You are viewing this post: Cold Justice Linette Felts Update – Where Is Steven Felts Wife Turned Killer? The 158 New Answer
Are you looking for an answer to the topic “Cold Justice Linette Felts Update – Where Is Steven Felts Wife Turned Killer“? We answer all your questions at the website Bangkokbikethailandchallenge in category: https://bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com/digital-marketing. You will find the answer right below.
Keep Reading
Cold Justice: Linette Felts Update – Where d Steven Felt’s wife become a murderer?
Linette Felts is the prime suspect in the Steven Felts murder case. Also, Steven was a hard working man from Houston, Texas. Let’s learn more about the case in this article.
Linette Felts is the wife of the late Steven Felts. The case is still unsolved and needs to be reopened. In addition, Steven was a hardworking Texas family man. He was also shot dead in his own home in 1996.
The case is also still unsolved. Steven was a very responsible guy who was also well liked by the committee members. The case haunted many people in society as it was hard to believe.
Everyone was shocked to learn that he had been violently abused and murdered. And people were even more amazed to learn that his wife, Linette, was the prime suspect in the murder.
Steven Felts’ wife, Linette Felts, lives in Rosenberg, Texas. She is also the prime suspect in her husband’s murder. Despite this, there is still no indication of Mr. Felts’ death. Therefore, Linette is found not guilty of her spouse’s crime.
Also, the case is still ongoing and no conclusion has yet been reached due to the lack of evence supporting the murder. Despite many people, including his wife, Linette has become suspicious.
But due to brief reports and evence about it, none of the indivuals in the case have been charged and punished. On the other hand, Linette is a stylist and hairdresser by profession.
advertisement
In addition, Felts graduated from B.F. Terry High School. Likewise, Felts is sa to be single after her husband Steven. Additionally, there are also no reports of their current date/affair.
Where Is Steven Felts Wife-Killer?
Steven Felts’ wife, Linette Felts, is a professional stylist and hairdresser. She also lives in Rosenberg, Texas.
Also, after Steven’s death, Lenette is still single. Likewise, there are no details on her ancillary affairs.
@FBCDAO What is the status of the Steven Felts murder case? Does the previous civil court case affect the decision to prosecute?
— tw (@thomaswalk2449) August 8, 2021
Linette Felts Age And Daughters Details
Lenette Felts is 54 years old as of 2022. Also, she was born in 1967. For more information, we don’t know when she celebrates her birthday.
According to sources, Lenette was born into a mdle- family. Felts also has four children. Likewise, her older daughter, Ava Clark Felts, was only six years old when Steven died. The couple reportedly welcomed their older daughter in Texas, United States, in 1990.
Also, Ava has three other siblings, Randsom Clark, Ariel Clark, and Dylan Clark. Likewise, Ava is currently in her early 20s and pursuing her studies at a university in Texas.
Not to mention that Steven was 36 when he was brutally beaten and murdered. He was also shot three times in the back of the head.
Cold Justice 2020 Episode 36 Full HD
Images related to the topicCold Justice 2020 Episode 36 Full HD
See some more details on the topic Cold Justice Linette Felts Update – Where Is Steven Felts Wife Turned Killer here:
‘Cold Justice’ Team Helps With Steven Felts Murder Case
Steven’s wife, Linette, “told police she found her husband dead when she returned from a trip to a fast-food restaurant,” the Houston Chronicle …
Source: www.oxygen.com
Date Published: 9/19/2022
View: 2530
Nellie Johnson, Mona Felts, and Mary Cudd v. Linette Felts …
Linette Felts–Appeal from 268th District Court of Fort Bend County. … had wrongfully brought about the death of appellee s husband, Steven Felts.
Source: law.justia.com
Date Published: 11/6/2022
View: 1718
Cold Justice: Linette Felts Update – Where Is Steven Felts Wife …
Linette Felts is the prime suspect of Steven Felts’s murder case. Beses, Steven was a hardworking man based in Houston, Texas. Let’s explore more about.
Source: wiki.zio.org
Date Published: 9/27/2022
View: 388
Fort Bend successes spur cold-case hope – Chron
Steven Felts’ wife, Linette, told police she found her husband dead when she returned from a trip to a fast-food restaurant.
Source: www.chron.com
Date Published: 8/9/2022
View: 2325
‘Cold Justice’ Team Helps With Steven Felts Murder Case
Steven Felts, a hard-working Texas family man, was shot dead in his own home in 1996. His murder remains unsolved.
An exclusive look at the case of Candace Hiltz
Former prosecutor Kelly Siegler explains why she enjoys working on cold cases and with her team
Create a free profile to get unlimited access to exclusive videos, breaking news, contests and more!
In Rosenberg, Texas, Steven Felts, 36, was known as a loving family man who worked as a laboratory manager at a chemical company in nearby Houston. A proud and loving father, he was well-liked in the community.
It was all the more shocking when Steven Felts was brutally beaten and murdered. On October 15, 1996, he was found at home lying face down on his couch. He had been shot three times in the back of the head. Almost 25 years later, the case remains open.
In a recent episode of Cold Justice, which airs Saturdays at 8:7c on Oxygen, veteran prosecutor Kelly Siegler and homicide detective Steve Spingola head to Rosenberg to investigate the brutal murder of Steven Felts.
Working with them Lt. James Murray, Det. David Murray and Sgt. Suni Jugueta, who acknowledges there are many unknowns in this cold case: no DNA evidence, no murder weapon.
Steven’s wife Linette “told police she found her husband dead when she returned from a trip to a fast food restaurant,” the Houston Chronicle reported around the 10th anniversary of the murder. “The couple’s 6-year-old daughter slept in another room and was unharmed.”
Kelly meets with the victim’s family.
When Linette, a stay-at-home mom, called 911 around midnight to report the crime, she said her guns were stolen from a case at the home. These guns were found at a pawn shop in nearby Fort Bend County two months after the murder.
But the killer, who dragged Steven onto a couch and covered his head with a pillow before pulling the trigger three times, was never found.
Almost 25 years later, the case is still unsolved and police have questioned Linette’s story, particularly given evidence that her husband suspected she was cheating on him and secretly recorded her phone calls to confirm this.
Linette’s recorded conversations with other men known to authorities at the 1996 investigation suggest that there were troubles in the Felts’ marriage. Linette, they learned, disappeared for days.
For more personal background on the case, the Cold Justice team meets with the victim’s sister, Mona Felts, who fought for justice for her brother for years.
Investigators are considering Steven’s $300,000 life insurance policy, which Linette was queuing for, as a possible motive for the murder. They also consider two prominent men in Linette’s life: Alfred Hinton, who is 30 years Linette’s senior, can be heard in a recorded phone conversation with her, and Stacy “Big Boy” Booker, now deceased, who worked for Hinton and was the person who pawned the guns of Felts. In 1996, Booker claimed that Linette gave him the guns, but she denied it.
Siegler considers various scenarios as to how the three could have committed the crime independently or together.
Before speaking to suspects, the team reviews physical evidence. Ballistics expert Chris Robinson identifies the gun that killed Steven as an H&R Harrington revolver. “This weapon is neither rare nor expensive,” says Spingola.
Forensic pathologist Kathryn Pinneri, M.D. reviews crime scene photos of Steven’s wounds, including the gunshot, blunt force trauma to the back of his head, and bruises to his arms. Pinneri’s observations raise further questions: Was Steven beaten to subdue him? Or was the crime personal?
Sallowness – discoloration of the skin after death – in crime scene photos, Pinneri shows Steven has been dead for three hours. This contradicts Linette’s claim that her husband was alive when she ran off to pick up hamburgers and was dead when she returned home about 45 minutes later.
The fact that Linette did not immediately check on her husband, as she explained in her 1996 interview with the police, casts doubt on her version of events. “A lot of Linette’s story doesn’t make sense,” says Siegler.
To shed light on the couple’s marriage, investigators are speaking to colleagues, relatives and friends. Mark Sample, Steven’s supervisor, had a vague recollection of Steven suspecting his wife of cheating on her. Linette’s friends also confirm to the team that the marriage was shaky and that Steven was the source of his wife’s financial support.
Days before his death, Steven had transferred a large sum of money from a joint account to his personal account. Linette claimed this was for tax reasons.
Bill Wilder, the Felts family attorney, recalls speaking to the victim about a divorce and claims Steven thought his wife was dangerous.
“A few months later he was murdered,” Wilder tells Cold Justice investigators.
Investigators are also focusing on another taped conversation. In it, Steven expressed his fear of being shot by his wife with his missing pistol. “My wife has a gun,” Felts said. “That’s what scares me.”
Sample confirms that his voice is the other one heard on the recording, making the tape admissible evidence.
Furman and Spingola talk to one of Booker’s friends. He says Booker asked him to borrow a gun because he had “some business to attend to.” Siegler and Juguetan also interview Hinton, who denies having had a sexual relationship with Linette. Hinton also denies having anything to do with Felts’ murder.
Furman and Spingola confront Linette with evidence about the money transfer, her questionable story about the crime, the phone call her husband expressed his fear for her, and Booker’s pledging of the guns. She eventually ends the call and says she needs to speak to her attorney.
The lawyer tells her not to say another word.
After examining all the evidence, the team clears Hinton as a suspect. Although Booker is deceased, he remains a suspect who can never be charged. Circumstances pointing to Linette, they believe.
The results of the investigation will be presented to Fort Bend County prosecutors, who agree there is sufficient evidence to move the case forward.
Though it’s being delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Fort Bend County Attorney’s Office is still actively preparing this case for presentation before a grand jury, according to Cold Justice.
“There’s no happy ending,” Mona Felts tells the producers. “That opportunity ended in [my brother’s] life.”
For more on this case, watch Cold Justice, which airs Saturdays at 8/7c on Oxygen. More episodes can be found here.
Nellie Johnson, Mona Felts, and Mary Cudd v. Linette Felts–Appeal from 268th District Court of Fort Bend County
Confirmed and Opinion Filed on _____________, 2003
Partially confirmed; Partially overturned and remanded in custody; and Opinion filed March 2, 2004.
In which
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-03-00112 CV
____________
NELLIE JOHNSON, MONA FELTS AND MARY CUDD, Appellants
v.
LINETTE FILZ, respondent
On appeal from the 268th Circuit Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Court Case No. 104,744
OPINION
Appellants Nellie Johnson, Mona Felts and Mary Cudd are appealing two summary judgments issued by the trial court. The first order, dated September 6, 2001, originally granted summary judgment to applicant Linette Felts with respect to all of the claims of applicants Johnson, Felts and Cudd. On November 13, 2001, the first order was amended to set aside summary judgment against applicant Cudd. However, the second order of August 13, 2002 again granted the applicant summary judgment for all of the claims brought by applicant Cudd. We overturn the first order and remanded her for trial, but upheld the second order.
background
Applicants Johnson and Felts originally brought charges against the applicant and her alleged boyfriend, Stacy Booker, alleging that the defendants wrongfully caused the death of the applicant’s husband, Steven Felts. Neither the complainant nor Booker were ever charged in connection with his death. The appellant was identified as the beneficiary of her husband’s life insurance earnings, retirement benefits and investment accounts.
The applicants sought a declaratory judgment, wrongful death damages, the imposition of a constructive trust on all assets inherited from the applicant and the forfeiture of her share of the life insurance proceeds.[1] The applicant Cudd intervened in the action as legal guardian for the applicant’s daughter, Lynnlee Felts, and brought the same three claims plus an action for negligence[2] against the defendants. The Connecticut General Life Insurance Company intervened and filed an interim lawsuit, depositing the proceeds of the life insurance policy held by Steven Felts on the register of the court case.
The two preliminary summary judgments were finalized for purposes of this appeal by orders of the trial court dated November 12, 2002 and December 19, 2002. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001). The first-mentioned order granted the plaintiffs non-claims against defendant Booker. The latter upheld Connecticut General Life Insurance Company’s interpleader claim and dismissed it as a party. The complainants now raise six allegations.
Issues Submitted for Review
In their first four questions, the applicants argue that the trial court erred in granting the first summary judgment[3] which dismissed all of the claims made by applicants Johnson and Felts against the applicant. They allege: (1) the applicant failed to fulfill its burden of proof for a conventional summary judgment, (2) the applicant’s request for non-evidence for a summary judgment was legally insufficient, (3) the applicant has its burden of proof in response to the denial borne by the complainant. claim of evidence, and (4) the trial court erred in granting more relief in summary judgment than was sought by the appellant. In their fifth and sixth questions, the appellants argue that the trial court erred in issuing the second summary judgment dismissing all of appellant Cudd’s claims against the appellant. They allege: (5) the applicant’s motion for non-evidence for summary judgment was legally inadequate; and (6) the trial court erred in granting the applicant’s second motion for non-evidence for summary judgment.
waiver
First, the applicant submits that the applicant was not mistaken in relation to her second and fifth questions, since in her replies the applicant did not dispute the legal sufficiency of her requests for summary judgment without evidence. A defendant may challenge the sufficiency of a motion for non-evidence for the first time on appeal. See McConnell v Southside Indep. sh Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 342 (Tex. 1993) (applying the rule to requests for traditional summary judgments); Cuyler v. Minns, 60 S.W.3d 209, 213 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (application of McConnell to non-evidence request); Crocker v. Paulyne’s Nursing Home, Inc., 95 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex. App. Dallas 2002, no pet.); Callaghan Ranch, Ltd. v. Killam, 53 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2000, pet. denied). But see Walton v. City of Midland, 24 S.W.3d 853, 857-58 (Tex. App. El Paso 2000, no pet.); Williams v. Bank One, Texas, N.A., 15 S.W.3d 110, 117 (Tex. App. Waco 1999, no pet.); Roth v. FFP Operating Partners, L.P., 994 S.W.2d 190, 194-95 (Tex. App. Amarillo 1999, pet. denied). Therefore, the applicant’s failure to object in its replies to the applicant’s claims of legal inadequacy did not waive its second and fifth questions before this court.
Traditional summary judgment
In their first question, the applicants argue that the traditional summary judgment is inappropriate because the applicant failed to meet its burden of proof. In order to enforce a traditional summary judgment request, an applicant must demonstrate that they are entitled to a judgment on legal grounds because there is no real issue as to a substantive matter. Tex.R.Civ. p. 166a(c). A defendant who either definitively disagrees with at least one essential element of each plaintiff’s cause of action or who conclusively states all elements of an affirmative defense is entitled to summary judgment. cathey v Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Tex. 1995). In order to definitively negate at least one of the required elements, the motion must identify or address the cause of action or defense and its elements. See Black v Victoria Lloyds Ins. Co., 797 S.W.2d 20, 27 (Tex. 1990).
In the present case, the appellant, in her first motion for summary judgment, stated that she did not murder her husband and compared the civil pleas to the crime of murder. She also filed a final objection to the wrongful death claim, claiming that she was entitled to summary judgment on all claims made against her. Therefore, since the complainant has not identified the elements of the various pleas in law raised by the complainants and has not addressed specific elements thereof, we consider the traditional summary judgment to be inadequate and support the complainant in the first place.
The first no-evidence application
In their second question, the applicants argue that the applicant’s first request for non-evidence is not legally sufficient to entitle it to summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment without evidence must identify the specific elements for which there is no evidence. Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, PC, 73 S.W.3d 193, 207 (Tex. 2002). An appellate court cannot read between the lines, infer or infer from the briefs or establish grounds for summary judgment other than the grounds expressly set forth before the trial court in the application. McConnell, 858 SW2d at 343.
Again, the applicant failed to identify or address specific elements of one of the applicant’s pleas in its initial summary judgment motion. We therefore consider that the applicant’s first claim lacking evidence for summary judgment is insufficient from a legal point of view and support the applicant’s second point. Because we have determined that the trial court erred in issuing the first summary judgment, whether it was a traditional judgment or a judgment without evidence, we must set aside that order and remand it for trial. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider the complainant’s third and fourth points.
The second no-evidence application
In their fifth question, the applicants argue that the applicant’s second request for non-evidence is not legally sufficient to entitle it to summary judgment. Applying the same standards as noted above, we find that the appellant’s second non-evidence request is legally sufficient. See Johnson, 73 S.W.3d at 207; McConnell, 858 S.W.2d at 343. Unlike her first motion, the applicant’s second non-evidence motion identifies and addresses specific elements of the applicant’s pleas in law. The applicant submits in its application that there is no evidence of causality, which is identified as an element common to all causes put forward by the applicants. Because she complied with Rule 166a(i) of the Texas Code of Civil Procedure and filed a legally sufficient motion with no evidence for summary judgment, we overrule the applicant’s fifth count.
In their sixth question, the appellants argue that the trial court erred in granting the appellant’s second request for refusal of evidence for summary judgment. In order to deny a no-evidence motion, a defendant need not compile their evidence, but only point to evidence that raises a question of fact about the contested elements. Johnson, 73 S.W.3d at 207. We consider all evidence in the light of what is most favorable to the party against whom the application is made and ignore all evidence and conclusions to the contrary. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706, 711 (Tex. 1997), cert. denied, 523 US 1119 (1997).
Circumstantial evidence can be used to establish any material fact, but it must go beyond mere suspicion. Lozano v. Lozano, 52 S.W.3d 141, 149 (Tex. 2001). The material fact must be reasonably inferred from known circumstances. ID. Any circumstantial evidence is not isolated but must be viewed in the light of all known circumstances. ID. Based on these principles, the applicant argues that the following evidence raises a question of fact as to whether the applicant caused her husband’s death either as a key actor or as an accomplice.[4]
In response to questions from Houston Police Department Detective Brad Rollins, the applicant denied that she had any marital problems immediately prior to her husband Steven Felts’ death. But the appellant later admitted that she and her late husband had considered divorce proceedings in May 1996. She also admitted the couple had considered seeing a marriage counselor. The records even show that the couple considered whether some time apart might help their relationship.
That the applicant and her late husband had marital problems shortly before the murder was further evidenced by other facts. First, the evidence shows that the applicant’s husband, upon learning that the applicant had been spending time with her friend Portia Bell over the weekend before his death, locked the applicant out of the house the day before his death. Second, her husband maintained a separate personal bank account and on the day of his murder transferred a large sum of money from their joint account at Nations Bank to his separate account at Norwest. There is evidence that her husband did this specifically because he didn’t want her to have access to it.
Furthermore, although the applicant denies that she ever participated in extramarital affairs, the evidence shows otherwise. Apparently Steven Felts knew his wife was involved in at least two affairs, one with a Spaniard in Rosenberg and one with a truck driver in Houston (believed to be Alfred Hinton). In addition, the applicant admitted to having had an affair with Clyde Gibbens in 1994 and with Hinton some time after her husband’s death. The file also tends to establish the existence of an affair between the respondent and Hinton shortly before her husband’s death. In another taped interview, the respondent was asked by an unidentified man about her boyfriend, and the respondent did not object to the use of that term.
The evidence also shows that the applicant misled the police as to the presence of weapons in her home. The applicant first alleged that she went through the door and saw her husband’s body, then looked at the gun cabinet and found that most of the guns were gone. When confronted with the fact that the guns cannot be seen from the doorway, the respondent recanted and then claimed that she walked the full length of the couch before discovering the guns were missing. She initially claimed that six firearms were stolen from the gun cabinet, but later changed that answer to say that there were originally five firearms in the cabinet, four of which were stolen. The applicant also initially informed police that her .38 caliber pistol was located at her father’s home in Victoria. But she later claimed that instead of leaving the gun there, she lent it to Stacy Booker. Finally, the respondent hid from police the presence of firearms in the attic above the garage.
The applicant’s account of the events leading up to her husband’s death also contained numerous inconsistencies and instances in which she changed her story. For example, she stated that two weekends before her husband’s death, she traveled to Louisiana to play and spent the weekend alone. However, in a recorded conversation, she told a friend that she actually didn’t go gambling alone during that time. More importantly, her timeline of events changed frequently as the police investigation progressed. The complainant initially told police that she went to Wal-Mart at around 9:00 p.m., returned home at around 10:00 p.m., could not remember what happened between 10:00 p.m. and 11:15 p.m., and then was Went to get hamburgers at 11:15 p.m. She later told Detective Rollins she went to Wal-Mart around 8:30 p.m., returned home at 9:30 p.m., and then left sometime between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. pick up the burgers. During testimony, she changed her story again, claiming that she went to Wal-Mart around 8:30 p.m., returned home, then left at 9:30 p.m. to get the burgers, and finally after at 11:50 p.m Returning home initially claimed her husband sent her to Whataburger to pick up hamburgers, but she later changed her story when confronted with autopsy evidence that his stomach had been full at the time of death, having already been eating bologna sandwiches at home had eaten. Therefore, the numerous inconsistencies in the Respondent’s versions of events led to the police being misled as to the timing and sequence of events on the night of her husband’s death.
Detective Rollins of the Rosenberg Police Department testified under oath that he believes the respondent willfully caused her husband’s death.[5]
While the aggregate of the applicant’s extensive testimonies may constitute evidence that an unlawful act had been committed, ultimately not a shred of evidence of causality was presented even if we disregard all of the applicant’s evidentiary objections. See Lozano, 52 S.W.3d at 149. Any conclusion that the applicant caused her husband’s death would be based on nothing but mere possibility, speculation and conjecture. See Havner, 953 S.W.2d at 712. The circumstantial evidence is so scant that any conclusion that the applicant caused her husband’s death is purely conjectural. See Lozano, 52 S.W.3d at 148. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting the appellant’s second motion for judgment without evidence. We overrule the complainant’s sixth point.
Conclusion
We affirm the trial court’s second-order summary judgment in favor of appellant with respect to all of appellant Cudd’s claims. We’ll cancel and reinstate the first grant
summary judgment in favor of the applicant over all claims by applicants Johnson and Felts for further proceedings.
/s/ Adele Hedges
Chief Justice
Judgment rendered and Opinion filed March 2, 2004.
The panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Guzman.
[1] Appellants Johnson and Felts allege that the amended brief they filed with applicant Cudd, which contained their negligence, was duly dealt with in the trial court. We do not agree. If the trial court does not allow the filing of an amended brief, that court will only presume that the trial court granted leave to file motions if, among other things, the records do not indicate that the trial court failed to take it into account. See Goswami vs. Metro. savings. & Loan Ass n, 751 S.W.2d 487, 490 (Tex. 1988). In the present case, it is clear from the minutes that the amended pleading was not taken into account. Therefore, the amended brief containing her negligence claim was improper in trial. [2] We believe, but do not decide, that since applicant Cudd’s negligence claim was dealt with in the applicant’s second summary judgment motion, it was properly dealt with in the trial court. [3] The court of first instance did not state on what grounds the application was granted. The applicant’s first request combined both traditional and non-evidence claims for summary judgment. [4] We note that, while the applicant objects to the admissibility of much of the evidence set out below, she was unable to obtain a decision on those objections and therefore refrained from doing so before this court. See Miga v. Jensen, 96 S.W.3d 207, 212-13 (Tex. 2002). [5] However, the mere opinion of an expert is not sufficient to support such a finding; rather, the content of the certificate must be taken into account. Havner, 953 SW2d at 711.Fort Bend successes spur cold-case hope
MISSOURI CITY — After Fort Bend County police departments solved two unsolved homicides in the past two months, Mona Felts is feeling optimistic again that the cold case involving her brother can be cracked.
Steven Felts, 36, was shot three times in the back of the head on October 15, 1996 at his Rosenberg home.
Mona Felts said she knows the case will be difficult to solve after almost 10 years, but hopes that one day someone with the crucial information will come forward.
“I will never give up hope for justice,” she said.
Police say two recent cases show why detectives stay with an investigation for years, relaying extensive murder reports to each succeeding generation of investigators and staying in touch with victims’ families.
Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Detectives last month obtained a confession from Steve Carrington, 31, charging him with the 1998 murder of Corey Brooks, 21, whose body was never found.
Police say Carrington also confessed to murdering his 12-year-old stepdaughter Teketria Buggs last month, whose body was found in the Brazos River. Carrington has yet to be charged in this case.
And in November, a Rosenberg case that had been unsolved for more than two decades was closed. Police said former councilman Ronald Swallers, 66, committed suicide after failing a lie detector test in connection with the 1983 death of his sister-in-law Penny Swallers. Detectives said they were on the verge of pressing charges when Swallers took his life.
“A new set of eyes looking at the case can certainly give you a new angle to see if you’ve missed something. Technology changes, procedural issues change, new tactics emerge, and if you apply those to an old case, you’ll be able to solve it,” said Missouri City Police Chief Ron Echols.
Mona Felts is still haunted by her brother’s murder. “It was excruciatingly painful,” New York resident Felts said in a phone interview. “Hardly a day goes by that I don’t cry.”
Steven Felts’ wife, Linette, told police she found her husband dead when she returned from a trip to a fast-food restaurant. The couple’s 6-year-old daughter slept in another room and was unharmed.
Police said guns that belonged to Felts and were stolen at the time of his murder were found in pawn shops in the Wharton area, southwest of Fort Bend County.
Mona Felts has offered a $50,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in the death of her brother, who worked as a lab manager for a chemical company.
Lt. Margaret Hedden of Rosenberg Police said there had been no developments on the Felts’ murders, but that detectives would be investigating, as is routinely done in all cold cases.
“Sometimes people who didn’t want to talk to us then are willing to talk to us now,” she said.
For example, police say the trigger for solving the disappearance of Corey Brooks was the Teketria Buggs case.
When Teketria was reported missing last month, tips and calls about the Brooks case suddenly began to pour in.
Aside from the daily agony for victims’ families and friends, law enforcement officials like Echols have a personal interest in some unsolved cases.
He was a detective on the night of April 17, 1990 when he was dispatched to a home on the 1400 block of Whispering Pines in Missouri City. “There are things I will always remember. I can vividly remember what the kitchen looked like,” Echols said.
In the kitchen, a bleeding Kim Wildman, 38, grabbed a phone around 11:45 p.m. and called 911.
Her last words were a brief description of her attacker and a cry for help. Living alone, Wildman was attacked at her home by an intruder who sexually assaulted her and then stabbed her numerous times as she struggled for her life in several rooms of the two-story home.
“She really fought back,” said Andi Wiltse, a Missouri City police detective who is now handling the case.
Wildman was barely alive when officers arrived. She was taken to Memorial Hermann Hospital by Life Flight Helicopter, where she died.
Wiltse said police found DNA from the killer, which was entered into a national computer database called the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS).
Each time a new sample is entered into the database, the computer compares it to all the old cases. The computer found no match for the sample in the Wildman case.
Wiltse said the man entered the house through a window and likely attacked Wildman while she was sleeping.
Investigators checked other police departments for possible links to other cases, but found nothing.
Investigators also spoke to colleagues, friends and relatives, but no leads emerged.
“We don’t know why she was attacked,” Wiltse said.
At least two suspects have been cleared by DNA evidence, Wiltse said.
“In one case you often think you know who did it and you just wait for them to make the wrong move so you can catch them. We don’t have that in this case,” she said.
No weapon was found and police were unable to determine if anything was stolen from the home.
In other cold cases, police sometimes have a suspect but cannot provide the evidence needed to prosecute.
Wiltse said she would like to solve the case while Wildman’s elderly parents, who live in Illinois, are alive.
“People in law enforcement really don’t forget and we really don’t stop looking,” she said.
Anyone with information regarding the deaths of Felts or Wildman is encouraged to call Fort Bend County Crime Stoppers at 281-342-TIPS (8477).
Chronicle correspondent Thayer Evans contributed to this story.
Related searches to Cold Justice Linette Felts Update – Where Is Steven Felts Wife Turned Killer
Information related to the topic Cold Justice Linette Felts Update – Where Is Steven Felts Wife Turned Killer
Here are the search results of the thread Cold Justice Linette Felts Update – Where Is Steven Felts Wife Turned Killer from Bing. You can read more if you want.
You have just come across an article on the topic Cold Justice Linette Felts Update – Where Is Steven Felts Wife Turned Killer. If you found this article useful, please share it. Thank you very much.
Articles compiled by Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com. See more articles in category: DIGITAL MARKETING