed to be argued and what cannot be presented at all at trial. And as we've seen, this is one where you really got to get down in the muck in the mire and shoot. We went through the FBI report, they were saying, digging through the mud by hand, that's what you kind of have to do with this case to arrive at any real conclusion. In my humble garage opinion.

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

So we're not going to go through all of it because it took days to come to these decisions. But in a pretrial ruling, the New Jersey Superior Court drawing the lines that would shape everything that came next, the court concluded that Michelle's active omission, and some of this is confusing, it's a bit legal jargon, but we'll go through it. Michelle's active omission and her hindrance to the investigation through her statements could reasonably establish circumstantial evidence of guilt. Basically, that meant the prosecution would be allowed and permitted to argue what Michelle did not do and what she said in ways that obstructed investigators and that that could be treated as meaningful proof when placed alongside of other facts of her guilt. So meaning everything that she said and did not say during the investigation could be presented as well as everything that she did and did not do.

[Captain]

Yeah, I think it's uphill battle, but I guess after almost 30 years, you want to, at some point you have to roll the dice. Right.

[Nick]

By the same ruling also imposed strict limits because some evidence was excluded. Of course the polygraphs would not be allowed. That's standard procedure. Right. The judge also shut the door on another dramatic piece of the saga. And this was one that you had said for you was a big, big, big red flag. So Michelle's self kidnapping hoax was not allowed to be presented to the jury.

[Captain]

Well, essentially that wasn't connected to this case at all, other than she said.

[Nick]

True.

[Captain]

People that kidnapped her said, I'm not allowed to talk about my son's case anymore.

[Nick]

True. It's. It's a little difficult though. Right. Because when she's presented with proof of those fake FBI business cards, she comes clean. That's the one time. Like if she is guilty of other things, that's the one time she comes clean.

[Captain]

Right.

[Nick]

And. But we know she was presented with people saying, hey, that blue and white blanket did we found some people that said it did belong to you? Yeah, but of course, very different cases. And maybe that's why the other thing that they would not allow for the prosecution, the judge would not allow an expert witness. This was an expert on women who kill their children, just like you pointed out with that kidnapping hoax. That's really not part of the case. I mean, I guess you could argue that it is. But this expert witness, she's not an expert witness in regard to this specific case. Right, Right. So instead of leaning on a generalized behav. Expert to frame Michelle as fitting a particular category of people. So the state would have to build its case without that kind of.

[Captain]

Yeah, but that would be like testimony. The prosecutor is calling an expert to explain why serial killers kill their victims.

[Nick]

Or like in West Memphis, when you call a guy who has a purchased degree from out of state as an expert witness on the occult when you weren't able to though, when you weren't able to completely convince the court that the occult was even involved in the, in the crimes at all.

[Captain]

Yeah. You have to prove it. It was a ritualistic sacrifice. Before you can call the expert on ritualistic sacrifice.

[Nick]

Of course, one physical object that continued to be at the center of the prosecution's narrative is that blanket. It wasn't just another exhibit. It was going to be major battleground at this trial. And again, their theory was like this. The blanket found near the recovered remains was highly suggestive that Timothy had been taken from his home to the place where his remains were eventually recovered. And most importantly suggests that he was never at the carnival at all. So we talked about some of the people that said they had never seen the blanket before. A few more people. And this is interesting because at least one of these people have made. Actually, now that I review it and think about it more, all three of these people have made statements at some point that are. Without saying they believe Michelle is guilty. They have statements that would be indicators that maybe they believe that she's guilty, but don't want to say it directly to the newspapers. So Michelle's brother Michael is one of those people. Her former fiance from. From the period when Timothy went missing. You know, because we. She's had multiple, several relationships afterward. But this is the fiance from the time frame that, remember, she stopped off at the bar, asked the. The person driving her home when they were recovering an item to bring to the scent dogs. She had asked, hey, could you stop at the bar? My. My boyfriend's bartending. I need to tell him what's going on. So this would be that man from that time period and her landlady from the time that she rented from this woman when Timothy was still alive. So these three people who all have made statements that make it sound like they think she's guilty, that they all, being honest on the stand, said, we've been in her apartment dozens of times. I've never seen that blanket in her possession or in her apartment before. So that doesn't help. That undermines the prosecution's narrative.

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

And then, of course, we have Jennifer, her niece, who says, yes, I've seen it before. We have Jennifer's friend who occasionally babysat Timothy.

[Captain]

But Jennifer, again, has a motive.

[Nick]

So. Well, and then her friend. Her statement's weird because her. Her friend at one point says, I remember a blanket. It was somewhat. Somewhat similar to that. I don't think it was that one, because the one I'm remembering had a different pattern. Yet later, she identified the blanket found at the Raritan center site near the remains as one that she had, in fact, seen inside of Michelle's home during the early 90s.

[Captain]

Right. But it's a blanket. It's not a smoking gun.

[Nick]

Yeah. They found another babysitter who babysat Timmy, telling police that the blanket was in the house as well. So, again, this is. It's. It's difficult. This blanket, of course, is going to be the battleground, as we can clearly see. And again, as I stated earlier, during the course of the investigation, what they learned is for every one person, we could say that they had seen the blanket in Michelle's possession or apartment prior. We can find Another person who says they've never seen it. And they presented, the defense presented photographs of where Michelle and Timmy were living. And in the background or even on a person, you could see a blanket or blankets in the background. And of course, this is for the defense. So all of these photographs that were shown of Michelle and Timmy and where they were living at the time leading up to the disappearance, you never see that blanket, the blanket in question in any of those photographs. Of course, we have prosecutors that are will be walking the jurors through the case history starting from 1991, focusing attention on what they argued mattered most, the changes in Michelle's story over time. They emphasized not just that the story had changed, but there were multiple versions of this story suggesting inconsistencies that could be read as guilt rather than mere confusion. And we've went through those stories, right? They're, they're very, very different. It's not like you can misremember that you forget seeing a knife or a knife held to a person or that two men and a woman were involved. When you first say that nobody, you know, he just, I turned and he was gone. They also presented and highlighted Michelle's admission from her time working in that fulfillment center, her discrepancies in her work history that she provided to investigators. And it looks like what we see in a lot of trials that the prosecution, that their approach was going to be cumulative. Take the small fractures in her story and in the case. So we have conflicting accounts, questionable timelines, disputed details and then press them all together. Yeah.

[Captain]

And I think the other thing that they're probably hopeful of is the sympathy for the victim. We have a five year old child and so if we can build this little pile of evidence and then have this sympathy and guilt go through the jury that maybe they'll convict solely on that. But also I think, I think this case is pretty weak. But I understand at some point you again, it's almost 30 years long. You gotta roll the dice.

[Mindy Kaling]

Oregon parks make an Oregon summer. But what makes an Oregon park? Well, Oregon lottery gameplay helps no matter the game. Megabucks video lottery or keno funds from lottery games help support parks projects across the state, ensuring they stay safe, accessible and open for all. In fact, discover state park scratches are in stores now. It's the perfect way to put a little bit of Oregon's parks in your pocket. The Oregon Lottery. Together we do good things. Must be 18 or older to play. Lottery games are based on chance and should be played for entertainment only.

[Nick]

This message is sponsored by Greenlight. Every true crime story has money somewhere in the mix. Financial stress pushes people to desperate decisions and a lack of financial literacy is what makes people easy targets. Teaching your kids about money isn't just smart parenting. It's protection. Greenlight helps keep your family's financial and personal safety from becoming another cautionary tale. Greenlight is a debit card and app for families, but it's more than a money tool. It's a safety net for teaching kids about money while also helping protect them before bad habits, bad actors or real world risk take hold. We have been telling you about Greenlight for years because we love greenlight and so do millions of parents and kids. Why? It is the best parent teen kid wallet out there. You can send money fast and kids learn to invest. Families invest together with green Light. Every day they're handling money without guidance is a missed opportunity. Start your risk free Greenlight trial [e-mail] garage. Don't wait to teach your kids real world money skills. That's greenlight.comgarage to get started. Greenlight.comgarage it's my first day of work and I need to make a big impression from executive producer Mindy Kaling.

[Mindy Kaling]

This is our sexual harassment training. Hands off your co workers now. Sign this saying that I trained you or you're fired.

[Nick]

Yes, ma'.

[Mindy Kaling]

Am. Work relationships are too messy.

[Nick]

I just met the woman of my dreams. You gotta chill out and not come on too strong. That goes against my entire personality, but I'll try.

[Captain]

Watch. Not suitable for work.

[Nick]

Now streaming on Hulu and Hulu on

[Captain]

Disney for bundle subscribers.

[Nick]

Terms apply.

[Mindy Kaling]

When I need to impress someone with a gift, I go straight to 1-800-FLOWERS. There's a reason they've spent 50 years as the floral authority. Every stem is hand selected by a vetted florist and with same day delivery nationwide, 100% satisfaction guaranteed. That's why millions go to 1-800-flowers to celebrate life's most important moments. Order now for up to 40% off. Don't miss out on this limited time offer. Act now and save up to 40% at 1-800-flowers.com sxm. That's 1-800-flowers. Com sxm.

[Captain]

All right, we are back. Cheers, mates. What happens in Vegas goes on off the record.

[Nick]

That's right. It typically does. Cheers to everybody. Thanks for joining us once again here in the garage. Of course, the jury, you know, the prosecution wants the jury to also understand and see and hear about what they thought was her unemotional demeanor when presented with news or Information about the case, her demeanor as being angry and frustrated, and ending questioning, ending polygraph examinations by storming out of the room shouting at people. But again, it's. It's troubling because none of this, like you were pointing out before the break there, Captain, none of this, to me, is conclusive. Hardcore evidence.

[Captain]

Yeah, I'd have to.

[Nick]

It's a lot of suggestive stuff.

[Captain]

Yeah. I mean, I might find her guilty of being a pile of shit or a giant bag of salty dicks, but to me, if I'm looking at this evidence, I'm like, this is not enough to convict somebody of this crime.

[Nick]

Well, and then we'll get into this next part here, because we kind of went through the discrepancy of people's memories on the blanket, right? That's. That was a big battleground. The other part of the battleground is going to be what witnesses do we have at the trial who saw Timmy or somebody that they thought was Timmy or saw Michelle by herself with no little boy with her at the carnival? And look, the short of it here is the same as the blanket, Basically, for every one person that said that they saw somebody that they thought could be Timmy. So, yeah, one. One part that was difficult for the defense and for this case is you have two people who would take the stand and say, I saw someone at the carnival who could be Timmy. He fit the general description of Timmy. And then you have the one woman who says, I saw a woman who could have been Michelle with a boy who could have been Timmy. And then later, I saw that same woman walking around shouting and calling out the name Timmy or Jimmy. So your two people that say Timmy may have been at the carnival are people that did not know Michelle, did not know Timmy. That makes them difficult to be great, solid witnesses. Now, the flip of that is you have a couple people that say, I saw Michelle at the carnival, never saw her with a little boy. One. One that I found to be the most interesting was the testimony that it was a woman who took the stand who recalled waiting in line at the carnival at a refreshment stand. So this could be the refreshment stand. That's come up several times in this case. Right. It's not said that way. It just. It said a refreshment stand. So we'll. We'll leave it as that. But this woman says, I'm waiting in line at the carnival at a refreshment stand with Michelle. The witness said she briefly chatted with Michelle while they waited. But in her telling something essential was Missing. She did not see Timothy. She did not see a little boy. And she says on the stand, her testimony that Michelle did not speak of him. So to that witness, it was as if there was no child there at all. And, of course, prosecutors used this statement, this testimony, as well as others to account this account to reinforce the argument that the carnival scene might have been staged and that the truth lay elsewhere.

[Captain]

Yeah, but her original story was she's at the refreshment station without her son. Another thing that I've been pondering for the last week is, so we find this blanket, but we. We don't find our victim clothed. Right.

[Nick]

It's. The problem is we find our victim a skeleton, and a partial one at that. So it's. Look, I'm not a medical examiner, but my. My take on this is, I. With the way that the remains were found, to me, it's clothing or no clothing, it's not really suggestive of anything. I wouldn't expect, even if the body was placed there fully clothed, I wouldn't expect, given the state that it was found in, to be clothed at the time of the discovery.

[Captain]

Right, but. And where I'm going with this is she is telling us whether she's saying, I turned around, and when I turned back around, he was gone, or there was this lady, and these two people were saying Timmy was wearing a red tank top and these printed pants or printed shorts. And so if those aren't found at the disposal scene, then maybe that's evidence of something. And then also, let's just say Timmy was never there. And she goes. And then she sees a little boy that kind of looks like Timmy. And so when they go, well, what was he wearing? Well, Timmy was wearing a red tank top in these printed shorts. Right. Well, then somebody might have saw that individual. Does that make any sense?

[Nick]

Yes.

[Captain]

So now we have these eyewitnesses that go, well, I saw this boy wearing this stuff. So I'm assuming, because I don't know him, that he's Timmy. So these people that are saying that they saw Timmy, these are not individuals that knew Timmy personally. So these eyewitness accounts, I mean, it just. I think these are on both sides. Whether she's innocent or guilty is kind of a nothing burger.

[Nick]

Absolutely. I think these are people with the intention of helping, and their information is incomplete. It's. It's not strong enough to suggest one way or the other what is.

[Captain]

Right. Absolutely.

[Nick]

So now let's get it. That's why when you have all this, you have to go back to the science. Okay, so the science that's presented at trial is one, so that they, they presented evidence to establish that tides could not have washed the body up the creek from the river. Really what they're doing here is they're aiming to close off an explanation that might suggest accidental or natural movement of the remains. Right. Rather than intentional placement.

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

What they're saying is we believe, and we have experts that will back this up, that we. Where the partial remains were found is where they were placed when they were discarded.

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

Okay. Now the flip of. Of that science. Okay, so you have that science. Right. But now let's go to the other science. The defense is facing a case largely built on circumstantial evidence. Well, actually, let's take this a step further because you can get a conviction. You get a lot of convictions and rightfully so convictions. Not all the time, but I believe the majority of the time off of circumstantial evidence and, and circumstantial cases, you can take that to court, you can get a victory. And I think the majority of the time that they are right here, it's less of circumstantial evidence or circumstantial case. It's more of circumstantial interpretation.

[Captain]

Yes.

[Nick]

Of everything. So the, the defense very smartly uses science to challenge any of the reliability of the narrative about the blanket. So they presented a forensic expert who reviewed the documents and photographs and said that they doubted any meaningful connection. Connection could be drawn between the blanket and the crime. So this expert, he also questioned whether it could be proven that the blanket had been there for as long as the remains had been there. Attacking the assumption that the blanket and the remains shared a long term link. Okay, so this was from New Brunswick News, I believe. I'm sorry, from the Home News. As summarization here for you, Captain, a defense expert testified in New Brunswick that a blue and white blanket found near 5 year old Tim Timothy Wiltsey skeletal remains in 1992 was unrelated to Timothy, his death or his mother, Michelle. Retired NYPD forensic scientist Nicholas Petreco said he reviewed FBI and New Jersey State Police lab reports and photos. He says the blanket was never sent to him and found no link between the blanket and other nearby items including waistband remnants and a pillowcase, a balloon, a shovel and a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle sneaker found about 15 to 20ft from the remains. Petreko said investigators found no fibers connecting the blanket to the waistband or pillowcase, no hairs on the blanket, and no blood on the blanket, pillowcase or sneaker. He testified that smothering or strangulation usually leaves trace evidence. Hair, saliva, skin cells, or sweat, even after laundering or environmental exposure. Though he acknowledged some cases show none. He concluded the blanket had not been in contact with Timothy, his room, his mother Michelle, or her car, despite earlier indications by three babysitters as a blanket used by Michelle and Timothy. A New Jersey State Police lab found a hair on the blanket, but determined it was not Michelle's, and no fluids or DNA were detected. Petreko also questioned how well the blanket appeared preserved, if it had been outside for 11 months. So he's questioning if the blanket was even there the entire time that the remains were there.

[Captain]

Right. If I'm the prosecution, I don't know if I'm bringing this case to trial. And like I said, I understand it, you gotta roll the dice. But I just don't know.

[Nick]

It's tough because what they did was they brought it to the grand jury, and then the grand jury comes back and says, take it to trial. It's. It's tough because you would find if in a review of the judicial system and these especially homicide cases, oftentimes when a grand jury tells you, move forward with charges and take it to trial, they do not. Not in all cases. I mean, the. The JonBenet Ramsey case is one that comes to mind. There are several other cases that we've covered that didn't end up at trial. The Boys on the Tracks case. Grand jury said, take that one to trial. I believe, if I'm recalling correctly.

[Captain]

So what does the jury find in this case?

[Nick]

The other thing that the defense is going to challenge, and this is you. You would do this? Absolutely. A good defense team would is remember we have a scenario where the county's medical examiner ruled it a homicide, but also stated in the report that the cause of death could not be determined from the remains due to the decomposition.

[Captain]

Yeah. And this, to me, is similar to having. Having a trial where you have no body, because we have a body, but we can't even determine if there was a crime. We don't have factual evidence where we go, hey, victim died of strangulation. We just have dead victim.

[Nick]

Right. And so for me, the. The hurdle that needs to be cleared or to cause the person to collapse on the track in front of a crowd to be laughed at is the carnival. Right. Because if Timothy never goes to the carnival, then that is the one thing that I would say conclusively to me, says, mom killed boy, dumped him over in the swampland.

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

In the marshland. If he went to the carnival, then it's reasonable to believe. And actually everything would point to she's absolutely innocent. She's surrounded by people minutes after. She's only there for what we went through the timeline, what, 30, 45, maybe 60 minutes?

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

She didn't have time to do anything. So it's reasonable to conceive. It's reasonable to believe the idea that whether or not he was at that carnival, his remains were probably placed where they were found either a short time before she went to the carnival or somebody else did it and they were placed there not too long after the.

[Captain]

He goes, yeah, once she says, my son's missing, now we have searches and she's basically in. She's basically in police custody for the rest of the night. She doesn't even have her vehicle once she goes back from the carnival. So, yeah, like you said, the crux of all this is did Timmy go to that carnival or not?

[Nick]

This doesn't have a lot of. To do with what we were just talking about. But back to the trial, and you had mentioned the passage of time between the time he goes missing in 91 and to when you have a trial in 2016, the coroner who worked the case in 92 himself, he could not testify. He was deceased by the time of the trial. So on the stand, you have somebody testifying on his behalf based off of reviewing photographs and the reports.

[Captain]

Right.

[Nick]

And on top of that, you have a defense that's saying, well, you, the Coroner himself in 92 couldn't tell us how the boy was killed. It's reasonable, based on the findings and where you found the boy and the situation and the state of the remains to conclude homicide. I'm not arguing that, but this is just another incomplete portion of the case because he himself in 92 couldn't conclude how the boy was killed. So the person on the stand isn't going to be able to do it either.

[Captain]

Yeah. To me, this is just part of the prosecution's job, is to paint a picture, but the picture that they're painting is just too blurry. We don't have enough details.

[Nick]

Yeah. And one of the more interesting parts of the trial was Michelle's defense team called a man from Arizona. This is a man with a fairly extensive criminal background. He testified that a former cellmate, the cellmate had lived in Georgia, but ended up in a cell with him in Arizona. I believe that this man, the cellmate, confessed to him to raping and murdering a young boy near Atlanta City. Okay. So this Is very strange because they're not even in the same state as New Jersey. The man who he's accusing of saying this to him never says the name Timothy or Timothy Wiltsey and says if, if he did say this to his cellmate, he says he raped and killed a boy, a young boy in or near Atlanta city. So then he learns about the Timothy Wilty case and says, oh, he didn't mean Atlanta City. Nobody that lives in Georgia says Atlanta City. He must have meant Atlantic City, which would be close to where this boy went missing.

[Captain]

Right.

[Nick]

This.

[Captain]

But again, look, so we got a blurry case. The prosecution has a blurry case, but the defense is putting on their defense with a blurry case.

[Nick]

Yeah. And I.

[Captain]

No, no details here.

[Nick]

I hesitate to. I'm not going to say the guy that was accused because he did go to the trial and he took the stand. He's like, look, I. I didn't kill a kid in New Jersey. I don't even, you know, I don't even know. Yeah, I didn't kill a kid in New Jersey. I don't know what you thought I was going to testify to, but.

[Captain]

Did he admit to killing a kid?

[Nick]

No, no, I killed a kid.

[Captain]

But it definitely was. Yeah, New Jersey.

[Nick]

Just. Just the back. Just to tell you how truthful I am.

[Captain]

Yeah. I mean, when I'm killing my kids, I don't.

[Nick]

Was in Atlanta city. It was an Atlanta city. I was telling the truth the first time. After the testimony of 68 witnesses, the jury began the deliberation. This is in May of 2016. During this deliberations, a juror member told the judge that the foreman was secretly conducting an independent investigation. When the judge talked to the foreman, the foreman admitted to researching FBI evidence collection protocols. So that foreman was dismissed and an alternate juror was seated in his place. Of course, the defense moved for a mistrial, which they should, but the judge denied it, which probably should have been done as well. And just before the 25th anniversary of Timothy's disappearance, again, this is May of 2016, the jury returned a guilty verdict for first degree murder.

[Captain]

Jesus.

[Nick]

Now, because of it, because of the problems, the complications with the jury, we're going to take. It's going to take almost a year to get to sentencing. So It's January of 2017. The judge sentenced Michelle to 30 years in state prison without the possibility of parole. And she began serving that sentence in New Jersey's in a New Jersey women's prison while her appeals move forward.

[Captain]

Again, I'm not saying she didn't do it. I'm just saying you gotta prove it.

[Nick]

Well, I, I, and I'm with you. I don't. Regardless if you think she's guilty, I don't think that there's evidence, enough evidence presented to say beyond a reasonable doubt that this woman killed her son.

[Captain]

I, well, and also, let's just reiterate something, though. Other pieces of evidence in this case that I think paint a, A more detailed picture that she is more likely guilty of this than innocent. Those weren't allowed at trial, so it's even, I don't know, it doesn't seem like enough evidence to me.

[Nick]

Right. Do you think she's innocent or guilty regardless of what was presented at trial? If you had to pick, I mean,

[Captain]

I'd have to lean towards guilt because I have no 100% proof that this boy was even there. And there's so many things like if she would have, if this would have happened. Right. And she was looking for her son, and then she comes across people she knew, Right. Like they see her actively looking. But does that make any sense? I just think there's all these missteps and then the changing of the stories and then her behavior afterwards. I don't know. I just think it's all very bizarre. But then this case is really difficult to me too, because I also question did her actions and what she said and the untruthfulness. Untruthfulness. Did that all stem from feeling like she was under a magnifying glass by law enforcement? Like, well, it's the chicken or the egg.

[Nick]

I don't know that you could win or should win an argument in the court of law that she killed Timothy. But I absolutely believe in my heart of hearts that she's guilty. And I base this on two solid factors of reasoning for me, just applying logic here, some simple logic. One, I think her absence is a huge indicator of guilt to me that she did this. And what I mean by her absence is one of the versions, probably the most violent version, and one of the final versions she gives of he was abducted story is that she feared that the abductors would harm him. But the abductors also told her that if she kept quiet or if she played along or whatever the words were or made up to be, that they would return him in a month, in one month's time. Yet she moves. I get that you may have financial difficulty, and we said in her defense, maybe she had to move because she couldn't make the rent. The landlady thought that she was innocent. The Landlady who later decided that she questioned Michelle and if Michelle was guilty, did not know any of that information about the changing stories or the failed polygraph examinations at that time, the landlady a may have given you a break. You've relied on your father for help financially multiple times in your short 23 year life. And as an adult and as a mother, that's when you call dad and say, dad, I gotta stay here. They're gonna return Timothy. I gotta be here when he comes back. Where would you. The most likely place if they were going to return him would be via a phone call to her home or on her doorstep somewhere that they knew that if that were true that she would find him. So her absence is a huge indicator. And later we learn a couple of things even after that month passes. Okay, so shortly after he disappeared, one thing that we learn at this was either during the trial or during the appeals process was she was having the neighbor check her answering machine. You're not pulling me. The only way you're pulling me from the answering machine if my kid's missing is if I'm out boots on the ground looking for the kid myself.

[Captain]

Right.

[Nick]

Number two takes goes on two trips before the body is found. We know one of them. She went to Florida for two weeks. And the statement, the claim was that she was seeking counseling while she was down there and she went, I don't know where the other trip was, but it's been reported that she took two trips between the time that her boy went missing and when his remains were found 11 months later. So her absence is a huge indicator to me that she did this. And, and it's twofold. One, that if you really, if you were told and you really believe that he would be returned, you would be where he could be returned to you. You wouldn't leave the area, number one. And number two, her absence is an indicator that she couldn't take the heat she need. It was the, her only reprieve, my friends, was to go down to Florida where she wouldn't have to be hounded or questioned by. She wouldn't have to come up with answers. Yeah, but she would have to make stuff up to, to satiate the, the police and their investigation and their questioning of her. She could get a two week reprieve where she could go down there, buy some time and collect her thoughts and try to get a clean break, a real true story and narrative that will, that she can tell them, that they will understand and believe.

[Captain]

Yeah, but in her defense, we're Assuming that these individuals that have this horrible thing happen to them have the mental and emotional, the mental and emotional capabilities to handle the situation.

[Nick]

Yes, I, I am making that assumption.

[Captain]

Yeah, but, but we all do it, right?

[Nick]

We go, she wasn't a mother yesterday. She had been a mother for five years. She's a mama bear and been a mama bear for almost six years at this point. He disappeared in May. He has a birthday in August when, you know, I just, I don't understand how that mama bear part of her look, some people never have that. Of course, there are good parents and there are bad parents. We went out of our way and we made sure to include, rightfully so, the people who presented her as a good mother. My other thought too, Captain, is she's too resourceful. She makes fake FBI business cards. She fakes her own abduction. She does this, that, and the other thing when she needs to save her own butt, cover her own hide. Where was all that resourcefulness when her son was missing? She sat on her hands. Well, in fairness, she moved out of her apartment.

[Captain]

If she took us right, she went

[Nick]

down to Florida, we'd know she's guilty in the end. Through the appeal at the end of the day.

[Captain]

Yeah.

[Nick]

It was later determined. It was argued and argued and re argued. In October of 2021, the court concluded that even if homic side was assumed that the state had not proven Michelle's state of mind an essential element for purposeful murder rather than lesser offenses such as reckless or negligent homicide, the court stated that even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, no rational jury could find without speculation that Michelle purposely or knowingly caused Timothy's death. Michelle was released from prison that evening in October of 2021. Her attorney said she cried when told the news and called the decision a victory for convictions based on evidence, not speculation or emotion. Michelle's brother Michael, who believed that she was in fact guilty, criticized the ruling, saying it denied justice for Timothy.

[Captain]

Foreign. Thank everybody for joining us here in the Garage each and every week. Thanks for sharing these stories on social media. The best way to support the show is join us on Patreon or Apple podcast subscription for our bonus content and the first 50 episodes of True Crime Garage. Colonel, do we have any recommended reading for the beautiful listeners?

[Nick]

Yes, sir, Captain, we do. This week, our case, the murder of Timothy Wiltsey, is one of New Jersey's most notorious cases and murder mystery. So in that vein, how about a book from one of True Crime Garage's favorite? New Jersey True Crime Authors Cheers to Jesse P. Pollock. This is one of Jesse's latest works titled Room 100 Sid, Nancy and the Night Punk Rock Died. Room 100 chronicles the tragic story of Sid Vicious and Nancy Spungen's, well, her murder, punk rock's very own Romeo and Juliet. Through a wealth of archival material plus new and exclusive interviews from rock luminaries, critically acclaimed true crime writer Jesse P. Pollock's book is the first to be solely devoted to popular music's darkest hour, the murder of Nancy Spungen. Did Sid kill the love of his life in a drug induced stupor? Or had Nancy been the victim of a robbery gone wrong? This one. It's a very good book. An incredible mystery by one of our favorite New Jersey true crime authors, Jesse P. Pollock. Check that one out. We'll have it listed on our website on the recommended page that is room 100, Sid, Nancy and the Night Punk Rock Died.

[Captain]

And until next week, be good, be

[Nick]

kind, and don't litter.

[Captain]

Sa.

[Mindy Kaling]

Oregon Parks make an Oregon Summer but what makes an Oregon park? Well, Oregon Lottery Gameplay helps no matter the game Megabucks, video lottery or keno funds from lottery games help support parks projects across the state, ensuring they stay safe, accessible, and open for all. In fact, Discover State Park Scratches are in stores now. It's the perfect way to put a little bit of Oregon's parks in your pocket. The Oregon Lottery Together we do good things. Must be 18 or older to play. Lottery games are based on chance and should be played for entertainment only. There's a difference between liking a house and actually getting it. Redfin is built to close that gap. Redfin agents close twice as many deals as other agents, so when you find a home you love, you're not a step behind when it's time to make an offer. That means less watching great homes disappear and more zeroing in on the one you'll actually end up up calling home. Redfin helps turn saved listings into real addresses. Get [e-mail] own the dream.