In premeditated targeted violence cases, the research is consistent: there are almost always people in the periphery who held information, observed behavior, or carried a feeling they couldn't name that, in hindsight, was a warning sign.

Someone knew something was wrong before Jared Bridegan was killed on February 16th, 2022.

Part 5 — the finale of One Mile From Home — examines why that knowledge didn't produce intervention. Tony Brueski breaks down probability discounting and the social cost of naming a threat — the documented cognitive and social mechanisms that cause people to systematically underweight danger from people they know, and to choose the path of least resistance over the discomfort of saying something that might turn out to be wrong.

He examines Henry Tenon as the final link in a chain that had interruption points above it — a chain that required multiple people to either participate or fail to stop it. And he closes the series with the question that connects the case to every listener who has ever watched someone escalate and not known what to do with what they were seeing.

95% of the time, naming it makes you feel foolish. 5% of the time, it's the only thing that would have mattered.

The series that started with a tire on a road ends here — with the only knowledge this case leaves us with that is genuinely useful. It would be a waste not to use it.

Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/

Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1

Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/

Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod

X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePod

This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

#JaredBridegan #OneMileFromHome #TrueCrimeToday #TrueCrime #EscalationBlindness #TrueCrimePsychology #HenryTenon #ShannaGardner #MurderForHire #BystandardEffect

The bench trial of former North Andover, Massachusetts police officer Kelsey Fitzsimmons concluded arguments before Essex Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Karp, with a decision expected imminently.

Fitzsimmons, 29, faces a single count of assault with a dangerous weapon. She has pleaded not guilty. The charge stems from an incident on June 30, 2025, in which North Andover officer Patrick Noonan shot Fitzsimmons during the service of a restraining order at her home, obtained by her then-fiancé, Justin Aylaian.

Prosecution's theory: Fitzsimmons raised her service weapon, aimed it at Noonan's face, and pulled the trigger. The weapon did not discharge — the chamber was empty. Fitzsimmons then attempted to load the weapon, at which point Noonan fired twice, striking her in the chest.

Defense's theory: Fitzsimmons was in acute mental health crisis and raised the weapon to her own temple. The physical location of the firearm after the incident — found under her leg — is, per defense argument, inconsistent with the trajectory of a weapon pointed at Noonan. Fitzsimmons elected to testify, denying under oath that the weapon was aimed at anyone but herself.

Key evidentiary record: Noonan acknowledged under cross-examination that he may have referred to Fitzsimmons as a "f---ing whack job" to a neighbor; that neighbor's testimony under oath confirmed the statement. Noonan provided two materially different accounts of the firing sequence, acknowledged the inconsistency, and stated both versions were accurate to his recollection. No body camera footage of the incident exists. Fitzsimmons had a documented involuntary psychiatric commitment in March 2025 for postpartum depression; at least one responding officer had knowledge of this prior to entry. A defense-requested site visit at the residence, approved by the court, was subsequently withdrawn by the defense without stated reason.

Fitzsimmons waived her right to a jury trial. The case is before Judge Jeffrey Karp alone. Maximum exposure on the charge is five years in state prison.

Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/

Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1

Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/

Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod

X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePod

This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

#KelseyFitzsimmons #TrueCrimeLaw #NorthAndover #BenchTrial #AssaultCharge #PatNoonan #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #PostpartumDepression #PoliceShooting

Pima County Supervisor Matt Heinz — a fellow Democrat — used three words to describe Sheriff Chris Nanos's 42-year career in Pima County: fruit of a poison tree. The argument is straightforward and damning. If Nanos omitted a forced resignation and eight suspensions from his 1984 Pima County job application — and the records now suggest he did — then the career built on that application was compromised from the start. Everything above it is tainted.

His deputies agree. Two hundred and forty-one voted no confidence. Zero voted to continue. The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to invoke a state statute requiring Nanos to submit sworn statements or face removal. And a December deposition — in which Nanos was asked under oath whether he'd ever been suspended and said no — is now at the center of a public question about whether his answer was truthful.

Nanos says he interpreted the question as applying only to his Pima County career. His El Paso file — obtained by the Arizona Republic — shows eight suspensions totaling thirty-seven days, a suspect who ended up in the intensive care unit, a grand jury, and a resignation submitted in lieu of termination.

He's said he'll comply with the board's order. Whether that compliance is enough to keep him in office — or whether it simply closes the door on the only removal mechanism currently available — is what county attorneys are working to determine right now.

Nancy Guthrie is still missing. The full picture, laid out plainly, is here.

Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/

Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1

Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/

Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod

X Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePod

This publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.

#SheriffNanos #NancyGuthrie #PimaCounty #NoConfidenceVote #NanosRecall #SavannahGuthrie #TrueCrime #LawEnforcementAccountability #TucsonMissingPerson #HiddenKillers