State Police

The State Police is a law-enforcement agency involved in the investigation of Frank Peterson’s murder and the later effort to understand why evidence against Terry Maitland conflicted so sharply with evidence that placed him elsewhere. Its presence links local policing to statewide investigative and forensic resources. The agency’s investigators help carry the case across jurisdictions, but their involvement also sits within an investigation whose urgency and early certainty helped bring about a premature arrest.

Role in the Initial Investigation

At the time of the arrest, the Flint City police force had only three full-time detectives, and Jack Hoskins was away on vacation. Betsy Riggins, who would otherwise have been on maternity leave, was assisting the State Police with another aspect of the evening’s work. The department’s limited staffing formed part of the practical circumstances behind the arrest operation, while the State Police’s participation reflected the case’s broader investigative reach.

Ralph Anderson had already discussed the timing of the arrest with Flint County District Attorney Bill Samuels. Ralph believed the police had the right man, but wanted more investigation before proceeding, especially because Terry was certain to claim an alibi. Samuels argued that the risk of another attack—particularly against children—made delay unacceptable. Ralph’s concern that the case had moved too quickly was therefore present before the arrest, even as he agreed to act.

Statewide Coordination and the Alibi

State Police Detective Yunel Sablo was the agency’s lead on the case. Ralph, Samuels, and Sablo had agreed not to investigate Terry’s movements before the arrest because they feared that inquiries might alert someone they considered dangerous. They also believed the existing evidence was strong enough to proceed. When an account of Terry attending a conference in Cap City emerged, that decision became a consequential omission: the investigators had not checked the movements that could have tested the alibi before publicly committing to the case.

The new information left Ralph blindsided. Rather than ending the investigation, the contradiction redirected it. He planned to speak with people at the hotel and the Firepit restaurant, where Terry and his companions had eaten, and to examine the possibility of forensic evidence. He also wanted security footage from the conference dates. Because Sablo would not be back until later that day, Ralph intended to travel to the hotel himself, though he knew that Howie Gold’s investigator had a head start.

Forensic Work and Conflicting Evidence

The State Police’s forensic lab held samples collected from the barn, including material found on a chair and carpet. Ralph asked Holly Gibney what the testing might reveal; she considered the possibility that the material was mostly water with a high pH and might contain traces of mucus-like fluid. Ralph’s question shows the lab’s part in the inquiry as a source of analysis not yet available to investigators, rather than a result already established in the evidence described here.

The case also turned on physical evidence that appeared to confirm Terry’s guilt. Ralph listed fingerprints attributed to Terry on the van used to abduct Frank, the boy’s bicycle found inside it, the van’s toolbox, the Subaru used after the van was abandoned, and the branch associated with the attack. He further stated that prints on the branch were in the victim’s blood. Yet these apparent identifications could not settle the case: teachers placed Terry elsewhere at the relevant times, and a conference video recorded him in Cap City. Ralph’s accumulating evidence thus produced not certainty but a direct collision between forensic traces and independently supported alibi evidence.

Reassessment and Wider Case Connections

As the investigation widened, Sablo presented fingerprint comparisons that connected the stolen van to Merlin Cassidy: one print came from the van and the other from Cassidy’s intake after his arrest in El Paso. Sablo then moved to a comparison involving Frank Peterson, using one print from the medical examiner and another from the van. The sequence placed the stolen vehicle within a larger investigative pattern and demonstrated the practical value of comparing evidence gathered in different places.

Later, Sablo addressed Holly’s prior work with Bill Hodges, noting her role in stopping Brady Hartsfield before an attack that might have killed thousands. Holly replied that three people had received commendations, which amounted to a gold key and a ten-year bus pass. The exchange established Sablo’s awareness of her investigative history; Holly nevertheless preferred to hold back her report and conclusions until the other participants had presented what they knew.

Institutional Consequences

At the public review of the Maitland case, Samuels acknowledged that investigators had not possessed all the relevant facts on the day Terry was arrested or arraigned. He also explained that the DNA evidence seemed to match Terry, while warning that DNA matching could be unreliable when samples were mixed. The samples from Figgis Park contained DNA from both perpetrator and victim. This explanation recast forensic evidence from an apparently decisive confirmation into evidence whose interpretation depended on its condition and context.

The State Police’s involvement therefore spans two different investigative postures: participation in an urgent operation shaped by the fear of another crime, and continuing work that helped test the evidence and connect related events. The agency is not presented as a single voice or as the sole author of the mistaken case. Rather, its investigators and laboratory resources form part of a cross-jurisdictional effort whose findings matter precisely because they complicate the certainty with which Terry was first accused.