Original subtitles

[filmrise sound effects]

NARRATOR: This program is about unsolved mysteries.

Whenever possible, the actual family members

and police officials have participated

in recreating the events.

What you are about to see is not a news broadcast.

[music playing]

NARRATOR: It's known as the Gurdon light.

For more than 60 years, the same eerie luminous

apparition that's been described by hundreds of eyewitnesses.

Is it some as yet unexplained natural phenomenon,

or is it, as many say, a restless ghost

of a long dead railroad man doomed to wander

the tracks for eternity?

This man, Stuart Heaton, was convicted

of murdering a 16-year-old girl largely on the strength

of DNA test results.

But all along, Heaton has claimed that he is innocent.

The DNA tests were flawed.

And some prominent scientific experts agree with him.

Call them the real life Thelma and Louise, on the road

and on the run.

A middle class wife and mother and her best friend

allegedly thrilled in seducing, terrorizing, and robbing men

they met through the personals.

Also tonight a heartwarming read reel

brought about by your calls.

Join me for another edition of Unsolved Mysteries.

[eerie music]

Welcome to Gurdon, Arkansas, population 2,700,

a typical small town, apparently no different

from hundreds of other communities

that dot the railroad between St. Louis and Dallas.

But as darkness descends, an air of expectancy

settles over Gurdon.

Most nights, the locals anticipate

the arrival of their very own unsolved mystery.

For decades, on the tracks just outside of town,

an eerie unexplained light of unknown origin

has been magically appearing.

This time lapse photograph was taken

in November by an Unsolved Mysteries photographer.

It is apparently the first time that the strange phenomenon,

known locally as the Gurdon light,

has been captured on film.

A few days later, the photographer returned

to the railroad tracks.

He waited until nightfall and recorded this mysterious light

on videotape.

This is an enlargement of the image,

the same image seen by hundreds of eyewitnesses over the years.

I'd say that I've seen it where I couldn't write it off

as being anything else probably 20, 25 times at least,

and I'm a very skeptical person.

Over the years, I have personally

seen it hundreds of times with my father and my family.

I've seen the light at least 60 or 70 times.

And of course, usually when you see

it one time in that evening, you can see

it several times in succession.

NARRATOR: What is the Gurdon light?

A natural phenomenon?

A long running prank?

Or perhaps something that cannot be explained?

Not surprising, that possibility inevitably

prompts a retelling of the legend that goes

along with the Gurdon light.

It all began on a chilly December evening in 1931.

Around midnight, Will McLean, a section

foreman for the railroad confronted one of his workers

Louis McBride.

I got something I need to tell you.

And I wan-- it doesn't concern any of you boys.

Now, go on and clock out.

NARRATOR: The day before, a freight train had

derailed just outside Gurdon.

McLean suspected that McBride had sabotaged

a section of the track.

This is your last night, McBride.

Get your pay and get on out of here.

Why?

- I think you know why. - I need this job.

Well, you should've thought about before you

pulled that crazy little stunt.

But I have a fami--

I don't want to hear any more about it.

Just pick up your pay and get off the yard.

I need this job.

[grunt]

[inaudible] [grunts]

[music playing]

[scrambling]

No!

NARRATOR: When McLean failed to return home,

a search party was hastily assembled.

They came upon a trail of blood and followed it along

the tracks to the edge of town.

What is that?

It's McLean's.

Please look off down yonder.

NARRATOR: At the end of the blood

trail lay the body of Will McLean.

By dawn, Lewis McBride had confessed to the murder.

In February of 1932, he was executed

at the state penitentiary.

It wasn't long before people began seeing the Gurdon

light on a regular basis.

Local lore said it was the ghost of Will

McLean doomed to spend eternity walking

the tracks with his lantern.

[train]

One of the earliest sightings is one of the most memorable--

as a train approached town, an elderly conductor

named John stepped on to the back of the caboose

and was startled by what he saw.

They say that John went out on the back platform

to investigate, and the light was real far off and kind of

faint.

But it seemed to be traveling the same speed they were.

And then all of a sudden, it just shut up,

and he's just like paralyzed and just hanging

onto the grab bar and just transfixed,

staring right into the light.

NARRATOR: According to John, the light followed

the train for more than a mile.

Finally, it veered off in the direction of the cemetery.

Ever since, looking for the Gurdon light

has become something of a local pastime.

If can go down there with some regularity,

you're definitely going to see it after a while.

You may go a few days, you know, where you get frustrated

and you don't see it.

But with a little time and a little concentration,

you most definitely will see the light.

My friends and I always went down there with the hopes

of seeing the light.

And walking down the tracks just in the total darkness always

left you with a little eerie feeling.

I've seen it come on in a quick flash.

I've seen it fade in and then fade back out.

And sometimes we've gotten pretty scared

down there, seeing the light together with maybe

some noises in the woods.

Have us seen us running out of there quite often.

NARRATOR: The descriptions of the light

are for the most part consistent.

It seems to float one to three feet above the tracks

and often changes colors.

The light is rarely visible for more than 10 seconds at a time.

There are many times when I walk down the tracks by myself

and spent several hours out there.

And during the course of that time,

you can be observing the light and move toward it

and it'll disappear.

And you'll turn around, and it'll be behind you.

Almost everybody has had that kind of experience from time

to time with it.

The local legend is, if it gets behind you,

you can't get back to your car.

The whole town has seen it at some point in time.

And it's not a figment of anybody's imagination.

It does exist.

It is there.

What is it?

That's the question.

NARRATOR: That is indeed the question.

Is the Gurdon light, as some believe, the ghost of Will

McLean or is there a rational scientific explanation?

You cross Highway 53--

NARRATOR: For years, Dr. Charles Leming, a physics professor

at Henderson State University, took his classes to Gurdon

in search of an answer.

When I first went out to see the Gurdon light

and studied the area maps, I was pretty confident

that the light always originated from car

headlights on an interstate bridge a few miles away.

NARRATOR: The light is usually seen in this area

just outside Gurdon.

The highway lies to the southwest, four miles away.

The problem with the headlight theory

is that we're sure people were going out before the interstate

opened in 1970.

We could find reliable accounts of people that went out just

to see the Gurdon light and reported the Gurdon light well

before the interstate bridge that we thought was the origin

of the headlights was opened.

Hop up here and take a look--

NARRATOR: A second theory is that the light is in fact swamp

gas, a spontaneous combustion of the gas

is produced when dense vegetation decomposes.

It's down that way, too.

The theory of it being swamp gas

doesn't hold up to me just because I've

seen it on a windy night.

So that would eliminate any sort of swamp gas out there.

The The closest theory that I've come to

for explaining the Gurdon light is the

piezoelectric electric effect.

And piezoelectricity is a simple phenomena,

where if you squeeze crystals, such as quartz or Rochelle salt

you get an electric current out of them.

NARRATOR: Gurdon sits atop an abundant deposit of quartz

crystals and an active fault line known as the New Madrid

Fault. Michael Clingan believes that, when the plates shift,

an electric charge is released from the crystals

and seen above ground as the Gurdon Light.

People tend to say that the light appeared after the murder

of Will McLean.

And looking back, that also coincides

with a major earthquake on the New Madrid Fault Line.

So that tends to support my piezoelectric theory.

NARRATOR: Clingan acknowledges that there is

one large hole in his theory.

He cannot explain how that charge migrates

to the surface or why it is concentrated

in a ball-like shape.

I don't think if they came forth

with the logical explanation I would truly believe it.

It is too mysterious, and I don't

think it can be explained.

Do we really want to know what it is?

Because that would take all the mystery out

of it and all the fun.

And I would like to see my children's children take

their children down there just like our parents took us

down there.

It's a perfect setting for a ghost story.

NARRATOR: What is the secret of the Gurdon Light?

If there is a scientific explanation,

it has certainly eluded everyone for the past 60 years.

Until something better comes along,

we're left with the legend poor old Will McLean's ghost

wandering the railroad tracks forever more perhaps in search

of the man who killed him.

When we return, a controversial case of Stuart Heaton.

Did fault DNA evidence put the wrong man in prison for murder?

[eerie music]

In recent months, most of us have at least

heard the legal debate over the use of DNA evidence

in criminal cases.

Many experts believe DNA can identify a suspect

as reliably as a fingerprint.

Others strongly disagree.

Tonight that debate has a special resonance

for a young man named Stuart Heaton.

He is serving a life sentence for murder

even though many believe there is

compelling evidence that another man committed the crime.

Stuart insists that he is innocent,

and that crucial DNA evidence, which

some say is deeply flawed, helped put him behind bars.

Ramsey, Illinois in the south central part of the state

is a peaceful rural community.

But on July 23rd, 1991, a brutal murder shocked its citizens.

16-year-old Krystal Nabb, a high school sophomore,

had been stabbed 81 times in the living

room of her family's trailer.

Right.

What do you got there?

Well, I think I have your murder weapon.

Looks like a pair of sewing scissors.

Now, I'll tell you the person who

did this can't stab somebody that many times without getting

cuts on your hands.

Look for somebody with cuts either on the outside of

their fingers or on their palm.

I wonder if you happened to see anything suspicious--

NARRATOR: Several neighbors told police they have noticed

a pickup truck, most probably a Dodge parked

outside the Nabb's trailer earlier that day from around

10:00 AM to 3:00 PM.

Said like a Dodge pickup truck.

Do you know anybody that has a truck like that?

NARRATOR: Next, the police talked with Krystal brother,

Curtis Nabb.

A friend of mine.

I haven't seen him for like two or three years, though.

Stuart Heaton.

Stuart Heaton.

Do you happen to know where this Stuart Heaton lives?

He used live all three miles up the road.

Uh-huh.

Is he married?

I don't know.

OK, you haven't seen him in that long, though?

Two or three years?

Yeah, it's been at least two, three years.

OK.

Good evening.

NARRATOR: Police located Stewart Heaton

in nearby Bluff City, Illinois, where he worked

as a carpenter and roofer.

He did, in fact, own a white Dodge pickup

and had married two years earlier several months after he

lost touch with Curtis Nabb.

Mr. Heaton, if you'd step out on the porch just for a second.

What do you want to ask me?

Mr. Heaton, would you put your hands behind your back?

- What for? - Mr. Heaton.

What are you doing?

I just want to ask you a couple of questions.

What is going on here?

- I haven't done anything wrong. - We're just going to take you--

Can you explain what's going on here, please?

--and ask you a few questions.

That's all. - Stuart.

Hey, Karen.

Karen, call my mom.

Where are they taking you?

The police station.

Where'd you get these cuts on your hands, Stuart?

MALE: And flashing. - I'm laying a roof.

You sometimes bang your hands when

you're working in construction.

Hold real still for me, OK?

[inaudible]

Both on the outer and on the palms, too.

What about this one on your forehead?

Did you-- - It's not a cut.

It's a pimple. - Yeah?

Take a shot of that, Tom.?

- Can I put my hands down now? - Just a second.

Lean down, Stuart.

Just hold real still.

We got to know a little bit about what you did today.

What was your day like? When did you wake up?

Where'd you go?

I left my house at 9:00.

I gave an estimate for a roofing job.

Where'd you give the estimate, Stuart?

Look, why am I answering these questions?

I haven't done anything wrong.

He doesn't know he's here.

He's done anything wrong.

The two crime scene technicians came back and told

me, this guy has the cuts.

This is our man from the beginning.

And for a while, though, that was all we had connecting him

to the crime scene, where the cuts-- there was just

too big of a coincidence for them

to say that the guy we're looking for

is going to have this.

And the suspect they picked up immediately

had exactly what they said we would find.

I know for a fact that I'm innocent.

Nobody else may know for a fact, bit I know for a fact.

If they were half the investigator that he would lead

the public to believe, then he would

have checked and found out I'll always have cuts on my hand.

You know, there wasn't nothing abnormal.

A carpenter without cuts on his hands is not a carpenter.

He's an observer.

And I'm a carpenter.

We were told that he had been picked up.

Stuart Heaton had been picked up for her murder.

And afterwards, we learned that there

was a possibility because he had cuts

on his hands, his forehead.

He had a mark on his leg, and they started

doing some investigation.

And people had seen his truck.

Step inside.

NARRATOR: Stuart Heaton was indicted on September 11, 1991.

He voluntarily waived his right to a speedy trial.

After a search warrant was obtained,

police took a blood sample from Stuart for DNA testing.

An autopsy had been performed on Krysta Nabb.

She was three months pregnant, and a trace

of dried yellow material, which contains semen,

was found in her pubic hair.

Krystal's boyfriend had been eliminated as a suspect.

The authorities wanted to find out if the semen

matched Stuart Heaton's DNA.

For more than four months, Stuart languished in jail,

awaiting the DNA test results, which he felt would

exonerate him once and for all.

Heaton?

Yes, sir.

You got a delivery.

Thank you.

NARRATOR: However, when his lawyer forwarded

the test results, they were not what

Stuart Heaton had hoped for.

There was a chance that Stuart's DNA did match the semen

sample found on Krystal's body.

In spite of this, Stuart remained optimistic.

I didn't know as much about DNA and genetic testing

then as I do now.

But when I read that, I looked at that and I hung on to that.

And I said, there's only a chance, you know?

This test isn't exact.

They can't say, oh, it matches.

I mean, they said there was a chance.

In my mind, reasonable doubt.

I had read all that.

I knew there was no way.

And when I looked at it, I thought, uh-uh, it's not him.

Besides all the other forensic evidence--

they had 25 pages of hair, skin, tissue, blood, fingerprints.

And not a one was Stuart's.

You couldn't be.

It's an impossibility to be in a place from 10:00

in the morning to 3:00 in the afternoon

and not leave something.

And there's nobody smart enough to clean up theirs--

just theirs and leave everybody else's.

Uh-uh.

It's impossible.

It can't be done.

NARRATOR: The Dodge pickup and the cuts on Stuart's hands

notwithstanding, he and his family

were confident going into the trial,

but they would be sorely disappointed.

Curtis Nabb, Krystal's brother,

gave damaging testimony.

He claimed that one night, between two and three years

earlier, he'd found Stuart in the Nabb's trailer

with his older sister Melanie.

INTERVIEWER: Now, when you say he was talking your sister,

where was he located in the trailer at that time?

In the bedroom.

INTERVIEWER: And where was your sister?

In the bedroom.

Of course, his testimony was completely different

from his mom's on that.

He said he answered the door, and that I came in.

He asked me to leave and all this and that.

I think even at one point he said that he woke up

and I was there.

But that night, when I stopped by, his mom answered the door.

I asked for Curtis.

She went and got Curtis, and we sat down at the kitchen table

and drank a couple of beers and talked.

They asked me three times--

NARRATOR: Stuart's wife was called

by the prosecution as a hostile witness, as was his mother.

Their testimony indicated that Stuart

might have changed clothes on the day of the murder.

I can tell you that in the morning he had a t-shirt on.

But as far as, you know, pants and stuff,

I'd have to sweat pants because he couldn't fit in his jeans.

Why all of a sudden, now, do you just say sweat pants?

Because I--

NARRATOR: The prosecution's theorized that Stuart had

hidden a pair of blue jeans, bloodied during the murder

of Krystal Nabb.

No further questions, your honor.

NARRATOR: Two witnesses, one woman and one man,

took the stand to establish an alibi for Stuart between 10:00

AM and 3:00 PM on the day of the murder,

but the prosecutor shot holes in their testimony.

Against his family's advice, Stuart decided not

to testify on his own behalf.

He says his court appointed lawyer had not

prepared him to take the stand.

Stuart also says his religion teaches that faith

must be put in God rather than on any individual including

oneself.

With regard to the semen samples--

NARRATOR: As the capstone of the prosecution's case,

an expert witness testified that there

was a probability that Stuart Heaton's

DNA matched the semen sample.

The DNA profile found in this case that matches the DNA

profile of Mr. Heaton would be expected

to be found once out of every 52,600

non-related Caucasians tested.

NARRATOR: Those odds relative to other cases

where DNA has been used as evidence are not in fact

very impressive.

The odds needed before many experts

feel comfortable are more in the neighborhood

of a million to one.

Nevertheless, the jury found the prosecution's expert

convincing.

The jury has returned two signed verdicts.

First, signed verdict-- we the jury

find the defendant Stuart Heaton guilty of first degree murder,

count one.

STUART HEATON: I was expecting a not guilty verdict.

And after I left the courtroom, I

got across to the county jail in there with family and friends.

And at that point, I cried.

Held on to my wife and I cried.

And we decided we'd go on and keep fighting it.

I don't quit.

I feel for the family that lost their child.

I am not that kind of person.

I know-- I know what it is to lose a child.

And they had to hurt bad.

But the worst thing that could happen

was put the wrong man in prison part.

NARRATOR: Stuart was sentenced to life in prison

at the Menard Correctional Center in Chester, Illinois.

The judge ruled that Stuart would

never be eligible for parole.

I am convinced that the DNA evidence in this case

was the linchpin of the prosecution's case,

that without it, the prosecution had a weak circumstantial case.

Jurors were wowed by the scientific evidence of 52,000

to one odds against Stuart Heaton and that did it.

In the end of the day, a weak case

was made a strong one based on this evidence,

that I believe is phony evidence.

NARRATOR: David Protess is an investigative journalist

and professor at Northwestern University

in Evanston, Illinois.

His research has led him to conclude

that the real criminal is still at large

and that Stuart Heaton was railroaded.

If he hadn't owned a white truck,

he wouldn't have even been a suspect in this case.

I did a search through the Department of Motor Vehicle

records for the state of Illinois

that found that, in Fayette County

alone, there were more than 100 white trucks that

were similar to the kind that Stuart Heaton drove.

And in fact, in narrowing that search down,

I identified 12 white Dodge Dakotas,

including Stuart Heaton's.

One of those dodge Dakotas belonged to a man

with a lengthy criminal history who knew the murder

victim, Krystal Nabb.

Could the DNA sample found on Krystal Nabb's have

belonged to someone other than Stuart Heaton?

According to the statistical method used in Stuart's trial,

there are more than 4,800 people in the United States

whose DNA would have matched the sample.

And when a new statistical method widely used today

is applied, that number rises from 4,800 to around 48,000.

There's no dispute that DNA evidence to exclude somebody

is generally accepted.

If we look just at one place on a gene and they don't match,

then we know that those people don't match.

The problem is when you try to include people.

We can prove, for example, that somebody isn't the father

of a child by DNA tests and we can prove that to 100%

scientific acceptability.

But when we try to prove who is the father,

who is the murderer-- that's where we run into difficulties.

NARRATOR: Bob Byman and his associate Shelley Malinowski

have taken on the Stuart case pro-bono for no fee.

They believe not only that Stuart is innocent,

but that Dr. Robert Allen, the DNA expert for the prosecution,

used a controversial method of calculating

the odds against Stuart.

Two Two years after he testified in the Stuart Heaton case,

Robert Allen published an article

with several other renowned scientists that rejected

the statistical assumptions that he himself

had used in the Stuart Heaton evidence.

And I think that the main reason that he was convicted

was that the jurors were completely overwhelmed

by the complexity of the DNA evidence,

and they saw it as infallible, when in fact it's not.

To across the board, deny the use of DNA evidence

because it's low, I believe, is not fair.

I think that it should, in fact, be admissible

and here that's what a jury is for.

As a trier of the fact, let them determine whether the odds are

low in relation to everything else and all

the other evidence in the case or whether they're significant.

This probe here represents--

NARRATOR: The single most important issue

in the DNA testimony of Stuart Heaton's trial

was interpretation of the evidence.

This is an autoradiogram, or autorad,

of DNA taken from the murder victim of Krystal Nabb.

The two distinct bands represent DNA

from a region in which individuals

are very likely to be different genetically.

Juxtapose and other DNA sample taken from a different area

on Krystal Nabb's body and the two bands also

show up clearly--

a perfect match because both samples

come from the same person.

The trial boiled down to a debate between two expert

witnesses over whether bands were

present in the semen sample found on Krystal Nabb's body.

And if they were, did they match the bands

of Stuart Heaton's DNA profile?

This autorad compares Stuart Heaton's DNA with DNA

from the semen sample.

The small pen point dots on the left borders

mark the places where Dr. Allen said he saw bands which link

Stuart Heaton to the semen.

Based upon your examination of the radiographs--

NARRATOR: The defense expert, Dr. Gary Litman,

said he was only able to detect those critical bands.

As I said, there's no band.

There simply is no band there.

The sample itself was old, crusty material

that was minute in quantity.

It probably did not provide an adequate basis

for even conducting a DNA test and certainly not the type

of DNA test that was done here.

We unearthed a letter in which, prior

to his reaching conclusions, Dr. Robert

Allen said that he hoped--

he hoped that the DNA test would end

up implicating Stuart Heaton.

Now, that is scientific subjectivity

that should disqualify him as an expert in this case.

I'm certain that Dr. Allen did the best that he could

with what was available to him, but that material simply

wasn't in the best condition.

And it didn't lead, then, to very clear cut results.

There was a lot of smudges.

It's difficult to say unambiguously

that a band is present and a band is not present.

NARRATOR: Dr. Dan Krane has coauthored articles on DNA

testing with Dr. Robert Allen.

Yet in the case of Stuart Heaton,

Dr. Krane disputes the conclusions of his colleague.

Based on the DNA evidence alone,

I would feel very uncomfortable sending a man to prison

on that evidence alone.

Now, there may well have been other compelling evidence

of which I'm not aware of, but the DNA evidence by itself

certainly would leave a large area of doubt in my mind

as to whether or not that he was in fact the person

who was at that crime scene.

I mean, it wasn't just DNA that convicted him.

It was people that saw him, saw that truck,

and people that testified, you know,

where they saw him at the times.

And I mean, people that saw the truck at the home.

That's what I think helped convict

him-- that plus the DNA.

There's no doubt in my mind, no doubt

whatsoever, that he killed her.

He killed her in an extremely vicious, sick manner.

He's extremely dangerous.

He has to be locked up.

If he is released, I do believe that he will kill again.

He has to be locked up.

And the court system worked, and it worked right.

I did not kill Krystal Nabb.

I don't know the girl.

I don't have any reason to have any grudge against her or her

family or anything.

I didn't know her.

NARRATOR: When we return, two sisters are joyfully reunited

after more than 20 years apart.

[eerie music]

In June of 1994, we brought you the poignant story

of Diane Hahnlein of La Crescenta, California.

Since 1986, Diane has battled a rare and often fatal

blood disease.

Diane has a relatively unusual blood disorder normally

considered to be an incurable illness, now potentially

could be cured by the utilization of a bone marrow

transplantation, fraught with a lot of dangers,

though, and a lot of potential complications and not something

to be taken lightly.

NARRATOR: Only one person, Diana's younger sister Marilyn,

was a potential bone marrow donor.

But Diane had no idea where to find Marilyn.

Hi.

Hi.

NARRATOR: The sisters have been split up in 1954

when their parents separated.

Marilyn went to live with their father.

Diana stayed with her mother.

Over the next few years, contact was sporadic.

And for reasons long since forgotten,

the sisters came estranged.

I feel I'm asking a lot of my sister to do this bone

marrow for me, but even if she doesn't agree to a transplant,

if she doesn't and says, I don't want to do this,

I would still like to make peace with her.

She's my sister.

When we broadcast Diane's story, a private investigator

from Denver, Colorado, Robin Lee,

was Watching she was touched by Diane's plight,

as assumed we would get the clues we needed.

We didn't.

As luck would have it, Robin was also watching

when the segment reran in June.

This time she decided to volunteer her help

in tracking Marilyn down.

The result was one of our most unusual solves ever.

I contacted the show, got a little more information,

started out with the sisters' name.

Marilyn Jones was her maiden name--

started with that and a date of birth and went on from there.

And it took me about three days to find her, three working days

if you don't count 4th of July holiday in between.

And I think it's great that they're back together.

NARRATOR: On August 30th, 1994, Marilyn and Diana

met face to face for the first time in 30 years.

It's so good to see you.

FEMALE (VOICEOVER): Once we hugged,

it was like it hadn't been 30 years.

It had been, you know, just a short time.

I guess maybe that's why I feel comfortable-- is

because I can feel the love.

And when you feel that love, you feel comfortable.

You haven't changed a bit.

Oh, no.

[laughs] No, I'm just--

I get cuter with age.

Yeah, you do.

Yes, you do.

DIANE (VOICEOVER): I think I'm still in shock.

You know, I still like--

you know, I'm not here yet.

It's just a dream.

You know, but it's a great dream,

and we have a lot of catching up to do.

And we'll be together forever now.

We're going to have a lot of fun together.

Enjoy the time we have.

Isn't that beautiful?

NARRATOR: Coincidentally, the day of the reunion

was Diane's 53rd birthday, and Marilyn had not forgotten.

It's beautiful.

And my name is spelled right.

[laughs] That's a [inaudible].

DIANE (VOICEOVER): This is the best gift

I've ever had in my whole life.

This is the best gift ever--

is to have my sister and to have my family for my birthday.

It will be the best birthday I've ever had in my whole life.

[laughs]

We drive 60 miles to go--

NARRATOR: On the day of the reunion,

Marilyn's fondest wish was to prove a compatible bone

marrow donor for her sister.

Do I have to go to the movies?

Oh, to the movies, we have to go all

the way to Canada and that's--

[laughs] that's the closest--

MARILYN (VOICEOVER): I want more than anything

to have this work Diane.

But even if it doesn't, we're going

to take full advantage of however

long we do have together.

We can make a week seem like an eternity.

[music playing]

[eerie music]

[honks]

NARRATOR: You would think that they were

just out for a joy ride, best friends

without a care in the world.

But like everything else about Rose Turford and Carol Stevens,

looks can be deceiving.

[shouts] To the police, these two women

are nothing less than the real life Thelma and Louise.

Today Turford and Stevens are armed, dangerous,

and on the run, wanted on multiple charges

of aggravated robbery.

Carolyn.

Yeah, OK.

Look, we're running a little late.

NARRATOR: They met in 1992.

Both were nurses at a psychiatric hospital

in Houston, Texas.

Eventually, Rose invited Carolyn to move

in with her and her family.

By January of 1995, the two women have

embarked on a vicious game.

Rose Turford was, by all accounts, a loving wife,

devoted mother, and dedicated professional.

But at night, she took on a whole new persona.

Here were are.

Got the wine, the key.

Great.

The room's right here.

Oh good.

OK.

NARRATOR: Rose began soliciting men through the personals.

Then, she would lure her dates to out of the way motel rooms.

To us.

NARRATOR: A little soft music, a good bottle of wine,

and the stage was set for Carolyn's entrance.

Sit down on the bed.

NARRATOR: The Thelma and Louise bandits

moved quickly and methodically.

Now take off your clothes.

[click]

[moan]

I'm going to the bank.

Guess I'll see--

Finally, Carolyn would be left to stand

guard while Rose ran out to use a victim's

bank and credit cards.

Rose and Carolyn, from the onset,

wanted to be the real life Thelma and Louise.

They wanted to experience that thrill and the spontaneity.

And only thing is I don't believe

they ever considered what they were

going to do to their families.

NARRATOR: Over a three month period,

Rose and Carolyn reportedly robbed

at least 10 men and more than a quarter of a million dollars.

But eventually, their luck ran out.

In March of 1995, Rose and Carolyn were arrested.

Bail was set at $250,000 each.

CLEMENT ROMEO (VOICEOVER): It seems

as though, prior to both Rose and Carolyn going to jail

and being arrested, they had this pact that, if one got out,

they both got out or they both stayed in.

And Rose's parents were just going to get Rose out of jail.

Look, I'm sorry I have to keep calling you.

But Avery is putting pressure on me.

NARRATOR: In an attempt to cajole Rose's family

into posting bail for both of them,

Carolyn phoned Rose's parents repeatedly.

To hurt the kids.

NARRATOR: She Claimed that a mysterious international

private investigator named Avery was

threatening Rose's children.

Well, Rose and I know what he's capable of,

and we should all take him seriously.

CLEMENT ROMEO (VOICEOVER): Probably

the weirdest part of this whole scenario

was the man named Avery.

I never bought that he was real.

It was just too far-fetched.

NARRATOR: Rose's family, however,

believed Avery was real.

Even her in-laws were moved to act.

They put up their house and restaurant

as partial collateral.

CLEMENT ROMEO (VOICEOVER): I tried

to convince that the parents don't make both bonds.

And it's not often that you sit and try to speak to someone

about not giving you $250,000.

But I just knew it was a problem,

and I knew it wasn't going to work.

And it didn't.

NARRATOR: Sure enough, on May 22nd

1985, Rose Turford and Carolyn Stevens took flight.

Left behind was a letter which alleged

that they had been kidnapped by the mysterious Avery.

In reality, the Thelma and Louise bandits were on the run,

leaving Rose's in-laws in danger of losing

their home and business.

We wanted to help in any way we could.

I never once, once entered my mind that they

would disappear, never.

CLEMENT ROMEO (VOICEOVER): I really

hope that Rose and Carolyn just stop and think they're going

to basically throw really, really

good honest, hardworking people out in the streets.

And if they have to go to jail, well,

that's just kind of the price you pay for making a mistake.

But it's a lot better to pay a price

once than to pay it all your life and make your kids

and your family suffer for their lifetime.

[music playing]

[eerie music]

NARRATOR: Join me next time for another intriguing addition

of Unsolved Mysteries.

[filmrise sound effect]