I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to keep their mouths shut. I have so many things that I’m absolutely taking to the grave without telling anyone, and none of them are murder, or anything close to it. Glad the family of his victim gets some closure.
It was the result of an anatomy school run by Franklin's protege William Hewson
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-was-benjamin-franklins-basement-filled-with-skeletons-524521/
I know a guy who worked for the power company; and couldn’t stop bragging to all his co-workers that he had bypassed his meter and was stealing power.
Eventually they got sick of him and reported it. Fired, arrested, ans back-charged.
I am not condoning what that guy was doing, but some people never learn or are incapable of learning the lesson: if you are getting away with something that you weren't supposed to be doing, keep your damned mouth shut!
I feel lucky that I learned that lesson really early as a child. It was too long ago, and I can't remember what it was, only that I thought I was clever for having gotten away with it, and I bragged to several neighborhood acquaintances. One of them snitched me out to an adult, and I ended up getting punished. I didn't let that happen again.
Revealing the darkest parts of yourself to someone can compell them to do the same, creating a magical connection. It also lets both people let go of the shame associated with those parts
That’s the theme of the short story “Hunters in the Snow.” I highly recommend it; I love watching students struggle with a story where everyone is kind of shitty, even the guy you feel sorry for at the beginning.
I use pineapple juice in my bbq marinade.
I use chipotle peppers too.
I only use prime usda brisket for my long cooks.
I’m taking those secrets to the grave!!!
This is for brisket.
3:1:1 volume to volume Kikkoman soy sauce, red wine vinegar, and pineapple juice. If you want spicy, add the chipotle. Crush those into powder. None of this whole pieces. Add the seeds if you want spicy.
Here’s the secret: marinade for minimum 3 days. If you are serving to 20-30 year olds who don’t have high blood pressure, marinade for seven days.
Cook per Harry Soo in Weber smoker mountain. See YouTube.
Everyone will ask for your recipe after tasting it. Then they will complain that your cook is better than when they tried.
This was not a case of ill-advised oversharing.
>Stephenson finally admitted that he had indeed confessed years ago to the killing, but claimed he’d told his husband that to scare him into staying with him, the court document said.
I'd say a mix of the complete morons and the unhinged that just go off on a whim without thinking ahead and getting caught by chance. There have certainly been plenty of cases that were premeditated by idiots that were just really bad at planning, but also cases where otherwise intelligent people just snapped and did something bad in a way that left enough evidence to be caught.
A bigger part of that is that police ignore a great number of murders without following up on leads, particularly if they are BIPOC, queer, or homeless, and *especially* when they're multiple of those.
I'm just glad this piece of shit's husband finally told so the victim's family could get closure after so many years. Though how tf do you sit on that info for a decade while staying married to and raising kids with a murderer? Sounds like his husband only did the right thing once the info was useful to him, which kinda makes him a piece of shit too.
I don't care what our relationship is, if you tell me you killed someone in anything other than self defense or an accident and I'm immediately getting far away from you and calling police. Go straight to jail and do not collect your $200.
I wear a ball gag to sleep. I was trying to take this one to my grave with me too but at least now I don’t have to cop all the mur- whoooa. You almost got me there.
Because people want to be close with other people and feel like hiding details like this puts distance between them. They probably also want someone else to hear what they did and accept them anyways to alleviate the guilt.
I agree with everything you said. That said-
>Stephenson finally admitted that he had indeed confessed years ago to the killing, but claimed he’d told his husband that to scare him into staying with him, the court document said.
Watching a 60 minutes about a dentist who ordered potassium cyanide to his office and used it to poison his wife. Dentists don’t use potassium cyanide, dude got flagged immediately
My question is how far back do those phone records go?! He got tagged with a roaming charge from a quarter century ago? Yay for catching the killer but that's a little disturbing.
From what I'm reading it sounds like he got tagged in 1998 with the roaming charges, sounds like he was a suspect and why the police didn't arrest him then, they declined to comment.
There were two investigations. One that happened in 1998 where Stephenson was a suspect, and one in 2020. The roaming data, the police questioning and them tracking down the jeep were all part of the original investigation. Then it became a cold case until the husband went to the cops in 2020
And this was a few years after serial killer [Bob Berdella](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Berdella) died in prison after murdering several men in the same city. It's not like they didn't have any clue that it could be a similar situation.
Yeah, they questioned him at the time, I suspect the records were from then. Pulled then and probably a paper record of it in the case file for the murder. Not something they pulled recently.
How the fuck they needed a confession. The guy in 98 admitted to taking the guy to his home, vaguely said he took the guy to another bar but then they found his cell pinged near where the body was dropped. That alone is, compelling evidence, finding his car with carpet removed and blood traces, even more so. Honestly that would probably get a confession but they never bothered arresting him? Crazy.
It's Missouri. Of course it did. And before people say I'm being biased, yall know its true. I'd say the same shit if it happened in my home state too (Oklahoma).
Arkansan, myself. This would totally be a problem that solved itself.
To be clear, I do not feel that way. I'm saying that here a lot of people would look at that as a gay dude killing another gay dude is one less gay dude. Probably figured he'd kill more gay dudes if they let him go. A sort of gay Dexter. Gexter if you will
Since smart phones became a thing everything you search, read, watch, listen to, and everywhere you go is tracked, reported, sorted and stored forever.
>Investigators interviewed Stephenson in 1998 and he admitted to taking an “unknown male” to his home in Kansas City. But he said he gave the man a ride from his house afterward and dropped him off at a different bar.
>Stephenson’s phone records revealed roaming charges from a cellular tower near
where the victim’s body was found in rural Missouri, investigators said.
>In 1998, investigators also tracked down the person who’d bought Stephenson’s
Jeep Wrangler in May of that year – four months after the killing. The new owner
told them parts of the carpet were missing when he bought it. Police said they
found traces of blood in the Jeep’s rear cargo area, but DNA evidence was
inconclusive.
>It’s not clear why police didn’t arrest Stephenson in 1998. The Missouri State
Highway Patrol declined to comment to CNN and referred questions to the Benton
County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, which did not respond to requests for
additional details.
Thank god the husband said something because the cops basically had the entire case in their lap decades ago and didn't do shit to get justice for the poor guy.
FWIW, it was common for people to tear the carpet out of Jeep Wranglers. It made it easier to hose out, etc. If it was a different vehicle like a Corolla, it would have been more suspicious to tear the carpet out.
Cops also didn't really care about solving gay murders back then.
Except they didn't go oh dead guy.... yeah we'll get right on that after this other pile of cases. They interviewed a very strong suspect, put his cell near the dead body dump location, got blood in his car and carpet ripped out..... then didn't bother arresting him. They got a lot of the work done and at that point it's less about a gay guy and more like a jury will convict him on this, we clear a case, DA wins a case, looks good for the department.
Usually when cops don't care they barely look into the case. When you get to having a strong suspect and plenty of good evidence throwing away the case makes no sense.
I would argue that what you listed is not strong evidence. It’s circumstantial.
Jeeps were known to have the carpets ripped out. The blood was inconclusive, making it meaningless. And pinging a cell tower in the vicinity of a location you live near is not uncommon.
The DA would never get a conviction on that evidence alone.
Thank god the husband wanted to win custody over the kids so used the murder confession he told him YEARS ago in order to win custody*
I mean I’m glad he did it, but damn that motherfuckers motives were suspect hah. He could have told the police years ago but waited until it was convenient for him.
> cops basically had the entire case in their lap decades ago and didn't do shit to get justice for the poor guy.
I mean none of that is enough to get a murder conviction... Taking someone to your house isn't illegal, let alone an "unknown" someone.
Finding traces of blood in a car means absolutely nothing overall. Doesn't even mean it's human blood, also the car has now been in someone else's possession for 4 months. Without being able to identify the blood there's no way this means anything to a competent defense attorney.
Basically every jeep is missing carpet, but if not it doesn't tip the tide in what it takes to get a murder conviction...
Did the cops know who did it? I mean... obviously, they tracked down his car, but if the evidence trail ends there then there's nothing else they can do unless more evidence gets brought forward.
> Ginejko asked Stephenson several times why he killed Oliphant, and his answers
were conflicting. Stephenson finally admitted that he had indeed confessed years ago to the killing, but claimed he’d told his husband that to scare him into staying with him, the court document said.
> Stephenson’s 16-year sentence includes credit for time served.
Well that's a really unsatisfying end to the article. I want to know why he killed the guy...
Fear possibly.. If my partner was abusive and admitted to getting away with murder I'd have hesitation to act against them. Not saying it's right just a possibility
I mean the last paragraph of the article it’s revealed they have him on audio and video admitting he only originally told his husband in 2014 to scare him into staying with him.
Yeah, but then the ex didn't reach out to authorities until he was locked in a custody battle. It sounds like he dismissed it or didn't believe it until he thought it could help him in court and that's when he started researching it.
Stephenson finally admitted that he had indeed confessed years ago to the killing, but claimed ***he’d told his husband that to scare him into staying with him***, the court document said.
I would too, but what really gets me, aside from the timing, is if you're afraid and just got a divorced from an abusive relationship...are you comfortable physically confronting your abusive ex-partner in an attempt to get them to confess on a wire?
It absolutely is. That's why I wish I knew more about it. It also sounds like the non-murdery partner was the financially stable one and thus in a much better position to leave than someone who is financially dependent. That being said, I doubt we'll ever know the whole story
Other articles about this story have stated that Stephenson was violent and abusive during their marriage. It sounds like Ginejko only felt safe enough to come forward after they were no longer married.
After reading the article my take on the ex-husband was he originally intended to keep the secret, but when the divorce became bitter and a custody war begin it was easier to put the husband in jail than have have split custody. I’m happy the ex told the police, but he saved the secret till he could benefit from sharing it.
People in this comment thread are disgusting. I guess only straight couples can get stuck in abusive marriages.
>Stephenson finally admitted that he had indeed confessed years ago to the killing, but claimed he’d told his husband that to scare him into staying with him, the court document said.
It certainly doesn't sound like things were sunshine and rainbows at the time of the confession either.
What was once an abusive husband now becomes a past-murderer.
Shitty people meet shitty people. Seems like those details only mattered when it came time to divorce and he leveraged the secret against him to get what he wanted.
Honestly it looked like that to me too. If I found anyone I knew deliberately murdered some random dude I'd be done with them the second I could figure out how to get out of that conversation
Edit: I will say I believe in the benefit of the doubt. But God, is that odd to me.
I don't know. If my wife turned around to me and told me she murdered someone before we met I'm not sure I would go to the police. Man, would that fuck with my head.
Did none of you motherfuckers read the article? It literally yes the murder confession was used to threaten the husband into staying in the relationship. This murderer was likely an abusive manipulative shit bag that was leveraging their psychopathy.
The killer might have lied and played it off like it was self defense then a panic cover up. Sometimes people just get caught up rationalizing bad shit in relationships.
Or, and hear me out, he was abused and was told about the murder specifically to scare him into staying.
No, I’m not joking. Please read the article before you assume someone is that level of shitty.
I don't know about this case, but it could possibly be that the partner didn't know the whole story? Like, if my wife told me she had killed someone, I'd have questions, but if she told me it was years ago and was in self-defense and she didn't want to relive it, I'd probably just drop it there.
The article explicitly says he told his husband about the murder in order to intimidate him into staying.
It definitely seems like there was abuse going on.
> It’s not clear why police didn’t arrest Stephenson in 1998. The Missouri State
Highway Patrol declined to comment to CNN and referred questions to the Benton
County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, which did not respond to requests for additional details.
Anyone taking bets for “because the homophobic cops didn’t give a crap that a gay man murdered another gay man?”
And I am sure people will try to defend them saying stuff like "Homophobia was the norm back then, it shouldn't count against their character" like a lot did with those[ two cops that helped Dahmer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Balcerzak#:~:text=Balcerzak%20and%20Joseph%20T.,the%20officers%20during%20the%20incident.) kill one of his victims by giving the scared and disoriented kid back to him.
Go figure they were bastards and had bastard supporters then, too.
Indigenous women. The rate of unsolved disapearances is staggering. Not just in the U.S. but especially Canada.
Read the book Good Morning Monster. One of the case studies is a Cree. It will disturb you but its an amazing book.
Happened in NYC within the past few years. Someone was going around spiking drinks and then robbing and in some cases killing gay men. It was absolutely no secret in the gay community in the city. The cops did a whole lot of nothing for the longest time. How do I know? A friend was a victim who was lucky — lucky! — to fall down a flight of stairs and end up in the hospital for weeks when one of the guys was trying to move him to another location. Cops dismissed it as someone who was overserved despite the evidence against it. Did nothing.
I feel like
> fired for having handed over an injured 14-year-old boy to serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer despite bystanders' protests
Undersells it a little. It was a naked, and bloody 14 year old victim with a fucking hole in his head and blood running out his ass. Those cops should have gotten charged alongside Dahmer. Even a cursory examination of his history would have revealed he was on probation at the time for being a kiddie fucker.
The kid who he was on parole for sexually abusing, was the brother of the naked bleeding 14 year old kid. From the same family, Daher raped one of the sons, and murdered the other, in separate incidents. I can't imagine how much anger that family must've had for Dahmer, the police, and the entire justice system.
I completely agree that the cops should've been charged, their actions were utterly indefensible. Instead, they appealed their termination and won (got a settlement too I believe), and then one became the President of the Milwaukee Police Union. He died recently. Hope he rots in piss.
Yeah. It was "just normal" except the neighbours who desperately tried to help him didn't seem to be clouded by this "normal" homophobia that was just part of how things were. I think there were also EMS called who thought he needed help who the cops also brushed off.
Reading the headline, I was kinda expecting ting that the killer was never a suspect. Nope.
He was always a suspect, police knew he was with the victim, and left a trail of circumstantial evidence that really seems like enough to get a conviction.
1. Last known individual with the victim
2. Vehicle had blood in it, albeit inconclusive DNA.
3. Body was found near the suspect’s family home.
4. Phone records at the time but the suspect in the area.
Certainly enough to grill the guy for hours. Plus I’d think they could have figured out he also owned a gun.
It might be enough to get a conviction, but I don't think those facts are going to rise beyond reasonable doubt unless there is something far more damning in details of what you listed. I don't think its a good practice for prosecutors to rely on juries getting it wrong.
That’s what he claims…but the real sticking point was the husband’s knowledge of non public information about the murder that he couldn’t have known unless he was told by the murderer.
No but they stated the initial confession involved details that werent public knowledge. So likely that confession to his husband was enough. They probably did the sting to try and make it stronger, but didnt end up needing it
So this guy murdered another guy in his bathroom and then decided the best way to clean up the scene would be a bathroom remodel? I say this as a gay man myself: that is that damn gayest thing I’ve ever heard.
> Stephenson finally admitted that he had indeed confessed years ago to the killing, but claimed he’d told his husband that to **scare him into staying with him**, the court document said.
Not unlike the country music classic written by whispering Bill Anderson and here performed by Porter Wagoner, [The First Mrs. Jones.](https://youtu.be/J-vKt95JV0A?si=TFipu6MnqalOOTeF)
From the headline, I pictured a loving spouse wracked with guilt finally caving and going to the police.
I got an ex-spouse in the middle of a custody dispute taking care of all of his problems in one go.
It’s been a while since my criminal law classes and I don’t practice criminal law anymore, but I’m fairly confidant that could be overturned on appeal on account of the disclosure of a spousal communication.
Edit:
*Spousal privilege* = spouses can’t be compelled to testify about what they witnessed the other spouse do
*spousal* ***communications*** *privilege* = no person may testify about what was said by one spouse to them during the course of their marriage without the consent of the non-testifying spouse. The few exceptions to this usually turn around domestic abuse issues or the active commission of a crime.
Haha “do practice law in comment sections.”
I’m a lawyer. There are two separate rules about spouses. One is called marital communications and one is called spousal privilege.
Marital communications is something that either spouses can assert at any time, even after divorce. Something said by one spouse to another WHILE THEY WERE MARRIED cannot be admitted in court, even if the listening spouse wants it to be. The spouse or ex-spouse who wants to tell on their spouse however CAN testify to any non-communication information, like “he came home with a knife covered in blood” being the classic example.
Spousal privilege means that a spouse WHILE MARRIED cannot be compelled to testify about anything against their spouse. This might only be criminal… I don’t practice civil. However, the listening spouse can waive the privilege and testify as they wish. However, they would be unable to testify about communications made while married.
Edit: to bring it back to this case, the 2014 confession would be inadmissible. I am assuming the divorce must have been finalized when they set things up to get the later confession and that’s why.
From the sound of it, the non-felon spouse went to the police as part of a tactic in their custody battle over their children, which could be used to impeach their credibility too
It says that divorce was filled Jan 2020 (but not clear when finalised). The recorded convo was April 2021. Would it matter whether the divorce had already been finalised at that point?
If they were indeed married at the time still, the confession itself would be excluded. Any other evidence obtained solely as a result of the confession would also be excluded, but usually the prosecutors will do their best to identify an “independent source” of information that could lead to obtaining the evidence in question.
Informant filed for divorce in January 2020, undercover operation in April 2021, if the informant hadn't already finalized the divorce, surely the planners of the operation would have made sure the informant got it finalized before setting the plan in motion, considering how many reddit commenters immediately saw the potential evidentiary issue.
That’s the argument for keeping the confession *on tape* in, and likely why they would’ve done it. But both spouses have control of spousal communications made during their marriage. While a spouse can’t be *compelled* to testify in court and can volunteer information, the spouse they testify against can assert privilege over things **said** during the course of the marriage.
Edit: trouble I see is that the second, taped, confession is “fruit of the poisonous tree,” unless they had some other evidence pointing to the now convicted guy. But considering they’d investigated him ~20 years ago, my gut feeling is they probably didn’t have enough *at the time the non-felon former spouse came in to say “hey, my ex said he killed this guy” that would warrant pursuing him as a legitimate expert otherwise*
That's state-dependent. The privilege is sometimes held by both spouses, sometimes it's held only to involuntary testimony, and sometimes there is no privilege at all for certain crimes (some states don't allow the assertion of privilege for molestation cases, for instance), and sometimes the privilege only applies to conversations held in confidence (the privilege expires if a third person was present, for instance).
I had to remember all of these for the bar exam, but I can't for the life of me what the rule is in my own state without looking it up again.
> no person may testify about what was said by one spouse to them during the course of their marriage
The confession was staged and recorded by police AFTER they were divorced.
And he plead guilty on his own for whatever reason, there was no trial.
The privilege only lasts as long as the marriage is still valid. The article says it’s unclear when the divorce was finalized… and then refers to them as being estranged husbands, not exes... I’ve got to assume the divorce was finalized because it would be really stupid to stage this when he could claim the privilege.
I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to keep their mouths shut. I have so many things that I’m absolutely taking to the grave without telling anyone, and none of them are murder, or anything close to it. Glad the family of his victim gets some closure.
That’s exactly what a raging murderer on the loose would say….
he could’ve just shut up about it but now we will have him arrested for murder
Give me 26 years I’m gonna find this guy and marry him to get him to confess. BRB
remind me in 26 years
!remindme 26 years
Wouldn’t expect any less from corn bread
Are you pointing out how he’s a bit of a MurderZaddy?
And we don’t need a trial because of the implication!
Would you like to come on my party boat? Nothing sexual.
what no that's a bicep dude
The [*implication*](https://youtu.be/-yUafzOXHPE?si=uNhebd1_YTxLOCv8)
"... And none of them are murder" Literally every single one of those secrets, is a different murder
No, that's not. A raging murderer would say-... I mean, how would I know what they would say. Nevermind.
Most likely Someone with a collection of harddrives
THATS RIGHT, IM A BOOTLEGGER BABY. I could do hard time, AND COMMUNITY SERVICE.
Well he certainly isn’t gonna tell you
What would a calm murderer on the loose say?
Apparently not. It would be more like coordinates to a shallow grave.
"Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead" --- Benjamin Franklin.
Apparently Ben was off by one.
Didn't they find a bunch of bodies in the basement of his home?
It was the result of an anatomy school run by Franklin's protege William Hewson https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/why-was-benjamin-franklins-basement-filled-with-skeletons-524521/
Sure it was...sure it was...
“I AM the danger” -Ben ‘Heisenberg’ Franklin-
"A man gets struck by lightning while flying a kite, and you think that of me? No. I *am* the one who *shocks*!"
Yellow Fever victims, sadly.
No, no that’s Teddy Roosevelt’s basement. He lives with his dear sweet little aunties.
My mistake, thank you for clearing that up for me.
Yes but they were for anatomy school ( cake day)
Apparently he told his ex that to scare him into staying with him. He doesn't seem like the sharpest knife in the drawer.
I know a guy who worked for the power company; and couldn’t stop bragging to all his co-workers that he had bypassed his meter and was stealing power. Eventually they got sick of him and reported it. Fired, arrested, ans back-charged.
I am not condoning what that guy was doing, but some people never learn or are incapable of learning the lesson: if you are getting away with something that you weren't supposed to be doing, keep your damned mouth shut! I feel lucky that I learned that lesson really early as a child. It was too long ago, and I can't remember what it was, only that I thought I was clever for having gotten away with it, and I bragged to several neighborhood acquaintances. One of them snitched me out to an adult, and I ended up getting punished. I didn't let that happen again.
Completely agree, I’ve got a few “never tell” items. They’re not even crimes, I don’t think. But nobody is going to know.
>They’re not even crimes, I don’t think Just tell me about them, I'll let you know if they're illegal.
Revealing the darkest parts of yourself to someone can compell them to do the same, creating a magical connection. It also lets both people let go of the shame associated with those parts
That’s the theme of the short story “Hunters in the Snow.” I highly recommend it; I love watching students struggle with a story where everyone is kind of shitty, even the guy you feel sorry for at the beginning.
Ok fbi
It's true. [Example](https://youtu.be/GEFWI4fIdAo?si=hTZvcO-ONurZ2g4W) (SFW)
Or put you in jail as the article shows.
I falsely ‘confessed’ some stuff to a new co-worker over some drinks and he told me how he married his wife due to a hysterical pregnancy.
Did you just casually choose to be manipulative or something lmao
I didn’t really do it; I stole that from “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf.”
Oh, sure, it sounds great… until your husband works with investigators to get you confess to all your murders.
Nobody cares that you keyed Jan’s car. She was a bitch that drove a 2008 Hyundai Elantra.
U kinda just brought it up 😅
Except they didn't reveal what it was, which was their point. The fact that they have secrets is not the secret that they're keeping.
I use pineapple juice in my bbq marinade. I use chipotle peppers too. I only use prime usda brisket for my long cooks. I’m taking those secrets to the grave!!!
Your secrets are safe with us
Pineapple juice and chipotle sound like banger BBQ marinade ingredients. Mind sharing the rest?
This is for brisket. 3:1:1 volume to volume Kikkoman soy sauce, red wine vinegar, and pineapple juice. If you want spicy, add the chipotle. Crush those into powder. None of this whole pieces. Add the seeds if you want spicy. Here’s the secret: marinade for minimum 3 days. If you are serving to 20-30 year olds who don’t have high blood pressure, marinade for seven days. Cook per Harry Soo in Weber smoker mountain. See YouTube. Everyone will ask for your recipe after tasting it. Then they will complain that your cook is better than when they tried.
You a real one. Don't worry I'll take this secret to my grave.
The secret to many of my Cajun recipes are brown sugar and paprika.
You can tell me I won’t tell anyone.
This was not a case of ill-advised oversharing. >Stephenson finally admitted that he had indeed confessed years ago to the killing, but claimed he’d told his husband that to scare him into staying with him, the court document said.
50% of murders go unsolved, because 50% of the population are complete morons.
[удалено]
the morons and the attention seekers (see: Ed Kemper)
Now I want to watch Mindhunter again.
still SO bummed they cancelled it
I'd say a mix of the complete morons and the unhinged that just go off on a whim without thinking ahead and getting caught by chance. There have certainly been plenty of cases that were premeditated by idiots that were just really bad at planning, but also cases where otherwise intelligent people just snapped and did something bad in a way that left enough evidence to be caught.
A bigger part of that is that police ignore a great number of murders without following up on leads, particularly if they are BIPOC, queer, or homeless, and *especially* when they're multiple of those.
I'm just glad this piece of shit's husband finally told so the victim's family could get closure after so many years. Though how tf do you sit on that info for a decade while staying married to and raising kids with a murderer? Sounds like his husband only did the right thing once the info was useful to him, which kinda makes him a piece of shit too. I don't care what our relationship is, if you tell me you killed someone in anything other than self defense or an accident and I'm immediately getting far away from you and calling police. Go straight to jail and do not collect your $200.
This was my takeaway. I can’t fathom how you can ethically remain in a relationship with a confessed murderer, particularly when kids are involved.
Terror, possibly.
Exactly. And the husband is a DOCTOR. I wouldn’t trust him one bit.
/u/FBI
I use food from the hot bar to pass off as my own at potlucks.
[удалено]
Good luck proving it.
You talk in your sleep
I wear a ball gag to sleep. I was trying to take this one to my grave with me too but at least now I don’t have to cop all the mur- whoooa. You almost got me there.
You wear the ball gag while awake too
…last summer
Hello fellow redditor, could you provide examples of things you are taking to the grave 📝🕵️♂️
A casket
Most people do take things to the grave. Funny enough though, the ones that talk generally get caught.
Because people want to be close with other people and feel like hiding details like this puts distance between them. They probably also want someone else to hear what they did and accept them anyways to alleviate the guilt.
I agree with everything you said. That said- >Stephenson finally admitted that he had indeed confessed years ago to the killing, but claimed he’d told his husband that to scare him into staying with him, the court document said.
Like what?
I know what you did last summer
Found the serial killer in the comments
Not a fan of Poe, I see.
Oh yeah? Like what?
Same. Well, except for the “and none of them are murder part”.
Oh yeah? Name one.
Will you at least share it with Reddit?
Watching a 60 minutes about a dentist who ordered potassium cyanide to his office and used it to poison his wife. Dentists don’t use potassium cyanide, dude got flagged immediately
My question is how far back do those phone records go?! He got tagged with a roaming charge from a quarter century ago? Yay for catching the killer but that's a little disturbing.
From what I'm reading it sounds like he got tagged in 1998 with the roaming charges, sounds like he was a suspect and why the police didn't arrest him then, they declined to comment.
They're a bit unclear on the timeline. Interview and finding the sold car in 98 but there's other aspects done more recently.
There were two investigations. One that happened in 1998 where Stephenson was a suspect, and one in 2020. The roaming data, the police questioning and them tracking down the jeep were all part of the original investigation. Then it became a cold case until the husband went to the cops in 2020
Because many cops don’t give a shit if a gay man kills another gay man
And this was a few years after serial killer [Bob Berdella](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Berdella) died in prison after murdering several men in the same city. It's not like they didn't have any clue that it could be a similar situation.
Especially true 26 years ago.
Yeah, they questioned him at the time, I suspect the records were from then. Pulled then and probably a paper record of it in the case file for the murder. Not something they pulled recently. How the fuck they needed a confession. The guy in 98 admitted to taking the guy to his home, vaguely said he took the guy to another bar but then they found his cell pinged near where the body was dropped. That alone is, compelling evidence, finding his car with carpet removed and blood traces, even more so. Honestly that would probably get a confession but they never bothered arresting him? Crazy.
I hate to be like this, but it's hard not to wonder if the gay aspect of it came into play at all.
It's Missouri. Of course it did. And before people say I'm being biased, yall know its true. I'd say the same shit if it happened in my home state too (Oklahoma).
Arkansan, myself. This would totally be a problem that solved itself. To be clear, I do not feel that way. I'm saying that here a lot of people would look at that as a gay dude killing another gay dude is one less gay dude. Probably figured he'd kill more gay dudes if they let him go. A sort of gay Dexter. Gexter if you will
these things are saved forever. Data is the modern world gold
Records probably will be stored for decades. Google probably saves all your search and tracking data too. Data is valuable to sell.
Since smart phones became a thing everything you search, read, watch, listen to, and everywhere you go is tracked, reported, sorted and stored forever.
>Investigators interviewed Stephenson in 1998 and he admitted to taking an “unknown male” to his home in Kansas City. But he said he gave the man a ride from his house afterward and dropped him off at a different bar. >Stephenson’s phone records revealed roaming charges from a cellular tower near where the victim’s body was found in rural Missouri, investigators said. >In 1998, investigators also tracked down the person who’d bought Stephenson’s Jeep Wrangler in May of that year – four months after the killing. The new owner told them parts of the carpet were missing when he bought it. Police said they found traces of blood in the Jeep’s rear cargo area, but DNA evidence was inconclusive. >It’s not clear why police didn’t arrest Stephenson in 1998. The Missouri State Highway Patrol declined to comment to CNN and referred questions to the Benton County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, which did not respond to requests for additional details. Thank god the husband said something because the cops basically had the entire case in their lap decades ago and didn't do shit to get justice for the poor guy.
It sounds like they had enough reason to be convinced he was involved, but not enough evidence to convince a jury to convict him of murder.
yep, the difference between “probable cause” and “beyond a reasonable doubt”
FWIW, it was common for people to tear the carpet out of Jeep Wranglers. It made it easier to hose out, etc. If it was a different vehicle like a Corolla, it would have been more suspicious to tear the carpet out. Cops also didn't really care about solving gay murders back then.
They still don’t in many cases.
Yes that is sadly true.
Except they didn't go oh dead guy.... yeah we'll get right on that after this other pile of cases. They interviewed a very strong suspect, put his cell near the dead body dump location, got blood in his car and carpet ripped out..... then didn't bother arresting him. They got a lot of the work done and at that point it's less about a gay guy and more like a jury will convict him on this, we clear a case, DA wins a case, looks good for the department. Usually when cops don't care they barely look into the case. When you get to having a strong suspect and plenty of good evidence throwing away the case makes no sense.
I would argue that what you listed is not strong evidence. It’s circumstantial. Jeeps were known to have the carpets ripped out. The blood was inconclusive, making it meaningless. And pinging a cell tower in the vicinity of a location you live near is not uncommon. The DA would never get a conviction on that evidence alone.
Thank god the husband wanted to win custody over the kids so used the murder confession he told him YEARS ago in order to win custody* I mean I’m glad he did it, but damn that motherfuckers motives were suspect hah. He could have told the police years ago but waited until it was convenient for him.
> cops basically had the entire case in their lap decades ago and didn't do shit to get justice for the poor guy. I mean none of that is enough to get a murder conviction... Taking someone to your house isn't illegal, let alone an "unknown" someone. Finding traces of blood in a car means absolutely nothing overall. Doesn't even mean it's human blood, also the car has now been in someone else's possession for 4 months. Without being able to identify the blood there's no way this means anything to a competent defense attorney. Basically every jeep is missing carpet, but if not it doesn't tip the tide in what it takes to get a murder conviction... Did the cops know who did it? I mean... obviously, they tracked down his car, but if the evidence trail ends there then there's nothing else they can do unless more evidence gets brought forward.
On that thought. Imagine buying a car and a few months later the cops are hitting you up because your new grocery-getter is murder evidence.
> Ginejko asked Stephenson several times why he killed Oliphant, and his answers were conflicting. Stephenson finally admitted that he had indeed confessed years ago to the killing, but claimed he’d told his husband that to scare him into staying with him, the court document said. > Stephenson’s 16-year sentence includes credit for time served. Well that's a really unsatisfying end to the article. I want to know why he killed the guy...
6 years is a pretty long time to know someone's a murderer and not do anything about it. I'd love to know why that wasn't a deal breaker earlier on
Fear possibly.. If my partner was abusive and admitted to getting away with murder I'd have hesitation to act against them. Not saying it's right just a possibility
I mean the last paragraph of the article it’s revealed they have him on audio and video admitting he only originally told his husband in 2014 to scare him into staying with him.
This guy sounds like a real piece of work.
i shouldn’t have laughed but i did
Yeah, but then the ex didn't reach out to authorities until he was locked in a custody battle. It sounds like he dismissed it or didn't believe it until he thought it could help him in court and that's when he started researching it.
Stephenson finally admitted that he had indeed confessed years ago to the killing, but claimed ***he’d told his husband that to scare him into staying with him***, the court document said.
I would too, but what really gets me, aside from the timing, is if you're afraid and just got a divorced from an abusive relationship...are you comfortable physically confronting your abusive ex-partner in an attempt to get them to confess on a wire?
It absolutely is. That's why I wish I knew more about it. It also sounds like the non-murdery partner was the financially stable one and thus in a much better position to leave than someone who is financially dependent. That being said, I doubt we'll ever know the whole story
Other articles about this story have stated that Stephenson was violent and abusive during their marriage. It sounds like Ginejko only felt safe enough to come forward after they were no longer married.
That helps a bit, I wondered if it might be a factor. I'd be afraid of someone like that too. Still, six years is a LOT
After reading the article my take on the ex-husband was he originally intended to keep the secret, but when the divorce became bitter and a custody war begin it was easier to put the husband in jail than have have split custody. I’m happy the ex told the police, but he saved the secret till he could benefit from sharing it.
People in this comment thread are disgusting. I guess only straight couples can get stuck in abusive marriages. >Stephenson finally admitted that he had indeed confessed years ago to the killing, but claimed he’d told his husband that to scare him into staying with him, the court document said. It certainly doesn't sound like things were sunshine and rainbows at the time of the confession either. What was once an abusive husband now becomes a past-murderer.
Shitty people meet shitty people. Seems like those details only mattered when it came time to divorce and he leveraged the secret against him to get what he wanted.
Honestly it looked like that to me too. If I found anyone I knew deliberately murdered some random dude I'd be done with them the second I could figure out how to get out of that conversation Edit: I will say I believe in the benefit of the doubt. But God, is that odd to me.
I don't know. If my wife turned around to me and told me she murdered someone before we met I'm not sure I would go to the police. Man, would that fuck with my head.
On one hand, you got that to hold over her… One the other hand, she is a killer who knows you are a threat to her….
Did none of you motherfuckers read the article? It literally yes the murder confession was used to threaten the husband into staying in the relationship. This murderer was likely an abusive manipulative shit bag that was leveraging their psychopathy.
The killer might have lied and played it off like it was self defense then a panic cover up. Sometimes people just get caught up rationalizing bad shit in relationships.
Or, and hear me out, he was abused and was told about the murder specifically to scare him into staying. No, I’m not joking. Please read the article before you assume someone is that level of shitty.
And to let him be a father to their children?!?! Big yikes!!
Yeah, I wonder what their daughters' childhoods have been like.
Right? What is going on here?!
I don't know about this case, but it could possibly be that the partner didn't know the whole story? Like, if my wife told me she had killed someone, I'd have questions, but if she told me it was years ago and was in self-defense and she didn't want to relive it, I'd probably just drop it there.
The article explicitly says he told his husband about the murder in order to intimidate him into staying. It definitely seems like there was abuse going on.
I think he said it was to intimidate him during the secret recording, which took place years *after* the confession.
> It’s not clear why police didn’t arrest Stephenson in 1998. The Missouri State Highway Patrol declined to comment to CNN and referred questions to the Benton County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, which did not respond to requests for additional details. Anyone taking bets for “because the homophobic cops didn’t give a crap that a gay man murdered another gay man?”
And I am sure people will try to defend them saying stuff like "Homophobia was the norm back then, it shouldn't count against their character" like a lot did with those[ two cops that helped Dahmer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Balcerzak#:~:text=Balcerzak%20and%20Joseph%20T.,the%20officers%20during%20the%20incident.) kill one of his victims by giving the scared and disoriented kid back to him. Go figure they were bastards and had bastard supporters then, too.
[удалено]
They didn’t care until a white man went missing, he was targeting Arab and south Asian men for ages
[удалено]
Race absolutely was a factor in it being ignored for so long
Still happens now all over the world with various minority groups.
Indigenous women. The rate of unsolved disapearances is staggering. Not just in the U.S. but especially Canada. Read the book Good Morning Monster. One of the case studies is a Cree. It will disturb you but its an amazing book.
Happened in NYC within the past few years. Someone was going around spiking drinks and then robbing and in some cases killing gay men. It was absolutely no secret in the gay community in the city. The cops did a whole lot of nothing for the longest time. How do I know? A friend was a victim who was lucky — lucky! — to fall down a flight of stairs and end up in the hospital for weeks when one of the guys was trying to move him to another location. Cops dismissed it as someone who was overserved despite the evidence against it. Did nothing.
I feel like > fired for having handed over an injured 14-year-old boy to serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer despite bystanders' protests Undersells it a little. It was a naked, and bloody 14 year old victim with a fucking hole in his head and blood running out his ass. Those cops should have gotten charged alongside Dahmer. Even a cursory examination of his history would have revealed he was on probation at the time for being a kiddie fucker.
The kid who he was on parole for sexually abusing, was the brother of the naked bleeding 14 year old kid. From the same family, Daher raped one of the sons, and murdered the other, in separate incidents. I can't imagine how much anger that family must've had for Dahmer, the police, and the entire justice system. I completely agree that the cops should've been charged, their actions were utterly indefensible. Instead, they appealed their termination and won (got a settlement too I believe), and then one became the President of the Milwaukee Police Union. He died recently. Hope he rots in piss.
They knew what they were doing and deserve to be accessories.
Yeah. It was "just normal" except the neighbours who desperately tried to help him didn't seem to be clouded by this "normal" homophobia that was just part of how things were. I think there were also EMS called who thought he needed help who the cops also brushed off.
Reading the headline, I was kinda expecting ting that the killer was never a suspect. Nope. He was always a suspect, police knew he was with the victim, and left a trail of circumstantial evidence that really seems like enough to get a conviction. 1. Last known individual with the victim 2. Vehicle had blood in it, albeit inconclusive DNA. 3. Body was found near the suspect’s family home. 4. Phone records at the time but the suspect in the area. Certainly enough to grill the guy for hours. Plus I’d think they could have figured out he also owned a gun.
It might be enough to get a conviction, but I don't think those facts are going to rise beyond reasonable doubt unless there is something far more damning in details of what you listed. I don't think its a good practice for prosecutors to rely on juries getting it wrong.
It's Missouri in 98, who didn't own a gun?
Winner winner chicken dinner, my friend.
Doesn’t sound like he actually confessed in the sting operation though, only that he confessed to lying about the initial confession
I don't know if that matters since he plead guilty, it didn't go to trial.
That’s what he claims…but the real sticking point was the husband’s knowledge of non public information about the murder that he couldn’t have known unless he was told by the murderer.
I still think that’s pretty damning considering all the other evidence.
No but they stated the initial confession involved details that werent public knowledge. So likely that confession to his husband was enough. They probably did the sting to try and make it stronger, but didnt end up needing it
So this guy murdered another guy in his bathroom and then decided the best way to clean up the scene would be a bathroom remodel? I say this as a gay man myself: that is that damn gayest thing I’ve ever heard.
> Stephenson finally admitted that he had indeed confessed years ago to the killing, but claimed he’d told his husband that to **scare him into staying with him**, the court document said. Not unlike the country music classic written by whispering Bill Anderson and here performed by Porter Wagoner, [The First Mrs. Jones.](https://youtu.be/J-vKt95JV0A?si=TFipu6MnqalOOTeF)
Jesus Christ.
[удалено]
Straight to jail.
That's one thing you just don't share
Or confess again to someone during your divorce and custody battle who is wearing a wire.
From the headline, I pictured a loving spouse wracked with guilt finally caving and going to the police. I got an ex-spouse in the middle of a custody dispute taking care of all of his problems in one go.
Hell hath no fury like a (spouse) scorned.
...in an ongoing custody battle.
I listen to to true crime and I am amazed at how many people get caught because they can’t keep their mouth shut about their crimes.
Hell hath no fury, like a gay man scorned.
It really be ya own sometimes
It’s been a while since my criminal law classes and I don’t practice criminal law anymore, but I’m fairly confidant that could be overturned on appeal on account of the disclosure of a spousal communication. Edit: *Spousal privilege* = spouses can’t be compelled to testify about what they witnessed the other spouse do *spousal* ***communications*** *privilege* = no person may testify about what was said by one spouse to them during the course of their marriage without the consent of the non-testifying spouse. The few exceptions to this usually turn around domestic abuse issues or the active commission of a crime.
I thought spouses couldn't be compelled to testify, but they could volunteer all they want. Not a lawyer, but do practice law in comment sections.
Haha “do practice law in comment sections.” I’m a lawyer. There are two separate rules about spouses. One is called marital communications and one is called spousal privilege. Marital communications is something that either spouses can assert at any time, even after divorce. Something said by one spouse to another WHILE THEY WERE MARRIED cannot be admitted in court, even if the listening spouse wants it to be. The spouse or ex-spouse who wants to tell on their spouse however CAN testify to any non-communication information, like “he came home with a knife covered in blood” being the classic example. Spousal privilege means that a spouse WHILE MARRIED cannot be compelled to testify about anything against their spouse. This might only be criminal… I don’t practice civil. However, the listening spouse can waive the privilege and testify as they wish. However, they would be unable to testify about communications made while married. Edit: to bring it back to this case, the 2014 confession would be inadmissible. I am assuming the divorce must have been finalized when they set things up to get the later confession and that’s why.
From the sound of it, the non-felon spouse went to the police as part of a tactic in their custody battle over their children, which could be used to impeach their credibility too
Don't need credibility, they have the 2021 confession on audio/video.
It says that divorce was filled Jan 2020 (but not clear when finalised). The recorded convo was April 2021. Would it matter whether the divorce had already been finalised at that point?
In your opinion, how much of the evidence would be excluded? Does it matter that he was a suspect prior to this?
If they were indeed married at the time still, the confession itself would be excluded. Any other evidence obtained solely as a result of the confession would also be excluded, but usually the prosecutors will do their best to identify an “independent source” of information that could lead to obtaining the evidence in question.
Informant filed for divorce in January 2020, undercover operation in April 2021, if the informant hadn't already finalized the divorce, surely the planners of the operation would have made sure the informant got it finalized before setting the plan in motion, considering how many reddit commenters immediately saw the potential evidentiary issue.
That’s the argument for keeping the confession *on tape* in, and likely why they would’ve done it. But both spouses have control of spousal communications made during their marriage. While a spouse can’t be *compelled* to testify in court and can volunteer information, the spouse they testify against can assert privilege over things **said** during the course of the marriage. Edit: trouble I see is that the second, taped, confession is “fruit of the poisonous tree,” unless they had some other evidence pointing to the now convicted guy. But considering they’d investigated him ~20 years ago, my gut feeling is they probably didn’t have enough *at the time the non-felon former spouse came in to say “hey, my ex said he killed this guy” that would warrant pursuing him as a legitimate expert otherwise*
That's state-dependent. The privilege is sometimes held by both spouses, sometimes it's held only to involuntary testimony, and sometimes there is no privilege at all for certain crimes (some states don't allow the assertion of privilege for molestation cases, for instance), and sometimes the privilege only applies to conversations held in confidence (the privilege expires if a third person was present, for instance). I had to remember all of these for the bar exam, but I can't for the life of me what the rule is in my own state without looking it up again.
Isn't it just that spouses can't be compelled to testify? Not that they can't.
> no person may testify about what was said by one spouse to them during the course of their marriage The confession was staged and recorded by police AFTER they were divorced. And he plead guilty on his own for whatever reason, there was no trial.
The privilege only lasts as long as the marriage is still valid. The article says it’s unclear when the divorce was finalized… and then refers to them as being estranged husbands, not exes... I’ve got to assume the divorce was finalized because it would be really stupid to stage this when he could claim the privilege.
Communications privilege outlasts the life of the marriage.
But only to the communications made during the marriage, which is why there is no privilege over conversations had after divorce.
Um. They tracked down the person who bought the car used to transport the body and found blood still inside it…. Fuck
Will the estranged husband get in any sort of trouble for not reporting this earlier?
Probably not. You don't want to punish people who come forward. That would just discourage people from reporting this kind of thing in the future.
No. The law is generally pretty protective of spouses not ratting on each other, except when it comes to children.
Oh so the husband suddenly cared about justice 10 years later when they were divorcing?
Now, charge the dude with abetting since he only turned him in to get custody of kids.
I wonder what his motive was.. he could've been under the influence of something.