Crime Solvers Central
Crime Solvers Central
298 Cases Solved. Advancing justice for missing persons, unsolved homicides, unidentified and unclaimed remains.

Forum Posts for Denise Fagot:
Be respectful. Abuse of these forums will not be tolerated.

I’ve been digging into the Denise Fagot case from 1989, and there's one detail that really stands out to me: the single muddy footprint near the forced sliding glass door. Why just one? It's almost as if whoever entered got startled and left in a hurry, or maybe they backed out the same way they came in. Has anyone else looked into whether muddy footprints were found elsewhere close by the apartment? It feels like such a critical piece of evidence that could point towards a hurried exit or maybe even a struggle. Plus, that footprint could provide more information about the shoe size or tread, which might lead to a suspect if compared with someone Denise might have distrusted. Thoughts?
Did anyone else notice the detail about the sliding glass door at Denise's apartment? It seemed like it was forced open, but there wasn't any sign of struggle inside apart from the closet door being off its track in Daniel's room. That's really strange to me. I wonder if someone knew they could get in easily through that door. And what's up with that single muddy footprint? Was there ever any follow-up on whose footprint it could've been, or if it matched anybody known to Denise? It seems like such a small clue, but could really be a big piece of the puzzle. It’s almost like the person knew what they were doing, which makes me think this could've been planned. Any thoughts?
I’ve been digging into the Denise Ruth Fagot case lately, and something keeps bugging me about the scene at her apartment. What do y’all make of the single muddy footprint they found by the sliding glass door? It seems like a crucial piece of evidence, but I haven’t come across much discussion on it. Could it point to a lone perpetrator, or is it possible that someone tried to stage it to look like a break-in, maybe to mislead the investigation? Also, how common was it back in '89 for authorities to thoroughly analyze prints like that for any unique characteristics? Just wondering how much info they could have potentially gleaned from something as telling as a footprint. Would love to hear what others think about this aspect of the case!