Mindy Morgenstern Was Brutally Murdered in Her College Apartment. Here's How She Helped Solve Her Own Killing
Mindy Morgenstern, a local college student, was murdered in her North Dakota apartment in 2006
Corrections officer Moe Gibbs was arrested after DNA evidence linked him to the crime scene
Now, he is continuing to serve out his sentence in prisonIt's been almost two decades since Mindy Morgenstern was found dead in her off-campus apartment in North Dakota.
The college student, whose death was investigated in a 2023 episode of NBC's Dateline, was in her senior year at Valley City State University when she was murdered in September 2006. Though police pursued several suspects, DNA evidence eventually linked them to one of their own: corrections officer Moe Gibbs.
His DNA not only matched the crime scene at Mindy's apartment, but also an unsolved sexual assault that occurred two years earlier.
'It was pretty horrific,' Sgt. Dave Swenson of the Valley City Police Department told host Keith Morrison. 'Valley City is a small community … I knew who she was.'
Here's everything to know about Mindy Morgenstern's killer and where he is now.
Mindy Morgenstern was a 22-year-old senior at Valley City State University in Valley City, N.D., per Valley News Live. Her parents, Larry and Eunice Morgenstern, adopted her as a baby and raised her on their farm in New Salem, N.D. She also worked as a basketball coach for young kids.
While in college, Mindy was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS), a disease that can cause numbness and muscle weakness, per the Mayo Clinic. Eunice said that her daughter took her diagnosis 'in stride' and never let it interfere with her zest for life.
'She had a light in her eyes, and if you met her, you'd know what I was talking about,' her mother said during a March 2022 episode of Oxygen's docuseries An Unexpected Killer. 'She had a smile that would just look right through you.'
On the evening of Sept. 13, 2006, two of Mindy's friends drove to her off-campus apartment. They tried to call her on the way, but she didn't answer her phone. When they arrived, they found her dead on the floor.
'About two steps in, I saw something on the ground right in front of my feet. It was Mindy,' her friend, Toni Baumann, said on An Unexpected Killer. 'And then I noticed something around her neck.'
That something was a belt, according to Special Agent Calvin Dupree of the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation. He told the show's producers that there was also a broken knife lodged in Mindy's throat. Per court testimony obtained by The Jamestown Sun, her body had been drenched in Pine-Sol, a multisurface cleaner.
According to her autopsy report, she died due to a combination of the cuts on her neck and asphyxiation. There was no indication of sexual assault.
Moe Gibbs is a former corrections officer for the Barnes County Jail and was once a neighbor of Mindy's. After her murder, he told police that he had spent the morning home alone, packing for an upcoming move with his pregnant wife.
Though police pursued several suspects — including an ex-boyfriend's father and a regular who made her feel uncomfortable at the restaurant where she worked — DNA evidence found under Mindy's fingernails ruled them out. Meanwhile, Gibbs' DNA not only matched Mindy's crime scene but also that of an unsolved sexual assault in Fargo, N.D., from 2004.
The Valley City Police Department later learned that the corrections officer had changed his name from Glen Dale Morgan Jr. in 2005 and had previously served five years in prison for his role in a drive-by shooting. Gibbs later admitted to being in Mindy's apartment on the day of her murder, but claimed that he had just been helping her carry a laundry basket.
After his arrest, several female inmates came forward with claims that he had sexually assaulted them while working at the jail.
Gibbs was charged with seven counts of sexual assault — six for the assaults in the jail and one for the rape in Fargo — and one count of first-degree murder in Mindy's death.
He eventually pleaded guilty to the sexual assault charges and was tried for the college's student murder in July 2007. But the trial ended in a deadlock after jurors deliberated for over 22 hours, The Oklahoman reported. Mindy's father told the publication that he believed the jurors didn't find the DNA as 'simple' as he did.
"I'm a Christian man, I don't like to get angry. But it angers me," Larry said. "The DNA didn't seem to mean anything to the jurors. It seemed pretty simple to me, but apparently a good share of the jurors didn't think it was simple."
A second trial was held in October 2007, and Gibbs was found guilty of murder. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Gibbs has been held at the North Dakota State Penitentiary in Bismarck, N.D., since his trial ended. He tried to appeal his case in 2008, claiming that there was not enough evidence to convict him, per The Globe, but was unsuccessful.
A judge dismissed his petition to appeal his conviction in 2010, per The Jamestown Sun.
Read the original article on People
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Judge Blocks Deportation of Boulder Attack Suspect's Family
The suspect in the terror attack at a rally in Boulder, Colorado, calling for the return of Israeli hostages is set to appear in court Thursday. It comes as a federal judge in Denver temporarily blocks the Trump administration from deporting the suspect's wife and five children. NBC's Morgan Chesky reports for TODAY.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Stephen Miller Erupts in Fury over Low Arrests—and Hands Dems a Weapon
The potential deportation of people like Carol Hui, which has shocked locals in the Missouri town where she's lived for 20 years, has inspired a searching debate: What did people think they were voting for when they chose Donald Trump? The relentless smearing of 'illegals,' the 'mass deportation now' signs at the 2024 GOP convention, the vows to herd migrants into giant camps—how could voters not have known that Trump would remove as many as possible? These are hard questions with no simple answers. But here's one thing we can reasonably be certain of: Most voters had no idea that to execute Trump's mass deportations, the administration would shift huge amounts of law enforcement resources away from combating serious and dangerous crimes, potentially hampering efforts to keep us safe. Yet that's exactly what's happening. And this hands an opening to Democrats—including those skittish about this issue—who are looking for fresh ways to make the case against Trump's deportation regime. NBC News reports that top Trump adviser Stephen Miller recently erupted in anger over what he sees as woefully lagging deportation numbers, privately threatening to fire senior Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials over it. He demanded the detention of 3,000 migrants each day, sources told NBC. It's not surprising that the failure to impose maximal cruelty and suffering on the vulnerable would infuriate a dime-store fascist like Miller. What's striking, though, is that this has prompted the administration to devote 'more than 5,000 personnel from across federal law enforcement agencies' to arresting undocumented immigrants, per NBC. This includes 1,800 agents from Homeland Security Investigations, which usually probes crimes that don't involve noncriminal migrants, NBC reports. It also includes 2,000 employees from law enforcement agencies at the Justice Department, like the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration. This is already hindering other crime-fighting. 'Prosecutors say cases without immigration components have stalled or are moving more slowly,' reports NBC, adding that federal law enforcement officials say the 'increased focus on cases with an immigration angle is pulling resources from other law enforcement priorities.' It's difficult to gauge the precise impact of all this without more detail. But Deborah Fleischaker, a former chief of staff at ICE, says it's reasonable to surmise that the sheer bulk of resources being reallocated will adversely impact other enforcement efforts. 'Shifting that number of law enforcement agents from those types of agencies inevitably will mean fewer resources fighting transnational criminal organizations, drug smuggling, counter-terrorism, and child exploitation,' Fleischaker told me. Now ask yourself this: How many voters understood that when Trump vowed to remove 'illegals,' it would drain extensive resources away from fighting crimes like those? The answer has important implications for how Democrats should proceed now. They often seem to assume that Trump has won the argument over immigration, particularly over the undocumented population. But recent events suggest this is still very much open to contestation. For one thing, Trump's higher-profile arrests and deportations are demonstrating that ordinary voters who wanted a more orderly immigration system—and believe this is what Trump promised—are recoiling at the forced removals of unauthorized immigrants who have, to varying degrees, integrated into American life. The best recent example of this is the Trump voter from Missouri who said of Carol Hui's arrest: 'No one voted to deport moms.' This has prompted chortling online, with many citing those 'mass deportation now' signs and saying: You absolutely did vote to deport moms. But as data analyst G. Elliott Morris explains, even if that's technically true, data shows that majorities do not want to deport 'moms' or other unauthorized immigrants who haven't committed serious crimes and have assimilated in some meaningful sense. Morris looked at recent polling on various types of deportations—of people who have lived here for over 10 years, or haven't broken non-immigration-related laws, or have jobs here and no criminal record—and found all of them deeply underwater with the public. That people voted for Trump despite these views—after he explicitly vowed to deport people from all those categories—is usually explained as an informational failure. Voters concluded Trump only wanted to deport criminals. Or they believed Trump when he wildly inflated the number of 'criminal aliens' here, meaning mass deportations would of necessity target only such people. Or they just didn't process his vow to remove non-criminals at all. 'On immigration, lots of voters cast ballots for Trump because they were told that there were millions of violent criminals here illegally, and that he would deport them all,' Morris writes. 'But many of them did not have information about the rest of his deportation plans.' This matters, notes Morris, because if numerous 'moderate Trump supporters' out there oppose 'deporting non-criminal parents,' then there's an opening to supply them with information that this is actually happening, which Democrats can do. This creates space to turn them against Trump on this issue. That's all true. But I'd like to suggest another layer to this, one that could prompt Democrats to take this on more aggressively: Voters almost certainly didn't grasp the deeper ideological priorities animating the Trump-Miller worldview. Polls sometimes show that majorities support deporting undocumented immigrants when that's posed as a yes-or-no question, but they also show that opinions change under more nuanced questioning. If respondents are asked whether they favor deporting longtime residents, they oppose it. Or if they're offered the alternative of a path to legalization, they support doing that. In short, opinion on immigration is confused and self-contradictory. All that data suggests that when voters hear 'deport people here illegally,' they understand it as something like 'restoring order and the rule-of-law to our immigration system.' And so, if majorities oppose removing longtime residents and support giving law-abiding immigrants legal status, then it's likely they want a system that secures the border and removes serious criminals but also one that creates orderly pathways to lawful presence for those who want to contribute peacefully to our economy and society. Unlike Miller, that is, majorities are not ideologically hostile to the mere presence of peaceful unauthorized immigrants in this country; they just want the system to work. Yet Miller and Trump see that presence as itself posing a dire public emergency, or even a civilizational one. In this worldview, there can be no desirable pathway to lawful status here for these people, because they inherently represent a public threat—they are 'poisoning' the nation's 'blood.' Making them legal wouldn't change that. It would only make the threat they pose more insidious. That's why Miller is capable of tweeting that the House GOP budget bill is the 'most essential piece of legislation' in 'the entire Western World,' largely because it ramps up deportation resources. To him, saving the 'Western World' rides on deporting all those unauthorized people, including all those 'moms.' All this gets at the deeper reason Miller and Trump are shifting extensive law enforcement resources away from serious crimes into deporting noncriminal immigrants: They simply do see the presence of these people as an extraordinarily urgent national emergency, perhaps more urgent than all those other serious crimes. It is very likely that majorities would find those priorities deeply demented. As Fleischaker, the former ICE official, told me: 'The idea that immigration enforcement is the most significant national security and public safety concern that we as a country face is deeply unserious.' Which gives Democrats a strong case to make: Trump's twisted ideological obsession with deporting moms—and other unauthorized immigrants who have committed no serious crimes—is detracting from the fight against transnational gangs, drug trafficking, and child exploitation. To Trump and Miller, all those unauthorized immigrant moms really do constitute a national emergency. But there's no way majorities agree with this. Democrats: Miller's private outbursts reveal a new kind of Achilles Heel on this issue—time to seize on it, and prosecute the case accordingly.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Is it time to talk impeachment? Given Trump's actions, it may be overdue.
In the few months since Donald Trump returned to the presidency, he has issued so many executive orders and pronouncements on domestic and foreign policy that he may have overwhelmed our intellectual and emotional energy to fully appreciate their impact. Whether or not you approve of the direction he wants to take the country, he took office after being duly elected. Many of his initiatives are within his authority. Generally speaking, Trump has the right to indulge his ideological obsessions and advance policies that benefit the economic class that 'brung him to the dance.' But, what of those executive orders that exceed the limited authority proscribed for the presidency — powers meant to be shared with other branches of government, or those that defy Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution? Say goodbye to democracy — and our freedoms — if we ignore James Madison's warning in the Federalist Papers No. 47 that "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump took the Presidential Oath of Office to 'faithfully execute the Office of President' and 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Yet just three months later, when asked if he agreed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that every person in the United States is entitled to due process, Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker that he's not so sure. 'I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.' The Constitution states that 'no person' shall be 'deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' It says 'person,' not 'citizen.' Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has held that everyone in this country have certain basic rights. When Welker reminded the president of this constitutionally guaranteed right, Trump complained that this only slows him down: 'I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it.' This helps explain why democracy requires an independent judiciary — to check the actions of the executive (from local police to presidents) to ensure that government allegations of wrongdoing are accurate and mistakes are not made. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the recent high-profile example, is Salvadoran, married to an American citizen with three American-born children who has lived in U.S. since 2011. He was granted protected status by an immigration judge in 2019. Nevertheless he was detained by ICE in March and deported to El Salvador without a hearing. The Trump administration originally acknowledged that he was mistakenly deported, and a federal judge ordered that he be returned to the U.S. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld this directive. As of this writing the Trump administration has done nothing to facilitate his return. The President even quipped that he could do so, but he will not. The government now asserts that Abrego Garcia's deportation wasn't a mistake, claiming he is a member of the Salvadoran gang MS-13, but declines to provide evidence supporting the claim. As if to emphasize contempt for constitutional rights, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller recently said that the Trump administration was considering suspending Habeas Corpus to block an immigrant's right to challenge their detention before being deported. There are other examples of presidential defiance of the law, such as the illegal impoundment of congressionally authorized appropriations and constitutional freedoms. So, it is time to insert the 'I' word (impeachment) into civic conversations. I am not naïve: impeachment is neither imminent nor likely — for now. The disgrace of this period, as future historians will note, is that whether the President has intimidated Congress into silence or they applaud his overly expansive use of power, the legislative branch has abandoned its oversight responsibility. For now, Congress is content to look the other way. Nevertheless, we must begin to insert 'impeachable offenses' into civic conversations. If we don't, we will be complicit in accepting that the aberrant behavior of this President is the new normal for the evaluation of future presidents. Howard L. Simon served as executive director of the ACLU of Florida from 1997-2018. He resides in Gainesville and is president of Clean Okeechobee Waters Foundation, Inc. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Talk of impeachment hasn't come up. How long can that last? | Opinion
