We worried about that because we basically had no eyewitness and no confession, no admission, no proof of a solid motive.
Basically, we had DNA on a beer can.
I'm Scott Weinberger, investigative journalist and former deputy sheriff.
I'm Anastasia Nicolazzi, former New York City homicide prosecutor and host of Investigation.
Discovery's True Conviction.
And this is Anatomy of Murmur.
A lot of us probably have an idea of how we'd like to spend our golden years.
Maybe near a beach somewhere, traveling the world, or tapping away at our memoirs.
And if we're lucky, doing it side by side with the ones we love.
But of course, no matter how hard we work or how big we dream, not all of us are that lucky.
Leo Beauregard was a World War II veteran and a successful businessman who, along with his wife Noella, had moved from Massachusetts to South Florida back in 1972 to enjoy a semi-retirement in the sun.
Leo and his wife settled on Singer Island just north of Palm Beach, happy to put those New England winters behind them for good.
But when Noella passed away in 1980, Leo suddenly found himself living alone.
Ten years later, Leo had moved to a nearby condo in North Palm Beach and he also had tried to move on with his life, making new friends who were up for the kind of trips that he had always planned to take with his late wife.
And in June of 1990, Leo had planned one such trip to go visit extended family up north.
Well, that morning Leo Beauregard was scheduled to go on a road trip to the Northeast with a good friend of his.
And when the friend arrived to pick him up, he wasn't answering the door, wasn't responding.
That's the voice of then-county prosecutor Aletha McRoberts, a native of Palm Beach County and a veteran of over 300 homicide trials during her 40-year career.
Leo was 68 years old and lived alone, so when he didn't answer the door, his friends were understandably concerned.
So he did what anyone would do.
He called 911 and requested paramedics do a welfare check.
And, as you can imagine, it's not uncommon, especially in communities like these with high numbers of retirees, for paramedics to have to make these kinds of calls.
But this time when they gained access to the apartment, they were shocked by what they discovered.
When they entered the apartment, Mr. Beauregard was seated in a club-style chair.
He had no shirt on.
He had one of his customary drinks that he would have been having the evening before, like a scotch and soda in a highball glass.
But when paramedics got a little closer they realized that Leo had not dozed off or died peacefully in his favorite chair.
He was covered in blood.
He had suffered a very serious, deep stab wound to the right side of the neck.
So there was a lot of blood spatter in the area and on the walls and the lamp and the table next to him.
Their paramedics noted that the blood was not just all over, it was also dark in color and had dried in places, indicating that Leo had likely been dead for at least several hours.
As deputies from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office arrived, they began to make careful observations of the apartment to try to understand what had happened.
And one of the first things they noted was there was no knife or other weapon by Leo's side which seemed to rule out the possibility of death by suicide.
It was clear that he had been stabbed, not expecting it.
He was seated very relaxed in his chair.
But if Leo had in fact been the victim of a homicide, these visual clues indicated there was a good chance that he had never even seen it coming.
The apartment wasn't disturbed.
It was quite clear that there hadn't been a struggle and that he had been caught off guard, maybe from behind.
It appeared that Leo had been attacked with no warning, stabbed fatally, and left alone to die.
But the question was, why?
As detectives began to process the crime scene, they began to observe some telling signs of a potential motive.
There were a couple of drawers open.
There were a couple of items of jewelry missing.
In fact, there was an expensive watch and a ring that he would always wear that were gone.
You can actually see the void on his wrist where the watch would have been.
Leo Beauregard had served his country in the war, raised a family and had retired to a modest place with a view of the ocean, only to be killed for a watch and a ring.
But if robbery really was the motive behind this brutal murder, there were also clear signs that it wasn't the work of a total stranger.
There was no forced entry at all, which led them to start to speculate was this somebody that knew him?
Was it somebody that he had invited in or that he had expected to come over?
And just think about how they found the victim's body.
Not only would Leo have likely opened the door, he had then returned to his chair, maybe even made himself a drink that was sitting next to him.
In other words, he had no reason to ever expect that he was in mortal danger.
It was clear that somebody had been there with him.
And that would be consistent and corroborate the fact that there was no forced entry.
So this was clearly somebody that was there, that knew him, that was comfortable to be there.
But whoever it was, left very few clues to their identity and very little physical evidence for investigators to work with.
And there was an attempt of somebody to have cleaned up in the master bathroom.
There was some blood around the sink.
We didn't ever find the murder weapon, but of course, it was a fully stocked apartment.
There were other knives there.
So they did collect knives, but they were never able to affirm that any one of them was a murder weapon.
But as they carefully processed the scene, investigators did zero in on one piece of potential evidence that could prove crucial in determining both the psychology and the identity of Leo's killer.
The surface of the glass table next to Leo's body had a very large amount of blood spatter on it.
Blood also covered his drinking glass, a glass ornament and the lamp, which is not atypical with a neck wound of this kind.
At the autopsy it became quite clear that he had suffered a fatal wound, a deep stab wound to the right side of the neck, which severed the carotid artery which would account for all of the active blood spatter.
That actually goes quite some distance when the carotid artery is cut open like that.
But even with all that blood spatter, investigators noted that there was one item on the table that had no blood on it whatsoever an empty beer can.
Because there was no blood on it and there was actually blood all around.
Clearly, that beer can got put down.
After Leo was stabbed in the neck.
So, Anastasia, I see this as just a great observation.
You know there is a definite method in approaching a crime scene and much of it comes, as you know, with experience noting the obvious, the killer's method of entry and exit, spotting items that should be collected, forensic testing.
And then there's that moment that you step back and you ask yourself what about?
This scene doesn't make sense.
And I think this is one of those moments.
But here's something else.
It's not always noticed right away, right?
I always look at this as the beauty of investigations.
You photograph everything, you document it, you collect it and then later on see how the pieces fit.
But yes, exactly kind of like to what you're saying, Scott.
If there's no signs of forced entry, and now you have this beer, can?
There's really two possibilities.
One, that Leo knew his attacker and let him in.
Or there is something deeper and more devious, but that someone who took his time after the murder to kind of – drink a beer along with whatever else and then left it behind.
So just hearing you say that Anasig, it makes me think about what a frightening picture this paints.
I mean, you have your killer who stabs the victim and then just stays around while the victim may be taking his last breath to drink a beer.
And we know that there was some cleanup effort in the bathroom.
We talked amongst ourselves about, well, this is pretty cold-blooded.
You know, you do this.
Then he was thirsty and popped a beer and figured I better wash up a little bit and maybe see what there is to take.
Detectives carefully collected what evidence they could, including Leo's drinking glass, any knives that they found in the house and, of course, that empty beer can.
They also collected his day timer and his little calendar with his appointments, his contact information addresses, etc.
There was a towel from the bathroom sink that had been used when somebody was apparently washing up after this.
They used a towel there and left it behind.
They processed the doors and the windows for lateness.
And they actually had the foresight to do swabs for the potential of DNA.
And that fact is interesting because in 1990 collecting DNA evidence was not commonplace at homicide crime scenes.
When you think about 1990, forensic evidence was not what it is today.
I have to give them a lot of credit for forward thinking.
In 1990 they thought ahead and actually collected things that They didn't know whether or not eventually, someday it might lead to something or not.
And then investigators turned to the neighbors in search of anyone that might have seen something or heard anything in the early hours of the morning, when police believed that Leo had likely been killed.
One neighbor described a younger gentleman that had been seen entering or exiting from the front door.
And they actually did a composite drawing of that individual there.
And we're trying to use that to see if anybody, you know, recognized the person.
Other than that there was not really any report of noises or struggle or yelling or outbursts or anything like that.
So let's talk about this.
Nobody saw or heard any commotion or anything out of the ordinary.
But according to the neighbors, he did get a visitor, which was apparently not uncommon for Leo.
Even as a widower, he maintained many friendships.
And according to those neighbors, frequently entertained guests in his apartment.
He'd been living there for quite a while by himself.
And interestingly enough, I think he began to seek the relationship of young men.
And he didn't really date any particular person.
But he'd gone on a couple of cruises and had some devoted friends, like the friend that was going to come that morning.
They were going to drive up north together.
They were close friends and had been friends for quite some time.
The friend who Leo was traveling with was obviously questioned by police at the scene, but he was never considered a suspect.
But he was able to provide police with a little more insight into Leo's personal life, his personality and his state of mind at the time of his death.
He said Leo was pretty fastidious.
He would be on time, he would be prepared and packed, and that was true.
His suitcase was packed on the bed and the apartment was clean.
In other words, leo was packed and ready for his trip, with no indication that he was expecting any sudden change to his plan or suspected that he was in danger of any kind.
He went on to describe leo as a generous friend who was reliable and trustworthy.
Not the kind of person who had enemies or was tangled up with someone capable of this kind of violence.
But with the stream of visitors to his apartment, police knew that it was not out of the realm of possibility that one of those people saw Leo not as a friend but as a target.
In 1990 in Palm Beach County Florida, 68-year-old Leo Beauregard, a veteran and widower, was found brutally murdered in his apartment.
With few leads, police had their work cut out for them.
They did extensive work following up with interviewing the people that had been known to be regular visitors with him.
And Mr Beauregard, it was reported would have fairly regular visitors that were young men that would be seen coming and going.
And they were able to discover the identities of at least a couple of them.
And they actually interviewed two or three of them.
To a person.
They all basically reported that he was just a friend, that he would give them a lot of money.
He would take them on trips.
They'd go to the Bahamas and he'd give them a little money to gamble with.
And of course we don't want to jump to any conclusions about whether these relationships were platonic friendships or otherwise.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter.
But the fact that there was money involved does raise the specter of motive.
And Leo had some money.
He lived alone.
He was surely entitled to be generous with his friends.
But as an investigator, this would tingle my senses just a bit.
Because the truth is that sometimes loneliness can make people vulnerable.
In fact, it often does, whether it's to online scams, false romances or even just freeloading friends.
So for the investigators, of course they're going to want to talk to some of these young friends of Leo's and start collecting alibis, if they have them.
So there were extensive interviews with those young men, asking them about when was the last time they'd been there, etc.
And really all of those interviews didn't lead to anything.
But that doesn't mean those interviews weren't valuable, even just to lock those witnesses into their statements which, as we know, can pay dividends down the road.
Those interviews were now set in stone so that later, should something come up, all of the subject matters had been touched upon.
So somebody would have a difficult time changing their story.
Obviously, investigators were already thinking and likely preparing for the long haul.
With no witnesses, no murder weapon, no fingerprints and, so far, no solid suspects, there was very little to suggest that this case would be solved anytime soon.
But they were certain of one thing the fact that Leo's killer was most likely someone he knew well enough to invite inside and trusted enough to be utterly surprised by his sudden and vicious attack.
And considering how organized and fastidious Leo was in life, investigators thought there might be a clue to who that person was somewhere in Leo's daily calendar.
They looked at his day timer and the calendar that were there.
They collected it, but they also looked at it to see did he have an appointment to meet with somebody?
Was there any notations of a disagreement that he was having with anybody, or places he'd been or plans to go?
They followed up with just about anything and everything they could find in that day timer and in the days before and after to see what kind of notations he had made, to see whether or not anything stood out an upcoming appointment or a scribbled phone number.
Murders have been solved with far less.
But in the days and weeks leading up to Leo's murder there really was nothing particularly suspicious.
Every name, date, and address was accounted for.
But then they came across an entry from the previous calendar year.
On June 26th of 89, which was the previous calendar year, we had that whole before and after thing calendars and it said mark's birthday.
It didn't really mean anything at the time when we first saw it, but you know we wondered who mark was.
A handwritten note accompanying the entry listed what appeared to be a partial phone number, but with no more information.
This mark remained a mystery.
As we mentioned, Leo's wife had passed away 10 years before, but he still had surviving family.
His adult children were particularly devastated and in disbelief that, after all his hard work and his accomplishments, this was how their father's life would end.
Leo was living a quiet retiree's life in a safe community.
They were at a total loss as to what could have happened or what type of person their dad could have crossed paths with that would have put his life in this danger.
And as the case went cold, you can imagine their desperation in the need for answers, a desperation which could help explain what happened next.
In 1991 when the case went cold.
Basically It was a thing in law enforcement across the country, even like with the feds, to occasionally, when you're at a dead end, to employ the use of a psychic.
And there was a psychic in North Florida that was well-known and she had spoken at a law enforcement seminar.
And the detective Paul Dean from North Palm, struck up a conversation with her and And look, some believe in the supernatural and some don't.
Law enforcement certainly tends not to, and mediums are rarely used, at least officially.
But I think it's fair to say that here they're just trying to think outside of the box.
You know, there was nothing else working.
So I really just think it came down to, hey, let's give this a shot.
Leo's family encouraged it.
Because it really was a thing.
That psychic agreed to view a bit of evidence.
They took that Bush beer can and put it in a bag and mailed it to her.
So, yes, you don't need to rewind this portion of the podcast.
You heard it right.
The detectives took a piece of evidence out of storage, put it in an envelope and mailed it directly to a civilian.
It went in the bag.
She opened it.
She's holding it with her bare hands and experiencing whatever she was experiencing and talking about what she was seeing.
At the conclusion of it, she put it in the bag and mailed it back.
And they put it back on a shelf in evidence.
And all I can say, Scott, is this is my automatic ugh.
Automatic problem.
You have potential taint DNA, certainly something that would have to be explained to a jury, if it can even get that far now with this break in the chain of custody.
Yeah, I remember my conversation with Aletha and I had to re-ask her that question twice.
You know clearly by my reaction you could tell what I think about this complete breakdown of a chain of custody.
But I certainly would love to hear from your perspective as a prosecutor at ASEGA how would you handle that if this ever gets to court?
You know, I think for me, it would be a Perry Mason moment for the defense.
I think I'm just a believer of handling everything by being very straightforward with the jury.
And I've certainly been in similar circumstances while it wasn't a psychic getting my evidence.
I've had evidence that you know the chain of custody issue and certainly other things that break down along the way.
And I think you just tell it to the jury like it is, right?
It all comes down to common sense.
And it's whether these issues factor into their ultimate decision making, where here i would say again, we're not at the end of the road yet.
But yes, mistakes do happen.
But does it ultimately hurt the evidence to a point that it can't be used?
And if the answer is ultimately no, that's just what i'm going to say, and then leave it to them to decide.
And suffice it to say that here, as a result of this intervention, there were no new clues discovered about the history of the beer can or who might have left it at the crime scene.
At this point, Leo Beauregard's murder had gone unsolved for five years.
And, as it is often the case, the slate of active homicide investigations in Palm Beach County continued to grow.
Years passed and unfortunately, Leo's case was pushed further and further to the back of the records room.
It had become a cold case and was sort of in the background and not really thought of.
It just sort of got forgotten about.
And while Leo's family certainly had not forgotten, they also tried to move forward, knowing that they might carry the burden of their father's unsolved murder for the rest of their lives.
You know, I think over the passage of time for some families they're still fresh and active and I can understand it.
Some realize that it's never going to get solved and you sort of put it in the back burner of your brain.
But, as listeners of this show know all too well, even a cold case can sometimes come back to life in the strangest of ways.
And in 2018, that's right.
28 years after Leo's murder, Palm Beach detectives finally got a tip in Leo's case and from another detective.
And it came courtesy of another homicide.
We had another defendant here.
It was quite notable in the newspaper that Chainsaw had his roommate up into pieces.
And he was actually caught there at the apartment carrying parts out.
Detective Currant.
The current detective at the time.
When he saw the name of the defendant that had chainsawed the roommate, he called and he says, oh my gosh, I just can't even believe this.
He said he was one of the young kids.
He was one of the main kids that hung out with Leo.
And I was like, what?
What are the odds?
You know, that's crazy.
Yes, what are the chances that one of the visitors to Leo's apartment would later be charged with murder?
But luckily for law enforcement, in the nearly 30 years since Leo's homicide had occurred, they now had a way to find out for sure if the suspect was there on the night of the murder.
DNA.
DNA.
Nearly 30 years after Leo Beauregard was stabbed in his home in North Palm Beach, one of the young men who was known to visit Leo in his home was now under arrest for the murder and dismemberment of his roommate.
Given this new revelation and the brutality of both murders, to prosecutor Aletha McRoberts it felt like it might be more than just coincidence.
So we were so excited about it.
We took that defendant's DNA and And we sent it to be compared to the DNA that they got off at the beer can.
And unfortunately, it didn't match.
We all thought for sure it was going to match.
Disappointing for sure.
But there was a silver lining.
When that beer can was collected, investigators were sure that it belonged to the killer.
They didn't have the technology to prove it then, but they did now.
So we started talking about that beer can again.
And I said, let's just see if we can't get this.
Is it of a quality now that we could upload it into the National CODIS database?
DNA collection and testing had come a long way by 2019.
And they also had that National Database of Known Offenders.
So they uploaded it into the National CODIS database and we got a match.
In August of 2019, police in Palm Beach were notified that the swab taken from the lip of the beer can was a match to a profile registered in the state of Michigan.
When they gave us the name for the CODIS database hit was to the name of Mark Gribben.
And when we ran Mark Gribben it turned out that he was an inmate with a pretty lengthy criminal history from the Ohio area.
Mark Gribben was a 56-year-old man who had spent a significant amount of his adult life in prison.
But in 1990, when Leo was killed, Gribben was about 27 years old.
So the next question, of course, was what was Mark Gribben's connection to Florida?
Or Leo Beauregard?
The answer was right there in Leo's calendar.
When we got the documentation from the prison system there, it turned out that those entries in Leo Beauregard's calendar and day timer were, you know semi-secure facility that Mark Ribbon had been released to from the Ohio prison system.
And that was noted in Leo's handwriting in his calendar.
So that was our first clue, that Leo was Beauregard.
Didn't know Mark Gribben, whose DNA was on the Bush beer can.
But that wasn't the only proof that Gribben and Leo knew each other.
Gribben's birthday, June 28th, the same day Leo had marked on his calendar.
In looking at the day timer and seeing what this relationship was with Mr Gribben like, for example, that notation of June of 1989 That actually was Mark Gribben's birthday.
And then there were notations of small money amounts in the calendar, $100 here, $200 there.
And they didn't really have an explanation for what the monies were.
It seems that Leo's generosity had reached as far as an inmate at the Michigan prison.
It's pretty well noted.
In law enforcement, as I'm sure you do, that there are inmates that befriend lonely people and they end up getting them to send them money, you know, to be able to have a phone card or whatnot.
And lonely people end up getting attached to inmates and sending them money.
So we thought that that was entirely a possibility with this relationship between Mr Beauregard and Mr Griffin.
Everything seemed like it was lining up.
Now investigators had to determine where Gribben was on the night of the murder because obviously if he was still in custody in that Michigan detention facility then this would be yet another brick wall.
We said, well, where was he in June of 1990?
We discovered that he was actually in Palm Beach County for about 90 days on parole And according to his parole paperwork he actually was registered to be living with his mother right down that US 1 corridor into West Palm Beach.
So literally so close to Leo Beauregard's apartment.
And Gribben's visit to his mother coincides exactly with Leo Beauregard's murder.
Alethea was confident that after nearly 30 years, they finally had their man.
And the next step then would be to get an actual DNA sample of the person that's in the CODIS database to make sure that it's one and the same, because mistakes do happen.
And you know Scott, some people might say well, wait a second.
If you have him in CODIS, why do you need to get this known sample?
So just you know obviously, like as you know, but for those of you out there that might not know, you know you need someone.
First of all, just a practical matter, to testify at trial, and a database can't take the stand.
But you can have a person to say hey, I actually was with this person and I put the Q-tip inside their cheek and I took this swab.
But also, you know, there can be Mistakes.
What if someone's profile was uploaded incorrectly?
So it's also important confirmation.
The hidden codice is how you made the original ID, but now it's critical to get a confirmatory sample.
So with the original the judge signs the warrant, and then you do an actual swab with your person of interest.
That is a secondary test.
So you could be a thousand percent sure.
And in January of 2020, Palm Beach detectives traveled to Ohio to confront Gribben face to face.
Well, when they went to speak to him, they had in hand a DNA warrant and the decision hadn't been made yet whether or not to arrest him.
They wanted to see if they could talk to him first, see what he had to say.
And then if he ended up giving them a problem, they had the warrant for his DNA in hand.
Gribben ended up acknowledging that he was, in fact, living with his mother in Palm Beach in 1990.
But the truth pretty much stopped right there.
So when they went and spoke to him, he denied all knowledge of Mr. Beauregard.
Gribben also denied ever being present in the apartment complex where Leo lived.
But Alyssa had prepared for his denials and had equipped the detectives with a strategy.
I had sat down with them and we had picked out a handful of pictures, like three or four or five pictures.
I said, let's lock him into his story.
Let's show him, so that he can't later say well, I didn't know, you meant that apartment complex.
Or I didn't know you meant that Leo Beauregard.
So let's lock him in with these five pictures.
Keeping the fact that his DNA was found in Leo's apartment to themselves, while letting their prime suspect incriminate himself with his own lies.
And with Gribben's denial on the record, the decision was made to place him under arrest and extradite him back to Palm Beach County.
He's denying, he's denying.
I said, that's good.
I said, a denial can often be as good as an admission, if not better.
You know Scott, when I heard Aletha telling you about this, of course I'm thinking how much I love denials as much as I love admissions.
And it's funny enough.
I was just looking through old pictures and I found a picture of myself with a defendant behind me like a videotape.
And I was explaining to the jury why his lies were incriminating.
If I find it, I'll stick it up on Instagram.
But more importantly as you know, we've had this conversation before that someone telling a lie can be as impactful, because if they're lying to, The question for the jury is why and it's conscience of guilt
That's our argument to the jury.
I have to believe he was caught off guard because I'm sure he thought he was home safe after 30 years.
Once in custody, investigators collected a new DNA sample, compared it to the DNA profile developed from the beer can and confirmed, not surprisingly, it was a match.
But even with this, investigators of course had to cover all bases and knew they still had to consider the possibility that there might be another reason, an alternate, innocent explanation why his DNA may have been on that can and why that DNA would have ended up in Leo's apartment.
He was working with his stepfather as a painter.
So they explored whether or not Leo Beauregard had his apartment painted recently, which would explain why he might have been in his apartment.
And to eliminate an innocent explanation for his DNA on a beer can.
I said, be sure, let's cover it all.
Walk him through it.
Did he ever go north of Northlake Boulevard?
Well, you worked as a painter with your stepfather.
Where did you paint?
Did you ever paint apartments?
Is it possible you worked at this apartment?
But as I've said before, there's nothing more helpful to a detective than a talkative suspect.
The more Gribben talked, the more he incriminated himself, revealing a crucial link between himself and the victim.
Ultimately he expounded a little bit and said oh well, he would send me money every now and again.
So he tried to back down a little bit off of the denials of everything when he was being confronted with some evidence that he wouldn't be able to overcome.
So you know, you've built a fantastic DNA case and that's the center of your universe.
When it comes to presenting the case,
But it also happens to be the weakest link at the very same time.
You know you have a huge chain of custody issue that I think a defense attorney in his first trial really could raise some serious issues here.
Serious issues, yes, but there's always issues at trial, right?
But I look at this as something that as a prosecutor, it is a hurdle that has to be dealt with.
But it shouldn't be the reason not to move forward if again, the rest of the evidence helps paint that clear picture, guilt which I would say here, based on what I'm seeing it does.
But again, I'd have to say to the jury, look, let's use common sense.
You'd have to admit that mistake and then show them why.
Even with that break in the chain, it doesn't detract from the evidence, because there is no reasonable explanation that makes any sense why his DNA would be there right.
It's not like the psychic or the mediums planting it or for the police.
It just wouldn't make sense.
So I would guess I would throw it to the jury to just use their common sense.
So just hearing you say that Anastasia, it's kind of, in a way, taking the wind out of the sails of the defense, because they're hoping the shock value of saying what do you mean?
The chain of custody was broken.
What do you mean the cops sent this beer can to a civilian?
And you're saying, coming up front opening that door and having you get an opportunity to explain it first kind of takes the wind out of their sails.
At some point, you have to realize it's not going to get any better.
And in fact it will start to get worse because you start to lose people through age and infirmity and death.
So we made the decision, you know what?
It's not going to get any better.
There's nothing more we can do.
Let's go for it.
Let a jury decide.
A jury of his peers, you know, let the community decide for themselves.
The case against Mark Ribbon was presented to a grand jury and they returned with an indictment for first-degree murder.
But as Aletha knew, this trial, like no trial, is ever a slam dunk.
People today in juries.
In a current case, the juries want fingerprints, they want DNA, they want confessions, they want live eyewitnesses.
They hold your feet to the fire.
They want everything and more, which is a lot of times, you know, unrealistic.
We worried about that because we basically had DNA on a beer can and no eyewitness and no confession, no admission, no proof of a solid motive.
I mean, basically we had DNA on a beer can.
Circumstantial evidence and common sense told the same story that a convicted felon who received money from the victim and could be placed at the crime scene was the likely killer.
But to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecution was still relying on one single piece of forensic evidence.
So the defense, you know, largely was like, Bear King could have been left there any time.
So it became really important that the beer can couldn't have been left there anytime.
Everything was so blood spattered except that can.
And it was very clear that the can was placed on the table after the fatal wound to his neck.
Shortly after that, his friend comes to the door.
So there was a very limited opportunity for the beer can to have been left there.
So it was, ladies and gentlemen, I really just love this piece of evidence.
You know, it's one of those things that, while not maybe immediately obvious when you put it together and what that lack of blood spatter means, it's just so powerful.
But the prosecution knew they still had to address the break in the chain of custody when that can.
Was briefly in the possession of this medium or psychic.
We knew right off the bat we wanted to preempt their argument about the psychic, about the differences in the way things are collected now and preserved and maintained in an evidence locker.
We let them know it all up front, you know, so that it was not news.
And of course, we wanted to let them know it wasn't news to us.
I mean, we feel very strong about this case, despite all that.
But just to be sure, they made the decision to collect the psychic's DNA.
Thank goodness she's still around for the scientists to say her DNA is not on that can.
So to you, Anastasia, what would your argument be to continue to allow that beer can into evidence?
I think, very simply, it would be that this fact, the break in the chain of custody, goes to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility.
You know, that can was seen.
It was collected, which automatically makes it relevant.
The fact that there's a break before now it gets in front of the jury.
Well, again, that goes to the admissibility.
It is something the jury indeed should and must consider, but it's nothing barring its admission.
And I think that would be my argument to the judge.
But I guess really in the end the best way to get around that really and getting around it is not meaning that it's a bad thing is to do that confirmatory DNA test on the psychic and to see whether even handling the can transferred any DNA of her own.
Because if it didn't, then the only DNA on the can has to be the man who popped the beer post-murder and took a sip.
And so really, what it comes down to is that even this back and forth between the two of us here is that the case against Gribben certainly has its hurdles right.
They didn't have any witness ID, had the chain of custody issue, etc.
But now you also had something else, because the defense was then arguing that the jury should not be entitled to know why it was that Gribben was in Florida at the time of the murder.
The defense really fought against the jury knowing that he was here on parole.
Knowing Gribben was on parole, the defense argued, would unfairly bias the jury against him.
But placing the suspect in Florida was still crucial to the prosecution's argument that there was no other way Gribben's DNA could have gotten onto that beer can and into Leo's apartment.
It was hugely important for us to be able to let them know that there was no other opportunity for his DNA to be on that beer can legitimately.
He didn't work for Anheuser-Busch.
He was unable to leave that DNA on that beer can any other time except for at the time of the homicide.
He was locked up and had no opportunity to put his DNA on there except for the fact that he was out.
And I'm just going to give you a little insight here, as what would actually happen, because these arguments are made all the time than when the defendant was incarcerated had a prior conviction was on parole.
Is that you're going to say one of two things that yes, it has to come in for this relevant purpose, which can't be avoided, but you can give a cautionary instruction, or
Or you can also just say hey, they were here and you give – the judge will say look, you're going to be told that this person was here, that they were visiting a governmental agency and you're not to speculate what that agency is, but both sides agree that this is how it's going to come in.
And there's different ways to do it, but one way or the other they have to be able to get that proof in front of the jury.
But something else then happened which has nothing to do with the issue of parole.
On another issue, Aletha deployed a dramatic visual aid.
We had the glass topped to the table.
By holding it in front of the jury and placing a piece of dark paper behind it, you could see how significant all the spatter was.
But by doing that you could see even more clearly that it would have been impossible for the beer can to have been there at the time.
As for Gribben's motive to kill Leo, the prosecution could only speculate, but it likely came down to money.
Mr. Gribben knew that he was going to be going away in the morning.
And I think that Leo didn't give him any more money and said, you can't stay in my apartment.
And that may have angered him.
We don't know if he got any money off of Leo after he killed him, but certainly his source of money was going to be leaving for a few days.
That was the only thing that I could come to was that Leo cut him off.
And, as we've talked about many times before, the prosecution doesn't need to provide the motive to prove guilt, because you can't get inside someone's head unless they tell you the why.
But, as a prosecutor, when you're asking a jury to believe the narrative that you are presenting, the more piece of the puzzle that you can complete for them, the more convincing the story and the stronger your case.
So I've learned in whole cases that jurors get it.
They get that things were done differently.
They'll hold your feet to the fire in a case today.
But they do understand.
And I think jurors like being able to come to these conclusions themselves, sometimes using their common sense.
You know, this was probably an older man who got befriended by this guy because they learned about his other male visitors that came very often and he was very generous with them all.
Clearly, this was a person who would have a need for some extra money.
But for whatever reason, Leo had decided that there was a limit to his generosity and Mark Ribbon decided to repay him in the only way he was capable of violence.
After a lengthy trial, the jury returned with their decision in a matter of hours.
The verdict was guilty as charged.
Mr. Griffin was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
It was a just punishment that was long overdue, but it was delivered to a mostly empty courtroom unattended by any of Leo's surviving family.
There was nobody there.
People handle grief differently from person to person.
Some people just can't handle it.
Some people can't afford to take the time off of work, even to be there for their loved one.
And I knew with the passage of 30 years that there wouldn't be probably anybody there.
In present day, a life sentence in Florida means exactly that.
But because the crime took place under different sentencing laws.
Mark Gribben would be eligible for parole in 2045.
At that point, if he's still alive, Gribben will be 82 years old.
You work all these years, and it's an affirmation that jurors do know how to do the right thing.
They do know how to sift through the evidence and come to a decision that makes sense.
They listened to the evidence.
They considered all the evidence.
I took it as an affirmation and as a message to all of us, especially in prosecution.
Don't be afraid.
Jurors have common sense a lot of times.
If you've got a case, it doesn't have to be perfect.
Let the community decide.
I often say that. is who are we to make the decision?
If the case has probable cause, let the community make the decision.
There is a brief epilogue to the story that we wanted to share, and it has to do with Mark Gribben's girlfriend.
A girlfriend that he had at the time.
He had committed a couple of burglaries with her, which is why his parole got violated, which is why he was only here for that limited period of time.
That girl that he was committing a couple of those burglaries with.
She was found murdered in Boynton Beach like sawed off legs and stuff.
We were like, what is this about?
We confirmed, though, that he had been arrested on his violation of parole and was back in custody.
About a week later, that happened to her.
That's still an open, cold case.
After speaking with Aletha, I started reaching back out to some of the people that I worked with in Palm Beach County, both in law enforcement as well as covering stories back then for the local ABC station in West Palm Beach.
And all of them, and I mean all of them, spoke so highly of her dedication to victims.
300 homicide cases.
That's an incredible career.
300 families that she stepped up for and spoke for, the people who could not speak because they were murdered.
This is the kind of public servant our communities need.
Someone who's willing to roll up their sleeves to seek not just justice, but to seek the truth.
Today's story is reminding me of another AOM that we did back in 2023, called House of Clues about Jim Short.
If you haven't listened, go back and listen.
And the reason that it's reminding me of it is that Jim Short again, was an older man lonely in a similar scenario that took his life brutally.
And as a prosecutor who's also handled similar cases, it's just an awful reminder to me about how almost rampant this taking advantage of someone's likely loneliness can be.
Leo Beauregard was older, retired, and had lost his wife.
And he was likely lonely.
And whether he sought friendship from these men or something more, it doesn't matter.
Did he give them money to keep them in his life?
Maybe.
Maybe.
But the important takeaway to me is that his generosity, his affection, whatever it was, was repaid with greed and violence.
And that is both callous and cruel.
It's awful to think how Leo's life ended, but for his family and for Leo, let's remember him as a World War II veteran, a successful businessman, husband and father who lost his life before his time.
Tune in next week for another new episode of Anatomy of Murder.
Anatomy of Murder is an AudioChuck original produced and created by Weinberger Media and Fresetti Media.
Ashley Flowers is executive producer.
This episode was written and produced by Walker Lamond, researched by Kate Cooper, edited by Ali Sirwa, Megan Hayward and Philjean Grande.
So, what do you think, Chuck?
Do you approve?
Woof.
