All language subtitles for True.Crime.Story.It.Couldnt.Happen.Here.S01E14.720p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DDP2.0.H.264-NTb_Eng_sdh

A shotgun had blown
through the door.

A hitman shot the dentist

in Edgewater, Florida,

in broad daytime,
in the office.

Being a small town,
there was a lot

of rumor and speculation.

They alleged
incest, inbreeding.

The attorney
was snorting cocaine

off toilet seats
in a strip club

at the very same time
that he's representing people

in a first-degree murder case.

It sounded like
something out of a movie,

and now it has come

to a real-life drama
in Edgewater,

the little, quiet hometown.

[mysterious music]

♪

[easygoing country music]

♪

We are
in Edgewater, Florida,

which is a small coastal town.

It's a very literal name.
It is right on the edge

of the Indian River.

It is a community built
around life on the water.

It's wonderful here.

We get to watch the dolphin,
occasionally a big turtle,

sometimes a manatee.

It's cute.

It is block after block
of these ranch homes.

It's one of those places
that set out

to be aesthetically pleasing.

It makes you feel like
you're in a Tim Burton movie

driving through this town.

Look, there are

the "Edward Scissorhands"
topiaries.

Right there!

He's been here.

I know all my neighbors,
and it's still

a small town kind of thing,

but no place is immune

from the evils of the world.

Here in Edgewater,
a man named Norman Larzelere

set up a very successful
dentistry office.

He worked
with his wife, Virginia.

She was his office manager,

and they built
a beautiful life together.

They had a huge house.

They had a tennis court, yachts,

and a big, beautiful family.

And then, one day in 1991,
a masked gunman

comes into their office
during their lunch break,

and all of a sudden, everything
that they had built together

was gone.

[high clear music]

[line trilling]

Hurry!

Just after 1:00, we received
the call at dispatch.

We have a shooting
at the dentist's office,

in the north end of town.

Okay.

My detectives
responded and determined

the gentleman
that had been shot

was the dentist
Norman Larzelere.

He was bleeding out,

and they were
taking him to the hospital.

They couldn't get any statement
from him before he passed.

That afternoon,
Virginia Larzelere

was there
when the detective arrived,

and Emma, who was
working in the office.

We started getting
their statements,

and according to Emma,
the door opened,

somebody with a shotgun
and a mask

came into the dentist's office,
and she was terrified.

And Virginia--
she described the shooter.

Came in with a shotgun,

shot her poor husband,

and she tried to grab him
as he ran out,

but she didn't know
who the shooter was.

♪

Norman Larzelere's
murder in 1991

has remained controversial
for the last three decades.

And so we're gonna go talk
to one person

who has been a constant
in this case

since the beginning,

and that's private investigator
Gary McDaniel.

Hi, Gary.
- Hello.

Hello.
- I'm Hilarie.

My pleasure.

Can you give us
a little bit of backstory

about the Larzelere family?

Norman Larzelere was
an accomplished dentist.

Everyone described Norman
as just a sweet, outgoing guy,

but he wasn't much
of a businessman.

And when he married
Virginia Larzelere,

who was a very accomplished bookkeeper,

they became a very good team,

her being
the businessperson she was

and him being
the technical expert he was.

She came into the marriage
with two children,

Jason and Jessica,

and Norman liked 'em so much
that he actually adopted them.

And later,
they had David and Ben.

It was a close family.
- Yeah?

To anybody that knew them,
it was an ideal relationship

with husband and wife
running a business together

and both prospering.

What was
the official police report

when they got to the scene?

Virginia says she and Norman
were going to go to lunch,

but Virginia says, "I have to
pay the bills," and so forth.

"Honey, you go."

Norman went to lunch,
comes back to his office,

and then we know
from witnesses

that Norman heard a noise,

and he went down
the hallway to investigate.

He sees an intruder
with a gun,

and he runs in the opposite
direction of the intruder.

The shotgun blast
goes through the door

that Norman has slammed
behind him, and hits him,

and he goes down.

Virginia jumps up
to go to the aid of Norman.

She steps into a side hallway
with an exit door outside,

and she collides
with the assailant.

He stumbles.
She's clawing at him.

He gets up, and he runs.

She looks out the door,

and she sees
the assailant's car leave.

What exactly does she see?

She describes the assailant
by approximate height,

approximate weight.

Olive skin.

Dark hair with a ponytail.

Black clothing.

Black shoes.
- Okay.

And even down
to the body odor.

And she describes the car.

Toyota or a SAAB,

possibly blue,
and she gives a partial plate,

and she said it had
a motorcycle escort

as the car sped away.

Was it clear
from the beginning

whether they thought
this was an intentional murder

or if this was a robbery
gone wrong?

Initially they thought,
"What burglar would burglarize

a place in broad daylight?"

Was there anything missing?

Yes, there was.

In the safe, the door was open.

There was some Valium missing
and some gold coins.

What physical evidence
did they collect that day?

The Edgewater
Police Department brought in

Florida Department
of Law Enforcement.

Their forensics included
shotgun residual

on the door
and, obviously, the pellets

that are found
in Norman Larzelere.

But they got limited
forensic evidence.

The law enforcement was
questioning the Larzeleres

and questioning anyone who was
close to the Larzeleres.

My name is David Hendry.

I've been practicing
criminal defense work

for 23 years.

The police questioned
Steven Heidle several times.

He was an individual
who befriended Jason Larzelere,

Virginia's son, and was
kind of like a butler

or kind of a family assistant
living in the house

and running errands
for the Larzelere family.

Steven Heidle was
always a suit kind of guy.

Very distinguished.
He was a handsome young man,

so he convinced Virginia that
he had value in Jason's life.

Jason is Virginia's son
from her first marriage.

Right.
At the time,

he was about 19 years of age.

He really didn't have
his bearings in life.

He wasn't really
that responsible.

Jason was in college,
and he had some health issues.

I believe he had seizures
from time to time,

and if he didn't take
the medication,

it was a problem for him.

And so Virginia made a deal.

"Steven,
you can be his roommate.

"We'll pay you a couple
hundred dollars a week.

"Just make sure he stays
on his meds

and make sure he stays
in school."

But there's a whole other side
of Steven Heidle.

Heidle was under investigation
for bank fraud.

After the murder,
the police go to Heidle,

but he tells the police,
"I didn't know

anything about the murder."

Then there was
Kristen Palmieri.

She worked
in the dental office,

would run errands,
and would do odd jobs

and just kind of,
like, hanging on.

Kristen had actually been
living part time

in a room
at the Larzelere home.

Why?

You have to understand,
Virginia was the type

that would help an underdog,
'cause Virginia came up

out of the mobile home
kind of environment.

Virginia was trying her best
to make a productive employee

out of Kristen Palmieri,
but Kristen

had stolen a couple coins
out of the safe

and had pawned them.

And eventually,
they terminated her,

about seven to ten days
before the murder.

Police talked to her,
but she denied

that she was terminated.

She, in fact, told the police
she was working that day.

She provides that she
didn't really see anything.

She had taken lunch off
that day from work.

She says she was
at the dental office

that she's been fired from?
- Correct.

She put herself right in it
as an active employee.

She says that she came
back to this turmoil

with the ambulance
and the police

and everybody else.

So does Kristen speak

with law enforcement
that night?

What is it, March 8th?

She has not a whole lot
to contribute on March 8th.

About four days
after the shooting,

Virginia came into my office
and wanted to know

if we were making any progress.

To me, she didn't look
like a bereaving widow.

She was well-dressed,

made sure I knew
she was well-dressed.

My impression
was that Virginia was intent

on being a rich,
good-looking woman,

and she just wanted to know

how quickly
we could get this done

so her papers could get
cleared from the court.

Talking about that she couldn't
get her insurance money

until the case was closed.

They looked
into the insurance policies,

and they were several
life insurance policies,

and the total was
approximately $2 million

that would have served
as the motive

in law enforcement's eyes

as to why she would have
committed this murder.

We did a background
on her, of course,

only to find out
that she was well-known

in the bars in the area.

She was in the bars, out of
the bars, back in the bars,

out of the bars,
during the night.

Virginia was sleeping
with a lot of people.

She was a player.

So she's been having affairs
with these other guys.

Do they go, and they talk
to these other guys?

They do.

And what do those guys have--

They admit and validate
there were some affairs.

Uh-huh.

They say she talked about
having her husband killed.

Talked about money.

Okay, so these guys
say Virginia offered

money to kill her husband.

We located
at least two boyfriends

who gave us information
that Virginia was asking

them to kill her husband.

She promised 'em $100,000,
new cars, whatever.

It was just insane.

Did the police believe
that any of these guys

were the actual shooter?

- No.
- Mm-hmm.

They seemed to be
up front with it

and no reason for them to lie.

And Virginia had everything
going for her,

except she wanted more.

And her way to get more
was marry a rich man

and then get him killed.

[reverberating music]

So Virginia's
situation looks bad,

but she obviously
was not the gunman.

And so once police
start looking at her,

how do they start unraveling
who was under that mask?

There was a patient
in the waiting room,

and she said, "I heard Norman
say, 'Jason, is that you?'"

Jason is Virginia's son
from her first marriage.

Right.

And at that point,
we didn't know

anything other than
the word "Jason" coming up.

We didn't know
if he was asking for Jason

or whether Jason
was the shooter.

We don't know.

The police knew
that Steven Heidle

was a roommate
of Jason Larzelere.

So the police go talk
to Steven Heidle,

and Steven Heidle
modified his statement.

And he says,
"I know some things."

And what is it you know?

And he says, "Jason told me
I'ma make a lot of money,

"and I'm gonna do real well,
and we'll buy

that new car I'm looking at."

And what else does
Heidle tell him?

He says Jason had
a shotgun in the house,

and he cut off
the barrel of a shotgun.

He says there are shavings
from his shotgun on the floor.

They must have been
so excited.

Oh, they went right
to the apartment

with a search warrant,
and they collected

the metal shavings,
put it in an evidence bag,

and they were all ready.

The detectives put together
the statements from witnesses

and said, "Boss, I think
Virginia was

"the one responsible
for the killing,

and Jason was
probably the shooter."

Why would Jason kill
his father for his mother?

What's the reasoning there?

Well, their inference
was that there was

an unusual relationship
between Jason and his mother

in that Jason would do
anything for his mother.

And both of them would do
anything for money.

The whole town just had
this great suspicion

that she's gotta be guilty.

There was a lot of, like,
rumor and speculation

that she was a manipulator,

domineering.

They painted
a very bad picture of her.

In the course
of that investigation,

there were leaks to the media
that were unconscionable.

I mean they were slanderous,
and they were unsubstantiated.

[somber music]

When Dr. Larzelere
was killed,

it was very, very big news.

It was all over
the TV stations.

I'm Purvette Bryant,
a former court reporter

for the "Orlando Sentinel."

"A Current Affair" reported
on an incestuous relationship

that Virginia Larzelere
and her son Jason had together.

It was very shocking
for those who looked at them

as a perfect family.

How could this take place?

And that only added
fuel to the fire

as far as the story
and the plot

and the sensationalism
of it all,

that she hired her own son
to kill her husband.

By this time,

four, five, six days
into the investigation,

we were pretty sure of who was
responsible for the killing.

This was not a mystery.

Our big problem was,
we had to prove it.

The best way
we're gonna prove this thing

is to have someone
tell us what happened.

♪

What information

do Steven Heidle
and Kristen Palmieri

give to law enforcement?

They've already given
five to six statements

that really are not concrete,
so the police begin

to realize Kristen Palmieri
and Steven Heidle knew more.

Okay.

We thought all four of 'em
were deeply involved

in this whole scheme.

Now, Palmieri and Heidle
got to thinking,

"This is not gonna go good."

Police corner Heidle
and Palmieri and say,

"Y'all have not been truthful.

"You know more.

We need to know it all."

Kristen and Steven knew
that they needed to cooperate

with law enforcement,
provide law enforcement

with whatever information
law enforcement wanted,

in order to obtain convictions

against Virginia and Jason.

And ultimately, Heidle
and Palmieri pointed the finger

at Virginia and Jason.

They decide
to tell the authorities,

"Would it help if I told you
where the weapons are?"

So you've got
these two young people

working for
the Larzelere family

that say, "You know what?

We know where
the murder weapon is."

Law enforcement--
what's their take?

Ooh.
Bingo.

Lightning flashes.

Heidle and Palmieri
told me

they knew where
the murder weapon was.

Said, "Well, it's
in the next county,

off of Route 95, in a river."

Palmieri and Heidle
told law enforcement

that Virginia was controlling
them and directing them.

Yes, the weapons were inside
Virginia's house,

and yes, Virginia wanted us
to just get rid of them.

They mixed up
some ready concrete,

poured it in.

They put the weapons in there,

allowed it to harden,

put it in the back
of their car.

We got a diver

from the local sheriff's
department

to go into the river,

found the piece of cement,

brought that back
to the detective bureau.

They x-ray it, and they
find out, inside the concrete,

is a shotgun and a pistol.

It's, I mean, potentially
the murder weapon.

They've got everything
they need,

and what happens next?

They do a search warrant
in Virginia's house.

They found a pot of concrete.

Investigatively, it's
the best lead they could have.

Virginia maintained
her innocence,

but she wouldn't take
a lie detector test.

I know she thought she could
talk anybody out of anything,

except she didn't this time.

It surprised us
that it was Jason,

'cause I didn't think
he had the stones to do it,

but that was just my impression
when I first saw him.

Here you have a woman
conspire with her son

to kill his stepfather.

That was just unheard of.

It really began to explode
in the media.

The murder was the first time
this type of sensational story

occurred in Edgewater, which is
a very small community.

And so it took off
like wildfire.

The first case is more
intricate and involved

than anything Hollywood
could dream up.

It involves drugs
and infidelity and bisexuality,

conspiracy, murder,
and even a butler.

The media kind of hung
her up from day one.

It was like, "Oh, you know,
we've gotta find somebody,"

because this thing just
doesn't happen,

especially
in a small, sleepy town.

[soft pop nocturne]

♪

I looked at what evidence
available to me,

which was very little,
but on the basics,

I never saw this as a hit

because no hit man would shoot
through a door and run away,

and not know whether or not
he hit his target.

That's common sense.

♪

When I conduct
an investigation,

I try to find something

about the people involved.

I found that there was
30-something witnesses

that were prepared to testify
to various subject matters

relevant to the defense
of Virginia Larzelere,

which included
inconsistent statements

by Kristen and Steven Heidle

and witnesses that would have
impeached their veracity.

But I'd had a falling out
with the defense counsel

over some ethical choices
that they were making,

so I left the investigation
the latter part of August.

My defense investigation,
by the time

of Virginia Larzelere's trial,
is fruitful,

but a long ways
from being complete.

And I wrote
an extensive memo

of the things they needed
to do.

The state called
these witnesses

to testify
against Virginia Larzelere,

to say, "Yes, I was having
an affair with her,

"and yes, she was looking
to have

someone kill her husband."

But a lot of people testified
that it's just a joke.

Well, we thought that
she was just joking around,

but the fact that she
had put that out there

was very damaging.

So during Virginia's trial,

the prosecution
present her affairs,

they present
the insurance policy,

they present these guns
found in concrete,

and they present a pot
with concrete residue

from her home.

That's right, and I think
the prosecutors brought in

about 18-
to 20-something witnesses,

but the defense only brought in

two witnesses,
and the testimony

lasted maybe an hour.

So Virginia's defense team
did not use

the information
that you had gathered

in your investigation.

And so what's the verdict?

Guilty.
First-degree murder.

In the state of Florida,
it carried the death penalty,

and she was ultimately
sentenced to death.

I am Virginia Larzelere.

I am incarcerated
in the Florida

Department of Corrections.

When they came back
saying guilty,

I was devastated,

And he sentenced me to death.

I was taken back to the jail

and transported to Broward

and began serving
a death sentence.

I had already lost Norman,
and then I've lost my family.

I never got to see
my kids again.

I have a strong faith,

and I stayed on my knees
for the next 18 months.

Jason called me in fear
and said, "You've gotta get me

another attorney."

And I found
a competent attorney

I'd worked with before,
by the name of William Lasley.

And then Lasley and I met
as it related

to the previous evidence
that I had acquired

and a strategy that we
should evoke going forward.

And what was that strategy?

My strategy was simple--

call the witnesses--
and that's what

Bill Lasley decided to do.

He called in approximately
25 or 28 witnesses.

So they heard all
this information

in Jason's trial that they
didn't hear in Virginia's?

Right.

What is the outcome
of Jason's trial?

Jason is acquitted
as the triggerman

that allegedly conspired
with his mother

to kill his stepfather.

We were watching television
in the Volusia County jail,

and it interrupted the program
to show the footage

that he was found not guilty.

I immediately jumped up
and down and was ecstatic,

and I was so happy.

So how does
the prosecution explain

how Virginia
could have hired her son

to be a hitman,

but a jury has found Jason
not guilty of being a hitman?

That's a question of law.

It's above my pay grade.

Virginia Larzelere's trial,
in my opinion, was a farce.

My name's Shirley Bates,
and I'm an attorney

out of Tallahassee, Florida.

Jack Wilkins was
Virginia's attorney

who represented her
in her trial.

I really hesitate
to call him her attorney

because he didn't
act like an attorney.

He didn't do his job.

They did not use
the evidence available to them

or the witnesses available
to them,

and from my perspective,

they were guilty
of ineffective assistance.

The prosecution even said
that she smelled alcohol

on Jack Wilkins
during the trial.

He was supposed to be
listening to witness testimony

and preparing
cross examinations,

and that's really difficult
to do if you're drunk,

or high, or both,

which he apparently was.

We found witnesses
that said that he was

basically drinking like a fish,

and he was doing drugs.

He's doing methamphetamine.

He's doing cocaine.

He's going through
2-liter bottles

of vodka every day

at the very same time
that he's representing

Virginia Larzelere.

I've been doing
this post-conviction work

for 20 years now.

I've never seen anything
quite like this case.

He's the worst of the worst.

Jack Wilkins was
an alcoholic and drug addict.

Virginia was deprived
of a defense

by her own attorneys.

At the time of him

representing Virginia Larzelere,

a lot of complaints
were coming in

related to him taking
large sums of cash

and not really providing
proper representation.

Jack Wilkins' MO

as a criminal defense attorney

was to meet with his clients,
like, in a parking lot

and obtain
large amounts of cash,

like, $15,000-$20,000,

and then he would go back
to his office,

and he would tell
his bookkeeper,

"Now report that
as I received $5,000."

So after Virginia's trial,
he was convicted of tax fraud.

He was convicted
of lying to the grand jury,

so he is a convicted perjurer.

Ultimately went
to federal prison.

Her attorney was
a little less than competent.

In one way, I was glad
she didn't have Perry Mason.

On the other hand, I didn't
want it to be thrown out

and do the whole thing
over again.

[gentle music]

♪

We were challenging
the conviction,

and we were challenging
the death sentence.

One of
the most significant failures

of trial counsel
in this case is,

there's not one expert consulted

by the defense at trial.

He failed to challenge
the state's case in any way.

No experts to counter
their experts,

as far as
with the weapons and stuff,

or even making points to prove

that Heidle and Palmieri
changed their testimony,

and how it seemed
to evolve in the way

that the law enforcement
wanted it to evolve.

A couple weeks
after the trial,

I receive a phone call
from a juror, and she said,

"I feel pretty bad about it,

"because we couldn't believe Palmieri.

"We couldn't believe Heidle.

"We could not believe
either one of them,

"but if the defense
would have given us

"something to hold onto,

we'd have probably
acquitted her."

That shotgun.

It didn't match any
of the forensic evidence

at the crime scene.

The weapon in the river

had a full barrel on it.

The whole thing is that
Heidle says Jason sawed off

the shotgun in the apartment.

You're telling me that
the shotgun that was recovered

was not sawed off?

It was not sawed off,
and it was--

fact, it was inoperable.

So there's no shavings to match

the shavings in the apartment.

So the concrete

that the two weapons
were found in--

was that ever traced
back to Virginia?

No.

When I deposed
Detective Gamell,

who was the lead detective
on the case,

I asked him, "What was

"the most significant piece
of evidence

against Virginia Larzelere?"

And he cited the concrete
from Virginia Larzelere's house

matched the concrete
that encased

the weapons in Pellicer Creek.

That was very peculiar,
because he had it wrong,

because the FBI report said
these concretes are different.

These concretes do not match.

The problem is
the law enforcement--

they're acting on the premise
of what Heidle told them,

that that's the weapon,

that "we were summoned
to Virginia's house,"

encased them in concrete,
and dumped 'em in the river

within days of the murder.

And it's a lie.

We brought an algae expert
that simply said

the guns couldn't have been
in the water

shortly after the murder,

as the witnesses
Palmieri and Heidle say.

They could have
only been there a day or two.

You're dealing
in South Florida,

in brackish water,

and there's gonna be
slime on it.

If it's in there for more
than two or three weeks,

gonna find barnacles on it.

And it was fresh concrete,
which was visually obvious.

So the guns did not go
into the water in March,

like Kristen and Steven
originally said they did?

Those guns could only have been
put in the water in early May,

right before they led
investigators to go scuba dive

and pick 'em up?
- That's right.

[dramatic music]

What do you make
of all of that?

It's consistent
with the theory

that Heidle and Palmieri are
framing Virginia and Jason,

which begs the question, why?

Palmieri and Heidle--
their credibility was zero,

and they were such liars

that the state admitted
in their closing argument

that they were obviously lying

and that they obviously
had beforehand knowledge

of this murder.

I went looking to find out
what else they knew.

As a defense investigator,
I wanted

to know about the weapons.

So I discovered
weapons were stolen.

Okay, so these
are stolen guns.

This isn't a gun
that Virginia had before,

or that Norman had before,
or that Jason had before.

Correct.
The weapons were stolen

from the Oakridge gun shop,
in Orlando.

So if you can figure out
who stole those guns,

you can figure out who was
involved with this shooting.

Exactly.

I gathered a bunch
of police reports.

The weapons were stolen

by a group I referred to
as the Harvey Gang,

a local group of burglars.

From the police reports,
I've gathered

photographs of individuals
that were involved

in the gun shop burglary.

And then I peeled back,

who were
their known associates?

I found that those burglars
are connected

to Heidle and Palmieri.

This one allegedly was
a lover of Steven Heidle.

Is there any way
that Virginia

was tied to these guys or that
Jason was tied to these guys?

I explored all of that,
and they're not connected

to Virginia, and they're
not connected to Jason.

Then I asked known associates
of the Harvey Gang,

"Do you know if they were
in the area of Edgewater,

Florida, on March 8th?"

And they said yes.

Every year,
this motorcycle event

took place in the area.

They go every year.
They go over there

to steal motorcycles
and other things,

but this time, associates said
they came back--

it was really different.
They were scared to death.

So the Harvey Gang comes
back the day of the murder...

- Yes.
- Acting all weird.

Correct, and I asked,
when they came back from there,

did they have any medication?

"Oh, funny you
should mention that."

They had a bottle
of commercial pills.

What about gold coins?

"Oh, yeah,
they had gold coins."

So their associates
are telling you

all of these things?
- Correct.

So I now know the weapons
encased in concrete

are connected
to a group of burglars,

and those burglars
are connected

to Heidle and Palmieri.

I think this was
a planned burglary.

I believe Kristen and Steven

solicited the Harvey Gang
to get the job done.

Interesting enough,
a bank clerk tells the police

that, before the murder,
she saw Kristen Palmieri

circling the block.

I believe she was the lookout,
and she told them,

"I can let you in.
I can open up the safe.

You guys do the rest."

But they didn't expect
Virginia, or Norman,

or anybody to be there,
because they routinely went

to lunch during the day.

So the prosecutors--they're
saying this was a hit

made to look like a robbery.

And you're saying this
was a robbery

that accidentally became
a murder.

Exactly.

What did Steven
and Kristen stand to gain

by pointing the finger
at Virginia and Jason?

They could live,
because the people

that actually perpetrated
the crime, I think,

were very dangerous people.

And I'm sure,
behind the scenes,

they made it very clear,
"If we go down, you go down."

Had anybody else
followed up on these leads,

they would have arrived
at the same place you did.

I did what they did not do,

because they discounted
that information

from the onset.

Remember, the first things
out of Virginia's mouth was,

"I described the assailant.

"I described the car.

"I gave 'em a partial number.

I don't know why
they're coming after me."

They believed
initially, right away,

that Virginia's description
of the assailant

couldn't be true
because it was so detailed.

Yeah.

There's nobody that ever
got this type of a statement

from a witness on a murder,

the--the color of the car,

the motorcycles.

Everything was like
a movie she saw.

Everything, like, was
fantasized or whatever.

So they never believed her,
but did anyone

ever corroborate
Virginia's story?

Well, in 1994,
a TV production team is filming

the Norman Larzelere office,
in Edgewater,

and a young man walks
up to them and says,

"I saw the murderer
leave that day."

They call me immediately
on the phone.

I meet this young man,
by the name of Danny.

Danny tells a very solid story.

"I was on my motorbike,
near the office."

He says, "I was scared.

"When I saw that guy
running with a gun,

"I dropped that gear down,
I revved that engine up,

and I got out of there."
- Yeah.

Suddenly it hits me.

He just confirmed
what Virginia thought

was a motorcycle escort.

Now, in the legal business,
we call that

newly discovered evidence.

Virginia was convicted based
on circumstantial evidence

and statements provided
by two people who lied

and on the idea that she was

some sort
of sexual manipulator,

with nothing to substantiate
their claims.

And the state still chose
to sentence her to death.

And now, there's
a new witness too.

Our goal
in post-conviction

was to show that the conviction
and the death sentence

was unreliable.

[tense music]

♪

When your client faces
the ultimate penalty of death,

you want to uncover
anything and everything

in a client's background.

In this case,
we were able to get

into Virginia Larzelere's
childhood.

Virginia was the oldest
of the children in the family.

Her father was a monster.

He was molesting,

sexually violating,
the entire family.

Virginia would step up
to protect her sisters

and protect her family.

How noble,

to put herself up,

to protect
her younger siblings.

And this is crucial,

to present this type
of evidence to a jury,

that she had some value
as a human being,

that she was worthy of living
and not being executed

at the hands of the state.

This lady has now been
in prison for 30 years.

She is gonna be 70 years old.

Almost half of her life
in prison.

How do you not give
somebody a new trial?

Thank you so much
for having us.

You know, there's a lot
to dig into in this case.

When were you first aware
of Virginia's case?

So I came into the case
around the end of 2019.

It doesn't take much
in reviewing

to figure out that she didn't
get the defense she deserved.

There was a lot
of media coverage

and a lot
of the sensationalism,

you know, about what
a bad person Virginia was:

sex addict,

black widow,

gold digger.

All those names.

- As a woman...
- Right.

What is your assessment
of how she was portrayed?

They just look
at it different

if a woman's sexually active
or promiscuous.

A man can be,
and then he's masculine,

and he's--you know.

- A conqueror.
- Right.

But a woman is--

Right, and they make her out
to be an absolute villain.

And it is kinda crazy,

because they
were both cheating.

- Really?
- Norman Larzelere.

He had outside relationships
also, but he's a man.

So was anything made
of his affairs?

No.
It was not.

You know, men will do
what men will do.

What does she do next?

Our goal is essentially
to get

her conviction overturned.

The state's theory was that
she conspired with Jason.

- Mm-hmm.
- Well, Jason was acquitted,

so there
is some case law out there

that says that can't happen.

If your coconspirator
is acquitted of this crime,

that you cannot then be
convicted of it,

because who did you
conspire with?

[cell phone chimes]

Virginia, hi.

I'm so happy to see you.

It's very nice to meet you.

So I have to ask you.

Did you conspire
to kill your husband?

No.

I never solicited anyone.

I never aided anyone.

I never abetted anyone.

Was there any part of you
that wanted him gone?

No.
Norman was a great guy.

We were best friends.

He's the father
of my children.

I was very promiscuous,

but as long as Norm was okay
with what I did,

and as long as I was okay
with what he did,

we didn't think it was
anyone else's business.

I thought
that our private life

was our private life,

and it's not.

I'm sorry that my life choices

put me in a position

to be found guilty
when I'm not.

Wipe away the media,
innuendo, slander.

All I've ever asked is
to look at the facts,

and look at the evidence.

I will continue to fight
to clear my name.

Is that why you're
still fighting?

Yes.

That's my goal,
and I won't stop fighting

until somebody listens.

As a woman, this case

and the media firestorm
around it

makes me very uncomfortable.

Virginia did not take the stand.

Her defense mounted
no defense.

It just leaves
this big, gaping hole

for the prosecutor
and the media

to say whatever they want
to say about you.

And then it's gospel.

It's so much harder
to push back against that

from a cell.

And if she's innocent,

what a horrific situation.