Out Of Nowhere - the Wrongful Conviction of Kirstin Blaise Lobato - Part 2

[Shaun] 

“When I found out I was going to jail, I trusted in the system. I figured everything would be okay as long as I told them the truth. I had no idea how wrong I'd be.”

In July of 2001, Blaise was a teenager with no criminal history, no motive, and no evidence linking her to the crime. And yet, she was charged with murder and facing the rest of her life behind bars.

[John]

No physical evidence tied her to the scene, she didn’t know the victim, Duran Bailey, and she was 170 miles away when he was killed. But none of that mattered.

This week, we cover what happened next—and how the system twisted the truth and stole 16 years of Blaise Lobato’s life.

(Music - Pause for 8 seconds)

[Shaun] 

Hi and welcome to Sins and Survivors, a Las Vegas true crime podcast, where we focus on cases that deal with domestic violence, as well as missing persons and unsolved cases. I’m your host, Shaun

[John] 

And I’m your co-host, John

[Shaun] 

Last week, we introduced you to the story of the wrongful conviction of Blaise Lobato for the murder of Duran Bailey. 

Duran was 44 years old when he was found brutally murdered in July of 2001 with multiple blunt and sharp force injuries, including the amputation of his penis. 

Blaise fought off an attempted rape in May of 2001, and she had slashed her attacker in the groin to escape. She had told multiple friends about the attack, and eventually, Metro homicide detectives heard the rumor that a young woman had cut off a man’s penis in Las Vegas. 

The day Duran was murdered, Blaise was 170 miles away with her parents and sister in Panaca, Nevada, and she’d been staying there with her family all week. 

When police questioned her about the death of a man in Las Vegas, Blaise thought that maybe the man she had fought off in May had died from his injury, and she tried to cooperate. Detectives took her explanation of the May attack as a confession to Duran’s murder. 

She was arrested for first-degree murder. 

There’s so much more to the story, so if you didnt listen to last week’s episode, please go listen now and come back here once you do. 

[John] 

Back to where we left off.

While Blaise was incarcerated at the Clark County Detention Center awaiting trial, she was in with another inmate named Korinda Martin. Korinda became a jailhouse informant and told prosecutors that Blaise had bragged multiple times in the CCDC common room about being locked up for murder. 

Korinda said that Blaise told people she had killed a man named “Darren” when she was high on drugs. She said that she picked up Darren off the street so she could buy meth from him. 

She claimed that Blaise told her that Darren wanted to have sex with her, but she declined. Then she stabbed him multiple times, severed his penis, and then shoved it down his throat. Korinda claimed she said "Darren" deserved it.

Korinda said that Blaise said that even though the man never actually tried to force himself on her, she planned to falsely claim he’d sexually assaulted her. Also she was afraid people would find blood in her car because she had hit Darren in the face. 

She claimed that Blaise had bragged about the crime numerous times in the CCDC common room, and Korinda said she’d made a log of the days and times that she had made the statements. 

On July 31, 2001, the charges against Blaise were amended to first-degree murder with a deadly weapon and necrophilia. The

State reserved the option to seek the death penalty.

In early August, the results of the forensic testing that the Metro Police crime lab was doing on the evidence collected from the crime scene and Blaise’s car were starting to come in.

There was no evidence in her car that linked her to the crime scene. No blood evidence was found anywhere in her car, and her car did not match the tire tracks found at the scene so it was returned to her father, Larry. 

The lab found none of Duran’s blood on her baseball bat – in fact there was no blood on it at all and her fingerprints did not match any of those found at the crime scene. 

There was no blood found on her shoes either, and the shoe prints left at the crime scene didn't match her black platform shoes that she was wearing when she was attacked or any pairs of shoes that she owned. 

Her feet are 2 and a half to 3 sizes smaller than the prints left at the scene. 

[Shaun] 

Blaise’s trial began on May 2, 2002. The prosecution centered its case around one main idea: Blaise confessed. She told the detectives, and Dixie, how she had cut a man’s penis off in the parking lot in Las Vegas, and that was a confession to killing Duran Bailey. 

At the time she was questioned by detectives, Blaise made the comment, “I didn’t think anybody would miss somebody like that.” At least, that is what John and I hear her say in the recording. 

In news outlets and in court documents, what the detectives and others repeated she said is slightly different, quote  “I did not think anyone would miss him.” This is how the quote appears in the court records and in the Review-Journal. 

According to prosecutors and detectives, the whole thing was just too much of a coincidence to be anything other than a confession. 

The prosecution’s theory of the case was Blaise, high on meth for several days, drove from Panaca to Las Vegas on July 8 to get meth from Duran, in exchange for her performing oral sex on him. However, she changed her mind, and he tried to force her. She then fought back against him, using her butterfly knife and the baseball bat from her car. To explain the extensive injuries, the prosecution argued she stabbed him, then he fell to the ground, where she continued to beat him. 

As we discussed last week in detail, Blaise had a very tight alibi for the day of the murder. She was seen by multiple people in Panaca, a nearly 3 hour drive away, on July 5th, 6th, and 7th. And, on the 8th, as early as 12:45AM by her dad, and throughout the day by various people- relatives and nonrelatives. The only time not accounted for was from 2AM to 5:45AM. 

The time of Duran’s death was therefore critical for the prosecution.  

Dr. Larry Simms, a board certified forensic pathologist, testified at a preliminary hearing that he estimated Duran was killed about 12 hours prior to the discovery of the body at 10PM, so around 10AM in the morning. This would have made it impossible for Blaise to have killed Duran, since she was seen in Panaca that morning by her dad and cousin John at 7AM, and several neighbors 4 wheeling around 11:00AM that day. 

During the trial, however, on direct examination, Dr. Simms testified that Duran could have died as much as 18 hours earlier than he was found, making the window for Blaise to have left Panaca, traveled to Vegas and returned home wider, as he may have died as early as 4 AM. 

Given the prosecutor’s theory of the case, the distance she’d have to drive, the speed she’d need to travel, the fact that she’d have to stop and get gas, of course, for a 340-mile round trip, she’d need at least 5 and a half hours to travel and commit the crime:  

The only window of time that would fit the prosecutor’s theory and the ME’s time of death estimation, and possibly defeat Blaise’s alibi, would be that Duran was killed between 3:50 AM and 4:30 AM. 

This would mean that after Larry went to bed on July 8th, Blaise got up off the couch, dressed, and left for Las Vegas around 1:00 in the morning, speeding all the way. She encountered Duran quickly, meaning she knew where to find him. They negotiated, fought, then she killed him, inflicted those extensive injuries to him, and covered him up with the trash.  

She then drove 15 minutes away to her friend’s house on the east side of Vegas, where she got rid of her bloody clothing and cleaned herself up and her car. She stopped for gas at some point, drove home, again driving close to 100 miles an hour, barely getting home by 6:35 AM. She changed into her pajamas, and at 7 am, she saw her dad and cousin. She was described as half-awake, not high on meth at all according to them. 

Given this scenario, the prosecution would be implying that her parents and cousin were lying about her whereabouts and her demeanor when all 3 of them testified, and potentially committed perjury.

[John] 

This theory of the case also hinged on the prosecution painting Blaise as being someone who was of low moral character, which they tried to do by talking about her growing up in a rural community, but there was no history of Blaise ever being violent with anyone or ever having any trouble with the law. They also brought up how she had done some exotic dancing, a couple of times in Las Vegas. They also tried to say she would exchange sex for drugs, although there was no evidence she ever did, and none that she even knew Duran. 

Blaise took the stand in her defense, more on that later, but here is an excerpt from the prosecution’s cross-examination that shows how they leaned into assassinating her character:

Blaise: It's been over a year. I was a lot different then than I am now.

Prosecutor: Okay. A lot different?

Blaise: Yeah.

Prosecutor: You're not a meth freak anymore?

Blaise: Among other things.

Prosecutor: Okay. You're away from your promiscuity?

Blaise: Yes.

Prosecutor: Okay. You're not out trading sex for dope?

Blaise: I never traded sex for dope.

They needed to show she had an addiction issue and had been heavily using meth. According to the statement she’d given the detectives - what the prosecution was calling a ‘confession’ -  Blaise had been high for a week prior to Duran’s murder. 

For her confession to match the date of Duran’s death, Blaise would have had to have left Panaca several days earlier to obtain drugs in Las Vegas. But there was no evidence to support that theory. 

Her doctor’s appointments in Panaca from July 5th, 6th, and 7th not only gave her an alibi for those days but also completely disproved that she had taken any drugs on the days before Duran’s murder.  

Also, the prosecution’s theory included that Blaise had beaten Duran with her baseball bat, but not only was there no blood or tissue evidence at all on the bat seized from her car — 

the medical examiner testified that the injuries inflicted on Duran’s face and head were not consistent with a baseball bat. 

The defense’s expert testified that the most likely weapon used was a fist. Again, note that Blaise did not have any bruising, cuts, or scratches on her to indicate that she had been in a fight or a struggle with anyone when she was interviewed on July 20. 

In addition to relying on Blaise’s statement to the detectives, the prosecution called Korinda Martin to testify. Korinda told the jury that Blaise had bragged about killing “Darren” multiple times in the common areas of the jail and claimed she had a log that laid out the days and times that she had talked about it. However, she never produced that log.

It’s also worth noting that while Korinda claimed that Blaise had made these loud bragging announcements in the common areas, not a single other inmate or jailhouse employee had ever come forward to say she had done so, and the prosecution didn’t have any other witnesses from CCDC who could back up Korinda’s story. No one else at the jail said that ever happened, not even once. 

[Shaun] 

It’s no surprise that Korinda had some credibility issues. The only facts about the crime that Korinda knew were facts that had been published in the RJ. And she was spreading horrible lies about the crime and seemingly making things up. 

Blaise’s defense team discovered that while she was in jail, Korinda had forged two letters pretending to be one of her acquaintances, a woman named Brenda. The letters from “Brenda” were written to Korinda’s sentencing judge, asking for Korinda to be given a lenient sentence in exchange for being released to care for Brenda, who uses a wheelchair. The handwriting of these letters was shown to be Korinda’s. 

The prosecution denied that there had been any deal made with Korinda for her testimony. The defense argued that it should have been able to use the evidence of these letters to show that Korinda lacked credibility, but the judge would not allow it.

Blaise’s main defense was that she never confessed. She was attacked in a Las Vegas parking lot in May of 2001, and detectives charged her solely because she told officers she had cut or stabbed that man below the waist, and she expressed remorse about it. 

No single piece of physical evidence connected her to the crime scene of Duran’s murder. She was excluded from all DNA evidence, there was no blood found on the shoes she was wearing, or any of her shoes, and no shoes she owned matched the prints left at the scene. 

She had a very solid alibi for being in Panaca, 170 miles away, and there were no gas station receipts, no convenience store receipts, no fast food receipts, no surveillance camera footage, no bank atm receipts, no eyewitness, no friends, no one and nothing that placed her in Vegas on July 8 or any time between July 2 and July 9th. 

Numerous family members, friends, and neighbors were called to testify to her alibi and what she had told them about the man who attacked her that she had cut in the groin with a knife. 

Duran was not a meth dealer or a meth user, so Blaise meeting with him to buy meth doesn’t make sense. He was known to use crack cocaine, and when he died, cocaine and alcohol were found in his system. 

It’s not clear why Blaise would need to drive 3 hours away from her home to obtain meth when, according to friends who testified during the trial, meth was easily obtainable within walking distance of Blaise’s parents home. 

Also, during the trial, there was no evidence ever introduced that Blaise and Duran knew each other at all. They lived and hung out on opposite sides of town, and they had no mutual acquaintances. 

As we mentioned earlier, Blaise testified in her own defense. She explained that in May of 2001, an unknown assailant attempted to sexually assault her, and she resisted, cut him with a knife, and fled. 

She denied stating to anyone that she had cut someone’s penis off, despite what Laura Johnson said Dixie had told her. She said that she thought she cut the assailant in the groin area, and he was still alive and crying when she escaped. 

She denied knowing Duran or killing him. Blaise said that she expressed remorse during her interview with the detectives because she believed they were telling her that the man she had cut that day to escape being raped had subsequently died from the injuries she inflicted. 

On May 19, 2002, Blaise was convicted of first degree murder with a deadly weapon and sexual penetration of a dead human body. She was sentenced to 40-100 years. 

I know the way we laid this out makes this very confusing, but the jury just did not accept Blaise’s explanation for the “confession,” and they must not have accepted her alibi witnesses either. 

Multiple witnesses were willing and available to testify that Blaise had told them about the attack weeks or months prior to Duran’s murder, Steven who she worked for, her friend Michelle that she drove to the Utah Shakespeare Festival with, and others. However, the judge REFUSED to allow these witnesses to testify about that on hearsay grounds. The prosecutors consistently objected to any questions by the defense about her prior attack. 

If the jury had heard that Blaise consistently said the assault happened weeks before the murder, it could have helped show she was talking about a completely different event. But the judge ruled all of that was hearsay—and kept that part from the jury.

I have a very hard time understanding any of that that legal logic, as Dixie was permitted to testify about what Blaise had said, and Laura Johnson was allowed to testify about what Dixie told her Blaise said. 

Blaise of course appealed this guilty verdict, and thankfully, her conviction was overturned on September 3, 2004. Specifically, because the judge didn’t let the defense use those falsified letters against Korinda or bring up that she may have falsified her testimony in an attempt to get out of jail. 

Since Korinda’s testimony was a key part of the prosecution against Blaise, the defense should have been allowed to bring up her credibility during the trial. The court emphasized that jailhouse informant testimony must be treated with extreme caution, especially in what they called a “close case” like this one, where no physical evidence directly linked Blaise to the killing. Korinda’s testimony significantly strengthened the prosecution's argument for malice and premeditation.

In December 2005, Blaise was released on $500,000 bail, pending her retrial.

I just want to add here that, while we don’t put much stock in polygraph tests, Blaise took and passed 3 separate polygraph tests regarding Duran’s murder.

And, of course, if she had taken that original plea deal to voluntary manslaughter, she would have served her time and had this over with before her 2nd trial even started. 

[John] 

Despite the fact that the DA’s office absolutely had access to the full statements of the many, many witnesses Blaise told about the attempted rape days or weeks before Duran was killed, and, even though if Blaise had accepted that original plea deal in 2002 the DAs office would have considered “justice served” in this case, they decided to once again prosecute Blaise for Duran’s murder. 

We understand it’s possible for a jury to make a mistake when they don’t have access to all the information, but the DAs, and the judge in Blaise’s first trial, had access to all the information and they never should have moved forward with the prosecution.

On September 11, 2006, Blaise’s second murder trial began. At the time of her second trial, it was reported that she was mature and focused, a vegetarian, and was practicing yoga daily. She was taking college courses as well as correspondence courses to become a paralegal. 

For the second trial, the prosecution did not even bother to use Korinda’s testimony, since she lacked any credibility. The prosecution attempted to uncover any other physical evidence that would link Blaise to the crime scene, but just like the first trial, there just wasn’t any, of course. 

Dr. Brent Turvey, who worked with the defense on the retrial, later wrote that DNA criminalist Kristina Paulette was rushing to get additional items tested for the prosecution right up to the time of trial. 

Her forensic testimony included evidence that 22 fingerprints had been found at the scene, but none matched Duran or Blaise. 

Dr. Paulette testified that cigarette butts recovered from the scene contained an unidentified male profile on one butt and a combination of Duran's DNA and a different male's on another butt. 

The chewing gum found at the scene had a mixture of Duran's DNA and a third unidentified person. 

DNA analysis of a pubic hair found on Duran’s body revealed the DNA of a fourth unidentified male. 

 
DNA testing of swabs from Duran’s left and right hands, and swabs of his left and right hand fingernail clippings, all excluded Blaise. It goes without saying that the semen was not Blaise’s, but it could not be DNA tested because it lacked sperm. (Today, with advances in technology, a DNA profile could potentially be developed from that sample.) 

Dr. Turvey also wrote that he found that Dr. Paulette wasn’t entirely forthcoming on direct examination, but the defense attorneys questioned her to get at the fact that none of the DNA recovered at the scene was a match to Blaise. 

In his opinion, there was ample evidence that the police had done a very poor job of collecting evidence at the crime scene. For example, they had bagged up items in piles, mixing items together, and then sorted them at the police station, and not all items were preserved or tested. 

Regardless, none of the items collected or tested matched Blaise. The shoe prints were too large, her car was clean, and the baseball bat was negative for blood. 

[Shaun] 

The other testimony and evidence brought forward by the prosecution was the same as the first trial. Dixie testified and was treated as a hostile witness. Dixie didn’t provide any testimony specifically linking Blaise to Duran’s murder, and she actually provided testimony supporting that the attack Blaise described had occurred between one and two months prior to their conversation in July.

During Laura Johnson’s “double hearsay” testimony, she testified that Dixie said Blaise said that when she was coming out of a strip club where she worked in Las Vegas, a man attacked her while his penis was hanging out of his pants and she cut it off. Johnson also said Dixie said Blaise said she was “hiding out” at her parents' house, and her parents were trying to get rid of her car, or get it painted to hide it. 

Evidence showed that Blaise’s car was parked in front of her parents’ house for the entire week of July 2nd, with her vanity license plate; there’s no evidence anyone was trying to hide it. 

Also, Blaise never worked at a strip club, and she wasn’t in the parking lot of a strip club or near a strip club when she was attacked, nor was there a strip club near where Duran was murdered. 

We discussed how allowing this double hearsay while excluding testimony from Blaise’s friends and family about her earlier statements about the May attack was inconsistent and certainly hurt Blaise’s Defense. There were other rulings the judge made that were questionable and prejudicial against Blaise. 

For one, the baseball bat found in Blaise’s car was allowed to be entered as evidence despite having no connection to Duran’s murder. 

Photos and testimony about Blaise’s custom license plate were permitted, though the car wasn't linked to the crime scene, the tire tracks didn't match, and blood tests were negative.

Her license plate was 4 N I C 8 R or “fornicator” - so this was another attempt by the prosecution to insult Blaise’s character. It’s just not relevant to the case, and definitely more prejudicial than probative. 

Although, if anything, the fact that such a unique car - a 1984 Pontiac Fiero, a red two seater sports car, with the vanity plate FORNICATOR was parked on the street from July 2nd til July 20th should have poked some holes in Laura Johnson’s story that Blaise and her family were looking to hide her or the car. 

The judge allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of the presumptive tests that indicated there were possible blood spots in her car, even though advanced tests later disproved that there was any blood. Defense argued this would mislead the jury, but the judge still allowed that “evidence”. 

In addition, approximately 140 crime scene and autopsy photographs were admitted. Defense argued these excessive, graphic, and repetitive images were intended to inflame jurors, but their objection was rejected.

[John] 

We discussed the time of death issue earlier, and Dr. Simms testified in this trial “with medical certainty” that Duran died between 9:50 am and 3:50 pm on July 8, but there was a small “probability” he died as early as 3:50 am. This was a slightly different testimony than what he had provided the 2 other times he had testified. The time of 9:50AM - 3:50PM makes it impossible for Blaise to have killed Duran, but the “small probability” of 3:50AM leaves open that absurdly tight turn around scenario that the prosecution had proposed. 

For Blaise’s defense, she presented even more alibi witnesses than she did in her first trial. Seven witnesses who were not related to her testified that she was in Panaca from 11 am through the rest of the day. 

Dr. Turvey testified regarding the report he prepared for the defense. He concluded that the evidence showed there were multiple assailants that attacked and killed Duran, which makes sense given the multiple male profiles on the cigarette butts, chewed gum, and pubic hair. 

Dr. Michael Laufer testified that based on his analysis, the murder weapon was not likely a butterfly knife, given the injuries inflicted. 

Blaise did not testify during this trial. 

During closing, the prosecution argued it’s “possible” Blaise is guilty because it’s too coincidental that she once mentioned attempting to cut the penis of a man who tried to rape her, and Duran’s murder involved a similar injury. 

Just a reminder that the burden of proof in a criminal trial, is beyond a reasonable doubt, not just that it’s “possible” that the defendant had committed the crime. 

Again, despite the lack of any evidence connecting Blaise to the crime scene, or to Vegas at all on July 8th – On October 6, 2006, the jury convicted her again, this time of voluntary manslaughter, as well as sexual penetration of a dead body. She was sentenced this time to 13 to 45 years in prison. 

Dr. Turvey wrote:

This is a major step down from the results in the overturned conviction. 

It seems that the jury was forced by attrition to doubt, and even disbelieve, the prosecution’s theory of the case—but for whatever reason, jurors felt that there was something to her involvement that they could not get past. 

The verdict reflects this—but is also confusing. The facts of the case seem to support either first-degree murder or nothing. 

[Shaun]

Dr. Turvey called this a “compromise” verdict, as did many others who have reviewed this case. 

Blaise attempted to appeal this verdict in 2007 and 2009 but failed, as the court found she admitted to the crime, which is just ludicrous.

On May 5, 2010, Blaise filed a 770-page habeas corpus petition presenting multiple grounds to overturn her convictions, notably focusing on forensic entomology evidence. 

The petition included twenty-four grounds based on new evidence, two grounds based on Brady violations, fifty-one grounds based on ineffective assistance of counsel, and one based on her actual innocence. 

As we talked about, since Blaise had such a solid alibi, it was always Duran’s time of death that was the big question in this case. The ME had provided 3 different time frames for his death. 

In the petition, three forensic entomologists provided affidavits all agreeing that Duran’s body, exposed all day in July, would have shown blowfly activity due to Las Vegas's hot climate—contradicting the prosecution’s timelines.

However, once again, Blaise’s appeal failed, as the Court found that the expert affidavits were insufficient due to lack of state cross-examination.

Blaise also filed for additional DNA testing, under Nevada's genetic testing statute, with the Innocence Project agreeing to cover testing costs, but that request was also denied. 

“DNA testing is not going to exonerate her because she confessed,” said Steve Owens, who was the chief deputy district attorney at the time. “There are hundreds of profiles that could be pulled off the body because it was found in a dumpster. People will be chasing after a lot of red herrings.”

[John] 

Yes, DA Owens, but none of them would have been Blaise’s. Not to mention, they absolutely should have tested that semen once the technology was available to do so. 

Finally, in November 2016, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the habeas petition and ordered an evidentiary hearing on the issue of Duran’s time of death. 

The court was critical of the trial judge's decision to deny a hearing because the forensic expert affidavits were not subject to cross-examination, noting that there was no cross-examination because the judge had refused to grant a hearing. 

Judge Stefany Miley presided over that hearing with testimony presented by Innocence Project attorneys, and finally, it seemed people were willing to listen to evidence that could determine that it was not possible that Blaise could have committed the murder. 

Three forensic entomologists testified (Dr. Jeffrey Tomberlin, Dr. Robert Kimsey, and Dr. Gail Anderson), who had all independently reached similar conclusions.  These experts explained that blowflies typically arrive immediately after death, laying observable eggs. The absence of blowfly eggs on Duran’s body indicated his death occurred very close to the time his body was discovered (~10 p.m. on July 8).

Therefore, Duran had died at a time when Blaise was without a doubt 3 hours away in Panaca, with her family.

This makes a lot of sense to me because we read that the bloody footprints were still wet when the initial investigators first arrived at the scene, so the idea that he had been dead for 12 hours never sounded likely. 

Also, forensic pathologist Dr. Andrew Baker testified that rigor mortis also suggested Duran had likely died in the early evening hours of July 8, 2001, so another expert’s opinion further bolstered her innocence. 

On December 19, 2017, Judge Miley vacated Lobato's convictions and ordered a new trial, citing inadequate defense representation, specifically the failure to challenge the prosecution’s time-of-death estimates with expert testimony.

[Shaun]

On December 29, 2017, the prosecution officially dismissed the charges against Blaise rather than retry her. She was released on January 3, 2018, at the age of 35, after she had served nearly 16 years for a crime she did not commit. 

“I’m so overwhelmed and so happy and so grateful for all the people that have believed in me and fought for me all these years,” she said. “I feel so much emotion.”

Vanessa Potkin, Post-Conviction Litigation Director for the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law said: 

“We are very pleased that this long struggle is finally over for Ms. Lobato and that she will finally be reunited with her family and friends,”

“Despite the strong evidence that Ms. Lobato played no role in this crime, including alibi evidence that she was three hours away from Las Vegas on the day the victim was killed, the police focused exclusively and inexplicably on her as a suspect, and as a result, Ms. Lobato has spent all of her young adulthood wrongfully incarcerated for a crime she did not commit.

When she was first released of course, it was an adjustment to getting used to life and technology. 

In July 2019, Lobato filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Las Vegas police department and the two detectives. In December 2019, she filed a claim for state compensation.

In December 2024, a federal jury awarded Blaise $34 million in damages. Also in December 2024, the Nevada Board of Examiners authorized her to receive $900,000 in state compensation.

The civil trial jury found Las Vegas police and the two detectives, Thowsen and LaRochelle, who are now retired, fabricated evidence during their investigation and intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Blaise. 

This is taken directly from the complaint Blaise’s attorneys filed against them: 

When Defendants Thowsen and LaRochelle created their police reports, they purposefully put on their reports that the incident Blaise described was the murder of Duran Bailey, even though they knew this was not true. 

• Prior to the interrogation, there was no probable cause to believe that Blaise had committed the murder of Duran Bailey. 
• After the interrogation, there was no probable cause to believe that Blaise had committed the murder of Duran Bailey. 
• At no time was there probable cause to believe that Blaise had committed the murder of Duran Bailey. 
• Nonetheless, having fabricated a supposed confession statement, Defendants Thowsen and LaRochelle arrested Blaise for Bailey’s murder after interrogating her on July 20, 2001. 
• And Defendants Thowsen and LaRochelle discussed and agreed with each other that they would characterize what she said as a confession when they knew that was not true. 

The complaint also explains how they fabricated evidence by manipulating Dixie’s statement, as well as her boyfriend, Doug’s. Detectives would take notes, then destroy the notes, and turn on and off the recorder to attempt to manipulate the statements. 

After these rulings, the Review-Journal interviewed Blaise, and she told them that 

“It’s been an uphill battle with many, many obstacles,” “And I’m happy that it’s all finally finished.” 

She said that she has “no idea what the rest of my life is going to look like.”

“There were points where I was devastated, There were points where I was shaking with rage because it’s so incredibly unfair that the truth is clear as day, and they still just dig in their feet — zero accountability and zero remorse.” 

In February of 2025, the detectives did ask for a new trial on this matter, so we may have further updates. 

[John] 

Duran was buried in Woodland Cemetery in Las Vegas. He died in an exceptionally cruel manner – he was “brutalized beyond all recognition,” as one account put it. 

No matter what his flaws or crimes may have been, Duran did not deserve to be killed in such a brutal and horrific way. Whoever did this wasn’t just trying to kill him; they were full of rage.; indeed, one theory (raised by the defense in court) was that someone seeking revenge for Diann’s rape might have been responsible. His murder remains unsolved. 

Reporters for the Intercept did try to follow up on what was heavily implied in court – that Diann, fearing for her safety, or her neighbors enraged by what Duran did, took justice into their own hands. 

The Intercept was able to locate two of the men who lived in the apartment across from Diane in 2001. They said they did not remember Diann or Duran, and they were never questioned by Metro detectives about the murder. They told the Intercept reporters that there were actually seven men living in that apartment in 2001. 

They said three of their former roommates were now working construction in California, and the other two simply disappeared that summer of 2001. They headed back to Mexico and never returned.

Diann died in 2005, but her domestic partner Steven provided an affidavit to Blaise’s defense in 2010, and he explained that he and Diann discussed Duran’s murder on “a number of occasions” before she died. He said that Diann had told him that it “was not possible” that Blaise had murdered him. 

During the trial, when Detective Thowsen was asked why they didn’t pursue investigating those neighbors by questioning them or obtaining warrants to search their apartments, he said, “It was a long day, and we were getting tired and at some point you just have to call it a day.”

[Shaun]

Blaise’s story is a story of wrongful conviction, but it’s also a story of not one, but two victims of sexual assault not having their stories believed and appropriately handled by officers, resulting in decades of trauma. 

Before we wrap up we want to acknowledge and thank the attorneys at the Innocence Project for their hard work as always, as well as the work of the reporters at Justice Denied and the Intercept magazines for their incredible in depth research into Blaise and Duran’s story. All of our sources can be found in our show notes. 

We’ll leave you with this last thought from Blaise: "I have a message for anyone who's going through a similar situation that what I went through. Be strong, believe in yourself, and never give up. There are gonna be days when you're gonna feel like you cannot make it another step. Just keep putting one foot in front of the other because eventually your day will come," 

Thank you as always for listening and remember what happens here, happens everywhere