Cops Couldn’t Crack This Case for 5 YEARS... Then They Noticed a Tiny Clue

Summary of the video’s main points

• Case overview (murder in 2005): Janet Abereroa (born 1979) was found dead in her home in April 2005. The initial call came from her husband, Raven. Raven claimed Janet had been shot, but investigators quickly noted major inconsistencies: the injuries appeared to be stab wounds, there was no sign of forced entry, no clear disturbance in the rest of the house, and the supposed murder weapon was missing.

• Staging/robbery inconsistencies: Investigators found no major valuables taken—notably, Janet’s rings were left out. Raven said items like a knife and a laptop were missing, but questions remained about why those were taken while other items (including another laptop) were not.

• Early investigative obstacles: While Raven had an alibi (seen playing soccer in another town) and forensic testing initially didn’t tie scene evidence (fingerprints/DNA) to him, the case went cold because investigators lacked definitive proof.

• Reasons Raven looked suspicious to Janet’s circle: Janet’s family and friends described escalating marital issues before her death, including cheating, divorce plans, jealous/controlling behavior, possible mental instability, and fear for Janet and her child’s safety.

• Financial motive indicators: Raven had been fired for a fraudulent scheme involving a sporting goods store, with an alleged $15,000 loss. Shortly before the murder, he also arranged life insurance policies on Janet (reported as $500,000 available due to health limits). Investigators also noted unusual behavior around insurance after a neighbor reported Raven’s car was burned—Raven was angry the claim was denied.

• Raven’s behavior and claimed logistics conflicted with evidence: Witnesses and investigators identified contradictions in Raven’s story and physical details (for example, blood on his sweatshirt and details about what he was wearing after the soccer game). A later review suggested Raven’s narrative didn’t match crime-scene timing and biological/physical expectations.

• Family-led clues (backup CDs): Janet’s sister found backup CDs in Raven’s backpack labeled for the day before the murder, suggesting Raven may have known his laptop was going to be “stolen” or had prepared backups in advance.

• Breakthrough years later (2010 onward): A new detective (Charles Soul) re-examined details and inconsistencies. Key developments included:

  • Contact lens evidence: Investigators obtained permission to exhume Janet’s body to determine whether her contact lenses were still present at death. Expert work later confirmed Janet was wearing contact lenses, undermining Raven’s claim that she had already gone to bed without them removed.
  • Blood and timing logic: A forensic blood-splatter assessment argued Raven’s explanation for the limited blood on his sweatshirt didn’t fit with the amount of blood and injury severity on Janet.
  • Shoe print re-identified: A blood-based shoe print near Janet was later matched to a paramedic, explaining at least one earlier “mystery” trace and narrowing which evidence was truly crime-related.
  • Witness/video contradiction: Surveillance suggested Raven’s clothing didn’t match his account of what he wore during the relevant timeframe.

• Arrest, trial outcome, and final plea:

  • Raven was arrested in Feb 2010 and ultimately charged with first-degree murder.
  • A first trial ended in a hung jury/mistrial (11 guilty, 1 not enough for unanimous).
  • A second resolution occurred through plea deals. Raven refused an initial deal involving longer prison time but later accepted a manslaughter plea.
  • He received a sentence of 95–123 months, was released in late 2017, and returned to Utah, changing his name and living quietly.

• Current status and lingering doubt: Raven continues to claim innocence. In 2025, he agreed to speak with reporters and took a polygraph that reportedly showed no deception. His adult son also said he does not believe his father could be involved.

Presenters / contributors

• The video is presented by an unnamed narrator/host (no individual name given in the subtitles).