All language subtitles for Unsolved.Mysteries.S07E09.AMZN.WEB-DL.DDP2.0.H.264-BTW_track3_[eng]

[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]