Transcript of Showdown: 5

A man in a tailored suit hops into his Ford Crown Vic on a cold Monday morning in February of 2003, and heads up the New Jersey Turnpike to the heart of Manhattan. The drive is not much more than an hour, but he finds himself a world away from peaceful Princeton. New York City is a mess. A historic blizzard has left chest-high snowbanks, a backlog of garbage, and storm drains overwhelmed by the rain that followed. Every turn and traffic light brings him closer to his destination, a gleaming postmodern skyscraper in Midtown. Captain Tony Federica is behind the wheel, armed with a tape recorder and a plan. A plan to confront a key witness in the Sissy Stuart murder case, to break the infuriating investigation wide open.

On his approach, he's readying himself to square off again with Robert, a pseudonym for one of Craig's Princeton University friends. It's a crucial interview. Here's nick Sutter.

Yeah, so he's probably the, I would say, the most pivotal piece of the, I'll call it the Craig era.

Tony is convinced he caught Robert in a lie three weeks earlier. The hockey game Robert described attending with Craig that Sunday night in April 1989, it wasn't played in Pittsburgh. It was played 300 miles away in Philadelphia. So where were Craig and Robert that night Cissy was killed? What were they doing? Tony intends to find out.

The plan of attack? Tony and a detective from the state police will review Robert's initial statement with him. They'll get Robert to formalize those memories in a recorded statement. Just tell us what you remember to the best of your abilities.

But then, Tony will pounce, confront him with everything he said that's contradicted by the evidence.

And push Robert as far as he needs to go.

Tony thinks he has Robert right where he wants him, that maybe this is the interview that finally puts Craig Stewart in handcuffs.

But actually, Tony walks out of this interview with a whole new theory that Robert may have been more involved in the crime than previously believed.

On I'm Rebecca Everett.

And I'm Kevin Shay. And that's coming up on In the Shadow of Princeton, a podcast from nj. Com and the Star Ledger about the murder of Sissy Stewart. In this episode, We travel back to the winter of 2003. This was Tony's moment. In this case, his white whale. He was the first officer on scene in April 1989, and this is personal for him. Maybe even an obsession. It It haunt him that police have failed to close the case. It haunts him that a killer could still be walking the streets of his town. It haunts him that maybe, just maybe, Sissy's own family had something to do with her murder.

Tony's reinterviewing some key alibi witnesses to see if anybody will crack. Around this time, he also starts meeting with none other than Jeb Stuart, while still getting info on the sly from a confidential informant. Tony thinks he has that great white whale in his sights, his harpoon ready. It starts right here with Robert.

Robert confirmed Craig's alibi back in 1989, a trip to Pittsburgh, The Grateful Dead show. But police only spoke to him over the phone.

When Tony was frustrated by the case or fired up about an interview, he went to nick Sutter as his sounding board. Now, Robert has said he was in Pittsburgh the day Sissy died. But after talking about both of Robert's interviews in 2003, nick said Tony had him believing this friend might have been more involved than just as an alibi witness.

He was going to weird places to protect someone from college.

Especially since they no longer seemed close.

Craig didn't even invite him to his wedding. I remember that because that stuck with me.

Tony was right. This second interview would be pivotal. It changed the direction of investigation, but not in the way he imagined. In a murder case filled with bizarre twists and incomprehensible turns, this interview raised the stakes considerably. Now they're looking at the possibility of a conspiracy.

So this is the Holland Tunnel?

Yes, this is from the Holland.

All right. So I can picture Tony Federica driving through here.

I'm wondering, did he put on those lights? Beep, beep, beep, beep. Move off the way. Yeah, maybe.

Welcome to New York. Nice. There we go.

Rebecca and I took a drive up the New Jersey Turnpike one day and into Manhattan. This was the same trip Tony Federico made twice to interview Robert in a skyscraper in one of the most touristy parts of the city.

Driving through here. This is like you're not in Princeton anymore.

Oh, no, no, no. The flashing lights would have been just as intense. The people, and it's just an absolute mix of tourists.

And then you have all this going on around you.

Okay, and this is the building right here on the left.

But Tony's in experience as a detective, he's mainly been a patrol supervisor, is already working against him. He didn't tape the first interview with Robert, meaning the only account of what was said is what investigators wrote down in their notes.

Back then, that wasn't unusual, nick Sutter told us. But today, the interview probably would have been recorded. Things may have turned out differently if it had.

In hindsight, it would have been great if they had their tape recorders with them and could have said, Okay, so we're just going to formalize this now. It would have been all locked in. I think, honestly, it probably may have made a difference.

That's because Robert's about to throw a curve ball.

Just like the first interview, things get pretty tense pretty quickly in that Manhattan conference room. Our source for this encounter is Tony's report.

Tony starts by going over what Robert told him just a few weeks earlier. Craig was in Pittsburgh that Sunday night, and he and Craig scalp tickets to see the penguins and the fliers.

But Robert denies ever saying they went to the hockey game.

Tony and two detectives had all heard Robert say he went to the game at the Igloo.

Here's nick recounting what Tony said about it.

You said you were at the game. He says, Wasn't at the game. We went to the bar at the Marriott across the street.

He was ready to confront Robert about the hockey game, but now it looks to him like Robert has changed his story all on his own.

We wanted to get Robert's account of this interview, but he didn't answer our questions about what was said. Again, he just said in his statement that he was honest in all of his interviews with authorities. We did talk with the state police detective in this interview, but he doesn't remember anything from that day.

When they finally switch on the tape recorder, Robert's version of events matches up with Craig's. On Sunday, April second, 1989, Robert went to Pittsburgh in the '91 car with Craig.

The rest of his statement, beyond the hockey game issue and a few new details, is similar to the first. The impounded '91 car on Sunday night, the dead concert on Monday.

But for some reason, Tony turns off the tape recorder Maybe it's strategy? We don't know, because this interview is just beginning.

Tony goes right at Robert, and subtlety was never his style.

So things get heated. Robert seems to lose his cool, Tony later told nick.

Tony described him at one point pushing his chair back away from the table and standing up and pacing back and forth during the interview. While they're sitting there, he got up. He couldn't contain his nerves. It was ooosing out of him. He was in an absolute panic.

Tony challenges him about the hockey game, and about two other witnesses saying they took the '91 car to Pittsburgh, so he couldn't have.

Robert says he can't reconcile the accounts.

Then Tony lobs another grenade. Their friend Mark, the one up in Canada, remembers that three of them went to Pittsburgh in Craig's Camry.

Which would be Monday. In essence, he's saying Robert couldn't have been with Craig Sunday, not at the Penguins game or at the hotel bar.

His answer is not on tape, so we're taking Tony's word for it. Robert essentially says, Craig may not have been in Pittsburgh Sunday, but I was absolutely there.

Wow, that sounds like suddenly he's not so certain Craig was there.

The report describes Robert volunteering something else, just as surprising. Maybe the person with him in the hotel bar was a different friend. In other words, not Craig.

Tony's report is clear. He thinks he has Robert on the ropes.

But then something unexpected happens to bolster Tony's attack.

Right. At this same moment, across town, another interview is taking place. Two detectives on the Sissy Stuart Task Force are in a different office talking to a lawyer, a lawyer who had once been Craig Stuart's roommate.

Detective Brit Olson can't wait to call Tony with what she's learned.

The roommate remembers Craig leaving for the concert, she tells Tony. He came back to their dorm room from an early class and saw Craig packing a bag for the trip.

Tony's report lists his obvious conclusion. There are no classes on Sundays. It had to be a weekday, Monday.

A bombshell. And Tony says he hits an already agitated Robert with the new information.

Robert's response to this, That old roommate can speak to Craig's whereabouts, but he can't speak to mine. Again, this is all from Tony's report.

Tony sees Robert backing away from Alibine crying Craig. He sees instead a guy who is more worried about himself.

Tony is direct. It sounds like you're just trying to establish your own alibi for the day Cissy Stuart was killed, he tells Robert. Were you involved in this crime?

Of course not, Robert says. He's never even been to Craig's grandmother's house, he tells Tony.

Tony moves in for the knockout, peppering Robert with questions.

Including about often Craig goes to his grandmother's house and his social activities at Princeton, which elicits a curious answer.

Here's an actor reading from Tony's report.

He said that Craig and their friends like to play cards, and that they often had card games for fun. He then spontaneously uttered, Every time he played cards, Craig would run over to his grandmother's house. I immediately questioned him about that comment, and he became very defensive. He said he had not said that, and I told him that I just heard him say that. He then said that he meant nothing by the comment.

So did Tony mishear him, or is Robert now changing his statement?

And again, why didn't they just record all of this? What could have been the strategy.

Robert didn't tell us his side of the story of this interview, but here's the statement he provided to us in full. From day one, I told the investigators that I was in Pittsburgh between April second and fourth, 1989, which was corroborated by a bunch of people. Also from day one, and to this day, I am certain that I always was truthful when speaking with law enforcement about this case.

But Tony's takeaway? He writes that Robert is being deceptive and...

The only possible conclusion that one can draw is that they are collaborating and concocting a story about this time period.

In other words, Tony sees a conspiracy.

And Tony thinks it stretches far beyond just Craig and Robert.

I said to Roger, The last thing you are, fair and balanced.

That should have been That's slogan. When the Fox News channel first went on the air, it promised to change television.

Few broadcasts take any chances these days, and most are very politically correct.

Well, we're going to be different. It's going to be kick-ass, and I want to be part of it. I'm Josh Levine.

In this season of slow burn, we'll look at the moment in the early 2000s when Fox News became a political and cultural force.

I'm okay with wearing an American flag, and if you're not, I think you need to examine who you are. You'll hear from Fox Insiders, many who've never spoken out before.

I was not told about that beforehand for good reason.

I wouldn't have gone along with it. You'll hear from the activists and comedians who tried to stop it. He said, You're being sued by Fox.

I went, Really? That's fabulous.

Slow burn, Season 10, The Rise of Fox News. Out now, wherever you listen.

Tony sees the end in sight. He seems to have shaken Craig's key alibi witness, getting him to say he couldn't swear where Craig was the day Sissy was killed. In fact, Tony thinks Robert appears even more concerned with his own alibi.

I picture Tony feeling like he was on the brink of solving this case.

But then he suddenly runs into a brick wall, and that brick wall, it looks to Tony like a larger conspiracy.

Right. Something interesting happens when investigators conduct several more second interviews, hoping to shore up their case. They learn that some of the witnesses have started calling each other, according to Tony. Others were emailing. Some, like Robert, were speaking right to Craig.

Let's look at the scope of this. By this point, investigators had spoken with 10 people that we know of about the Grateful Dead concert. Half of them spoke with police at some length a second time, and those five people did not all change their story.

But all five talked to someone else before that second interview, Tony reported.

Now, to Tony, this looks like a conspiracy. But let's be real here. It's just a theory. After 14 years, memories grow shaky.

Yeah, so if their statements changed, maybe they just recalled new details or were less confident about things.

Exactly. The communication could have been innocent. If that was me, I'd immediately be texting my Friends group chat WTF.

But according to nick, some of them also spoke with Craig's lawyer.

They were honest from what I was told and what I read. It was very straightforward. Yeah, I talked to Craig or I talked to his attorney.

nick said the friends didn't realize the importance of what they were telling police in those first interviews.

Then some time goes by and they're contacted by Craig or an attorney. Now they know the importance of what they said, and their recollections become less clear. It's a pattern.

But is it possible these cops see a conspiracy where none exists?

Right. We don't know. The cops didn't even have enough evidence to meet the probable cause standard for charges against Craig Craig. That's not my opinion. It was Tony's. He wrote it in his report after the second interview with Robert. They didn't have it.

And again, we couldn't get Craig to talk to us about these allegations or his alibi.

His lawyer declined an interview and said his client had nothing to do with his grandmother's death.

Okay, so now we're going to focus on two of these follow-up interviews from March 2003. After these two interviews, Tony is convinced winced something shady is going on.

Remember, Craig's alibi is that he went to Pittsburgh on Sunday, the day his grandmother was killed, in the borrowed '91 car.

But the friend we're calling Joe, previously told police he drove the '91 car to Pittsburgh with a different friend.

But when Tony interviewed Joe a second time, this is from the report.

He stated that he did not have a specific memory of the events that he reported in the first meeting. And such, he was no longer going to report what he told us on February 12, 2003.

Man, you can just feel Tony seething from frustration in that moment.

Joe is talking about this to multiple people, Tony wrote, and now he doesn't remember how he got to Pittsburgh or who he went with?

Now, maybe you're like, Wait, who cares what Joe says? Because the way bigger problem for Craig's alibi is that Mark guy up in Canada who said they went in Craig's Camry, which would make it Monday.

But when the Mounties interview him a second time, now Mark recalls going in a different vehicle.

Yep. Now he's saying he and Craig were in the '91 car.

Mark also said they probably left Sunday for the concert, according to Tony's report.

These differences are huge. In Tony's eyes, Mark's first statement had blown up Craig's alibi. But now he's right in line with Craig. Tony is watching his case fall apart.

He thinks he knows why. Mark talked with Craig and his attorney. The lawyer repeated parts of other people's accounts to Mark, according to Tony's report, and suggested he get a lawyer himself.

Man, that makes me wonder what Tony would have done if he'd actually been in the room when Mark said that.

Right, because he didn't think this was a coincidence or a memory problem. Here's his conclusion.

It is clear that after these individuals have traded stories and statements, they are now trying to formulate a consistent account.

But is it possible Tony is just making something out of nothing when an interview doesn't go his way?

As always, we reached out to all of these witnesses hoping for on-the-record interviews news. Usually, this is the part where we tell you no one would talk to us.

But actually, we did get a few of them on the phone, and we got a little sense of their side of things. The gist? There never was a conspiracy to protect Craig. No one lied.

Right. One witness told me, These friends in 2003 were just trying to be helpful, and police harassed them, took their very iffy memories, and spun it into a bonkers conspiracy theory.

Another said he, Cooperated fully with the investigation until he realized that the investigators weren't acting in good faith. He also said they misrepresented facts and statements made in interviews and made threats and accusations with no factual basis.

And there was a third person from this Grateful Dead show who talked to us.

After several calls, he eventually agreed we could use some limited comments he made about the investigation and his experience.

We've agreed to his request for anonymity because he fears being involved in a murder investigation when the killer remains on the loose.

Not surprisingly, his memories of the trip to Pittsburgh remain hazy. Here's an actor reading what he said.

Over time, I've become less sure of a lot of it. The things I'm sure of become fewer in number. But some things I am sure of. There's a few things that swear on a Bible about. Unfortunately, we can't get into what those are as it might reveal his identity.

But the whole thing made him realize memories just aren't 100%. We talked about how discussing them with other people can make you second guess yourself. Like someone might say, I remember this.

I'd say, Oh, that makes sense. I do remember that.

But is it a real memory? Would you swear to it if the police asked?

Even talking to you, you've reminded me of things from 2003. He mentioned that some of the guys felt the police were being pretty forceful with them. Some even felt bullied.

He also said something that I found totally fascinating. Take a listen. There was a sense of the police are unfairly targeting our friend, and we need to make sure our friend, who's innocent, of course, is protected.

I know I never lied. I may have been wrong in my recollections, but I never lied. We never said, We should say this, should we say that?

That wasn't my experience.

Who's innocent, of course. So it sounds like he's saying, I didn't lie. We didn't conspire. But we need to keep in mind how this might affect Craig.

After talking to this guy, it did make me wonder, was Tony looking at these interviews with tunnel vision? Are these friends scheming to cover a murder, or is it just a cop running rough shot. January 6, 2003, was a gray day in Princeton with a few snow flurries. Tony Federica was at his desk in the police station, downtown.

Then a call came from the front desk about an unexpected visitor. Here's nick.

It was odd, as I recall, that he, out of the clear blue, would reach out like that.

It was Jeb Stuart, the man who had been quiet for years. The man who investigators said hid behind his lawyer. But a recent article about Sissy's murder struck a nerve, nick said. Jeb wanted to talk about the case.

At this point, Tony has not yet spoken to that confidential informant or interviewed any of Craig Stewart's friends. But this is an opportunity that's fallen right into his lap, and he's going to make a meal out of it.

Let's seize on this. Communication is open. See what we can do here.

So this chapter is all about three players. Each thinks they're the one working an angle.

First, there's Jeb, suddenly willing to talk. And then there's his girlfriend, who becomes Tony's informant.

And then there's Tony, trying to play this pair off of each other. And what he wants is a confession.

But was he the one getting played?

So Jeb sits down in Tony's office. Tony described their conversation in a detailed report.

Jeb offers a theory. Could a neighborhood woman actually be the killer?

The woman we mentioned in our last episode, who authorities said struggled with mental health issues.

But Tony tells Jeb she's been cleared several times.

Mostly, the conversation sounds like Jeb just unloading on Tony after so many years of silence.

Venting about how the crime impacted his family.

How his wife didn't want him take a polygraph, worried he'd be implicated in the thing.

Then he brings up his children, says they moved away and wanted nothing to do with Princeton.

He says the press had given the kids a hard time, but we couldn't find any articles like that.

Right before he leaves, Jeb says something pretty interesting. His wife doesn't know that he's talking to the cops. Tony should contact him only at Princeton University's athletic office. He started volunteering there after selling the town topics.

I can picture Tony mulling over why Jeb was suddenly there talking. What changed after all the years of silence?

A week later, Tony invites Jeb back to talk about setting up another reward. He describes the scene in his report. He meets Jeb at the door, shows him to his office, and he notices Jeb is limping. Jeb says he has prostate cancer.

It's spreading. Now, Jeb wasn't on death's door. He'd live another five years. At this point, he could just be showing up at the station because he's a devoted son who wants justice for his mother.

But to Tony, Jeb is feeling his own mortality.

Often people, as they're entering that stage of winner of their life, maybe want to get things off their chest. I think Tony felt that pretty strongly.

But once Tony starts asking Jeb uncomfortable questions, like why he wouldn't take a polygraph, Jeb essentially walks out.

But that silence doesn't last long. A few months later, the informant is back with some intriguing information. Jeb wants to do something to relieve the pressure on his son, Tony writes in his report. So he's thinking of contacting Tony again.

And Jeb reaches out soon after. According to Tony, they start a dialog.

Yeah, it was like a chess match is how I envisioned it and both trying to get information from the other.

Tony can see the end game in front of him. So they meet twice in May in the parking lot of Princeton University's Jadwin Gym, walking together and sitting by the outdoor track. Jeb was limping again and says he isn't doing well. But Jeb still needs to keep their meetings a secret, Tony writes. He says his family is against any contact with the police.

But Jeb has an angle here, too. He wants Tony to leave his kid alone. He has no motive. He loved Sissy. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Tony wears a wire the second time they meet at the track. He thinks he can push Jeb into revealing something damning about his family's role in Sissy's killing.

Tony describes telling Jeb point blank. We think Craig lied about his alibi, committed the crime, and you knew about it.

Jeb denies all of it, Tony writes. But if the captain was hoping to spark a fiery reaction to loosen Jeb's that doesn't happen. He keeps us cool.

But later, Tony hears that Jeb actually was very upset.

So who told him that? His confidential informant. This quirky woman, nick said, was flitting back and forth between lunch dates with Jeb and gossip sessions with Tony at the diner.

The informant calls Tony the day after his meeting with Jeb, according to his notes. She tells him Jeb called her twice, distraught about the accusations. He even broke down crying.

The way Tony describes it, Jeb may have been questioning if Craig could have been involved. At a June meeting, Jeb denied any cover-up, but he also said, according to Tony, I cannot say with total certainty that he did not do it.

But Tony believes Jeb has known this about his son all along, his report said. Plus, he writes, The informant is telling him Jeb is inching closer and closer to admitting the truth to her.

Anytime Jeb says something interesting, she's relaying it to Tony. Here's what Tony wrote about one such conversation. You'll hear he refers to Jeb by his real first name, Donald.

She told Donald Stewart that the police told her that Craig did not have an alibi for the day of the murder. She asked Donald if that was true. Donald responded, No, he doesn't.

Tony underlined that last part, No, he doesn't.

But of course, it isn't an admission of anything. Jeb never said he had knowledge of his son killing Sissy.

So is it possible Tony and his informant so badly wanted the theory to be true that they read into everything and saw evidence where none existed? We asked nick Sutter about that.

I have looked at that before like, Wait, if you take it this way, it looks one way. If you take it without context, it looks another way, or in context, it looks another way. Taking them as truthful that they were to her. They're crazy statements to make no matter what. It's just like, who makes these statements? I just wouldn't talk like that about if I didn't do anything.

Now, everything we're going to tell you next comes from Tony's report.

It's a few months later, and Tony meets with his informant again, and she says that Jeb told her he now thought it was likely his son killed Cissy.

Wow. It's hard to believe anyone could think that about their own kid.

But Maybe he didn't. The next time Tony and Jeb meet, Jeb says the opposite. He argues that his son didn't do it, and he and Sheila knew nothing of what happened to Cissy. Then, Jeb cuts off communication again. Now that Jeb is no longer talking, Tony really needs a rock solid informant who will swear to what she's heard. But that's not what Tony had.

When police ask her to make a formal statement of what she'd said to Tony, she balks, according to nick.

They ask her to wear a wire. She refuses.

At least once, she tells prosecutors's detectives a much less damning account of things than the one she gave Tony.

Frustrated, Tony even calls her on a recorded line just so she can't change her story.

It was like she would say, Jeb said this. I was like, Holy crap. All right, if we get this in a statement, we may have something here, evidence. Then when it came time, I didn't say that.

She wouldn't wear a wire? No, wouldn't wear a wire either.

That, too. But that would put her in a position of that next step. Up to that point, it was all her words.

Her words. That's not enough, not nearly enough.

nick Sutter thinks the issue was more about her unwillingness to be the star witness.

Every time she was pushed to go to the next step, she wouldn't. That was multiple times. One that I was there and saw it. She became really angry and that she just, I don't want to be involved in this anymore.

This is a major blow to her credibility, whatever her reasons. Could anything she said be used moving forward? So by the summer of 2003, what do police have?

The chess match between Jeb and Tony has ended in a stalemate.

Tony has what the informant supposedly told him, but then wouldn't swear to.

He has the statements of Craig's To him, their evolving statements only add to the evidence that Craig has something to hide.

But two of the most crucial witnesses, they no longer contradict Craig's alibi.

But then there's his mano a mano with Robert. No matter the frustrations in the case, Tony knows he's not done with him. He isn't just another alibi witness to Tony. Not anymore.

Because the task force believes Robert may be involved, Tony writes in his report. Either They're indirectly by giving Craig a false alibi, or he's, quote, directly involved in this crime with some type of participation.

That's a big accusation, and Robert has denied both.

And either Tony is really onto something, or he bullied a guy with a fuzzy memory.

But was there any evidence to base this theory on? Robert told us he was in Pittsburgh when Sissy died, and witnesses can corroborate it, and that he always told police the truth.

But nick said Robert seemed to be lying.

That's a lot to risk just to alibi your buddy, especially 15 years later when you're in the position that you're in. He's got a high-profile position. Would you risk that at that point for a college buddy?

To nick and Tony, it looked like he may have been lying to protect himself, not Craig.

In my opinion, and I agreed with Tony, it seemed like he had more to lose, like involvement.

Tony doesn't have anywhere near enough evidence to prove what he now believes about Cissy's death. But in May of 2003, he hears something astounding.

When I first heard about this, I couldn't believe it.

What Tony heard made him think that the answer to all his problems might be hidden in the stacks of Princeton University library.

In a certain senior thesis, a work of fiction about the death of a woman.

Tony thought that was as close to a smoking gun as you might get.

Coming up on In the Shadow of Princeton.

If they have them lured up by hour two, you own them, right? And then It's up to you to get the confession. She thought I was there to arrest her. There's no doubt about it.

This is the alleyway behind Cissy Stuart's house, right?

In the Shadow of Princeton is a production of NJ Advanced Media. Reporting is by me and Rebecca Everett. Rebecca wrote and produced the podcast. Christopher Kelly and Jeff Roberts are executive producers.

Our sound engineer and composer is Blake Maples. James Shapier Hero is our associate audio engineer.

Our voice actors are Matt Stanmaier and Sean Sullivan. Our website was designed by Allah Salim.

Special thanks to all our sources who agreed to talk to us. You can visit theprinstonmurder. Com for more about the story, including photos and other extras. You can email us at inbox@theprinstonmurder. Com.

Follow In the Shadow of Princeton. If you're enjoying it, please rate and review it and help us spread the word.