The Disappearance of Heidi Allen

This blog will not only quite honestly likely be very long, maybe my longest, but will prove difficult to write. So often the victim of a murder crime gets lost in the shuffle of things within the investigation and the legal proceedings. This is just such a case and I honestly cannot see a way around it so I am going to do things a bit differently here. I want to start off this blog telling you what I can about Heidi Allen. Let's get to know her as best as I can tell you and then we will talk about her disappearance and all of the legal wranglings and questions that have been asked for nearly thirty years. I do want to say that I did not know Heidi personally, nor do I know her family or any of the other families involved.

Heidi Allen was born September 14, 1975 in New York to Kenneth and Susan Allen. She had an older sister, Lisa and I saw reports that she may have had a brother also but I cannot confirm this. Her mother passed away in 2015 and there was not a son listed; her father is still alive. In early 1994 Heidi was eighteen and it appears that she did not live at home, and possibly lived with a boyfriend that I only found the first name of Brett for. She had worked at a convenient store in New Haven New York for more than two years at that point. She had graduated high school and had even taken some college courses while still there. She was preparing to enter the community college in May of 1994 and planned to focus on social work. It was said she was a very loving and giving girl and in fact the night before she disappeared on April 3^rd she had gone to her parents' home to give the family Easter gifts. The following morning she was working a shift at the store but it had not been her normal shift. She had agreed to work that morning for a co-worker who wanted to spend Easter morning with her family. This was the last time her family saw her. They were awakened the following morning by a relative who called to tell them that Heidi was missing from her work.

Heidi had started her shift at 5:45 that morning and apparently was working alone. It was said that New Haven at that time was still rather safe. People still often kept their keys in their cars and their doors unlocked. I point this out because today it would seems unreasonable for someone to be working alone at any hour at a store such as this but especially in the overnight or early morning hours. But, in 1994, even in inner cities was not unusual at all. At about 7:50 a customer went into the store and found it empty. Heidi's car was still in the parking lot, her purse and keys were still in the store but Heidi was no where to be found. The customer went out to the road and saw a sheriff deputy in his car driving by and flagged him down. The officer made a report to dispatch at 7:55.

There did not appear to be a struggle within the store and nothing seemed to be missing. In fact, there was a report that there was even money laying on the counter and said to have been attributed to a customer who had left $9.50 for gas and a newspaper. I never heard anything more about this customer. There were indications that this was not the customer who had waved down the officer and the fact that they determined what the money was for indicated that at some point authorities had talked to this person, but again, I heard nothing more specifically about this customer. That is not to say that the numerous witnesses to later report seeing things was not this customer, I just cannot say for sure. Nor can I say that I heard anything more about the customer who flagged down the officer. But again, there were numerous people to come forward with bits and pieces of what they claimed to have seen and only a few were named specifically.

A search for Heidi was apparently immediately launched. It was said that a man named Richard Thibondeau not only contacted the police when he heard Heidi was missing and told them that he had seen her that morning when he bought two packs of cigarettes but that Richard and his brother Gary had helped in the search and with placing missing posters. There apparently were not any cameras at the store but investigators were able to determine that Richard Thibondeau had been Heidi's last customer, ringing him out at 7:42. Investigators immediately became suspicious of this and began a surveillance on Richard.

As I mentioned earlier there were several witnesses who reported seeing things. One man, identified as Christopher Bivens, told authorities that he was driving by the store and saw two men leading a woman to a van and that it looked as if one of the men had the woman in a “bear hug.” Bivens described the van and it was said to be similar to the one that Richard Thibodeau drove. I found another report that very specifically described Richard's van. That report said “a witness” stated the van was “whitish blue” and described specific colors and stripes on the van. This witness later identified Richard's van as the van in question. This “witness” was also to have said to have seen two men and one woman in the lot beside the van. Once again however I cannot say if this same unnamed witness was Bivens or whether this was a different witness. However, based on this description the authorities searched the van and came up with nothing. It was also said that Richard willingly gave his fingerprints, blood and hair samples.

We have all heard about detectives who have developed tunnel vision. Now, tunnel vision regardless of the outcome in a case can be a very bad thing. The first thing it does is it closes the minds of investigators to look at any other evidence that comes their way in a case. Secondly, it can make them distort things and “invent” things to fit their theory. This is not to say that every case that has involved tunnel vision has focused on the wrong suspect but I would gander to guess and say that even in cases in which the right perpetrator is found through this method, the investigation itself is not as good as it could have been. In this case while investigators were suspicious about Richard considering he was the last customer that Heidi had rang up that morning they also knew that a least one witness, or more, had described there being two men involved. They determined that obviously Heidi had disappeared sometime between 7:42 when she checked out Richard and 7:55 when the police officer contacted dispatch.

Investigators came to the conclusion that Richard, along with his brother Gary, had abducted Heidi Allen and likely murdered her as there was no trace of her. Gary had claimed to be home asleep that morning and his girlfriend, Sharon, was said to have confirmed this (I want to point out that one item in my research showed her name as Theresa but Gary's obituary among numerous other articles I found showed her name as Sharon). However, this is where things get a bit hazy. It took quite a bit of digging for me to even discover that there was apparently a grand jury hearing on this case. What I cannot tell you is exactly what prosecutors and investigators knew, or thought they knew when that grand jury hearing took place. The grand jury would indict both Richard and Gary Thibondeau on charges of first degree kidnapping. They would be arrested but so would Gary's girlfriend Sharon. She would be arrested on charges of lying to the grand jury but I will get into her story much later.

It was said that Gary had gotten into some trouble and had a minor drug charge. While it seemed a bit confusing it appears that he was facing these charges in Massachusetts at the time of Heidi's disappearance. I say this because Sharon, who would later become his wife, would say that authorities had come after her because she “failed to answer questions about drug possession charges in Massachusetts” among other things. I do not know anything about this case such as when it started, or any of the details. All I can say is that at some point after Heidi's disappearance Gary was given a prison sentence. Whether that sentence was served in New York or Massachusetts is unclear to me. However, while he was serving that sentence two inmates would come forward and claim that he confessed to Heidi's kidnapping and ultimate murder. They would claim that he stated he had killed her with a shovel and her body would never be found.

While the brothers were charged with first degree kidnapping, prosecutors were also calling it a probable murder but no trace of Heidi had been found. To be fair as of this writing in January 2022, there has still been no trace of Heidi. Richard and Gary ended up being tried separately which is quite unusual considering that the prosecution theory was that they did the crime together. I can only assume that it is likely that Gary's defense attorney's asked for a separation. While there was no physical evidence against either brother, Richard had admitted to being at the store that morning and his van had been described by witnesses. It appears that most of the same witnesses would testify at both trials. Gary's trial would commence in June of 1995. It appears that in 1995 none of the eyewitnesses who had been at the store that morning or even driven by and claimed to have seen anything, were able to identify the “two men” they claimed they saw. One witness believed they may have seen Gary outside the store that morning. Another witness would say that Gary was with Richard the morning Heidi disappeared and that Richard's van was parked at Gary's home shortly after she went missing. His lawyers would later say that the case involved a “mix of jailhouse informant testimony and circumstantial evidence.” But, I must be fair in saying that I have no idea what circumstantial evidence they claimed. Gary maintained his innocence throughout. But, lets be fair, plenty of guilty people have claimed innocence. It still came as a surprise to Gary, and his family when he was found guilty and given a life sentence with a minimum of twenty-five years. His first chance at parole would be in 2020.

In July of 1995, just after his conviction Gary and Sharon would marry. In September Sharon would go on trial for a single count of perjury. The prosecution argued that she had lied to the grand jury, arguing that Gary was home in bed with her that morning on April 3^rd. Things get even more sticky here. I found a report that stated during Sharon's trial the prosecutor put a witness on the stand who claimed that from April 3-5^th Sharon and Gary were at her home in Massachusetts driving a particular car. Then there seemed to be a surprising turn of events. Is seems just as the trial was coming to an end the prosecution handed some information to the defense. Two detectives had reported that after midnight on the night of the 3^rd, after Heidi's disappearance they had driven by Gary and Sharon's home. The Cadillac vehicle that the witness stated the couple had driven to her Massachusetts home was in the driveway and the detectives had written down the license plate number. There was a theory going around that the detectives figured out that the prosecutor had not informed Sharon's lawyers of this and basically said “you tell or we do.” The two detectives were then called by the defense to testify. When the jury took the case they deliberated for about a half an hour before they found Sharon not guilty of perjury. I am going to get back to this in a bit but I put this here at this point because I wanted it in chronological order of how things were done.

Then, the following month in October of 1995, Richard Thibodeau was put on trial for the same charge of first degree kidnapping in which his brother had been convicted just four months before. The evidence was much the same as the evidence presented in Gary's trial from the prosecution standpoint. I do not have great details or a play by play but I am going to assume one major difference would have been the jailhouse informants that testified at Gary's trial. I cannot imagine that they would have been allowed to testify at Richard's trial considering they testified hearing the confession from Gary. I also never found anything that indicated that Richard had allegedly confessed to anyone. That being said I think it could also be safely assumed that the witness who testified in Gary's trial about seeing Richard's van at his brothers home shortly after Heidi disappeared likely testified. I am sure both trials saw the witnesses that claimed seeing two men and a woman together in the parking lot including the ones that described Richard's van. For his part Richard never denied the fact that he had seen Heidi that morning or that he had been in the store. At the conclusion of his trial Richard was acquitted on all charges. The argument from the prosecution side was that it was two different judges, with two different juries and that while Gary's jury got it “right,” Richard's did not.

Appeals were filed on Gary's behalf and while he maintained his innocence, the courts always upheld the conviction and sentence. In December of 1996 Richard and Sharon Thibondeau filed a lawsuit against the county for wrongful arrests. Each asked for five million dollars. I was unable to determine whether the lawsuit was dismissed or settled in any way.

Over the next several years new things were popping up and being learned. A woman by the name of Tonya Priest came forward. Exactly when she did this is not completely clear. Some information states that she came forward in the early summer of 2014. There was something else that gave me the impression that she may have come forward as early as 2006. The prosecutor in 2014 indicated that it was at least prior to that as he claims that the story she told was looked into and discounted as early as 2013. This last claim seems a little odd considering that there were articles in the middle of 2014 indicating that there were currently searches being done that were directly related to her information. But, I am going to get back to Tonya Priest in just a bit.

I am going to take a second to jump back just a bit, but for good reason. It came to light at some point that eighteen year old Heidi Allen was considered to be a confidential drug informant for the sheriff's department. What is unclear is when this information came to light. Gary's appeal lawyers claim that the original trial lawyers were not given this information hence hindered their defense. The fact that Heidi was an informant for authorities could have opened up an entire new pool of suspects. One court stated that Gary's lawyers failed to prove that the original lawyers were unaware of Heidi's status as an informer. Another court discussed another issue surrounding her status but it was a bit more confusing.

Heidi had been working with a Deputy Chris Van Patten. Van Patten was apparent in the convenient store at some point and had used the pay phone. It was said that he accidentally dropped a card that had Heidi's picture on it. It was an ID card showing her status as a confidential informant. It was said that he dropped it near a payphone and that a store employee found it and gave it back to the police. What was unclear was when this happened and how long it had been there before it was returned. One of the appeal papers indicated that it may have occurred two years prior to her disappearance and they indicated that they felt with that much time it was unlikely to be a cause for her disappearance.

So now let's get back to Tonya Priest. Regardless when she may have come forward, the fact of the matter is that she did. Tonya had a story to tell. She stated that a man named James Steen told her that he and two other men, Roger Breckenridge and Michael Bohrer were responsible for Heidi Allens disappearance and ultimate murder. The claim was that the men murdered Heidi because she was going to report their drug dealing to police. He allegedly claimed that they took the body to the home of Jennifer Wescott who was the girlfriend of Roger Breckenridge in the town of Mexico, New York, where they beat her in the garage. It was then claimed that the men dismembered her body and hid her body in the floor boards of a cabin in Mexico (the town). It was said that there was a secretly recorded phone call between Priest and Wescott but the details on whether Priest had recorded it on her own or the police were involved is unclear. In the call Wescott was heard “murmuring in agreement” with Priest that the men had brought Heidi to her home in a van.

In July of 2014 public defender, Lisa Peebles announced she planned to file a motion to reverse Gary's conviction. A few days later investigators would search a wooded area as well as a few cabins in the Mexico area. They found nothing in their search for Heidi. There was also another “rumor” that instead of being buried under the floorboards of a cabin Heidi's body was crushed and taken to Canada. While this may seem to sound like a far fetched idea the fact of the matter is that Steen actually worked for a company that transported steel, including crushed cars, to a salvage yard in Canada. It should be noted that by the time this came to light James Steen was in prison serving two life sentences plus several years. He murdered his estranged wife and her new boyfriend that happened to be his cousin but that is for another blog on another day.

So with all of these developments I want to now go back to the legal timeline and how things moved, or did not move, forward. As I stated Lisa Peebles filed a motion, or at least announced she planned to, in July 2014 asking Gary's conviction be reversed. It seems that in this same motion she claimed Steen, Breckenridge and Bohrer were responsible for Heidi's death. The prosecution claimed that this was investigated and “discounted” in 2013, although I take issue with this considering a search took place just days after Peebles made her announcement. It was said that all three men denied being involved but at least four people claimed that Steen confessed to them. At least one person said the same about Bohrer and another stated Breckenridge stated “we chopped her up, put her in a wood stove and put her in a vehicle and sent her to Canada.” Throughout the years there were more and more appeals and many continued to center on these three men. For me to say who said what at which appeal or hearing would be difficult.

A man by the name of Bill Pierce stated that he was sitting in traffic outside the convenient store and claimed to have witnessed the abduction of Heidi. At a hearing he identified Steen but prosecutors pointed out that in the summer of 2014 he had identified Gary Thibodeau. According to Pierce that was true but a few days later he saw a picture of Steen and called authorities saying he was mistaken about Gary. Prosecutors made two points against Pierce. First was that the picture Pierce saw of Steen was taken twenty years after the incident in 1994 so he would not have looked the same and also that Pierce was shown a photo lineup that included both Gary Thibodeau and James Steen in which he failed to pick either of the two men.

Defense attorney's argued that Michael Bohrer had previous crimes against women and while the judge could not argue this fact, the judge stated they were not similar enough to Heidi's case. In 2015 a knife was found under the roof of a home in which Bohrer had previously own but it “failed to have DNA on the blade or the handle” to in any way connect it to the case. Defense attorneys argued that a FBI profile was compiled in Heidi's case and it closely matched Bohrer.

In March of 2016 the appeals court upheld Gary's conviction saying that despite the fact that there were more than a dozen witnesses against the three men they were “inconsistent or unreliable.” In June of 2017 the conviction was upheld again 3-1. This is when the court stated that the defense failed to prove that the original prosecutors had suppressed the information about Heidi being a confidential informant. They also claimed that many witnesses testified to hearsay evidence.

In September of 2017 a motion was filed for Gary to be given a medical release. He had developed a lung condition and had been given six months to live. It was said that he was “wheelchair bound” and only weighed 126 pounds. Once again the court denied the motion.

In June of 2018 the highest court in New York decided once again to affirm Gary's conviction. This time the decision was 4-3 against granting a new trial. The court claimed the new evidence presented was “insufficient to reverse.” They stated that “certain witnesses.... were simply not credible.” The dissenting opinion focus not just on the new evidence presented but also inconsistent testimony at the original trial.

On August 12, 2018, at the age of sixty-four Gary Thibodeau died in a prison hospice care facility. He continued to maintain his innocence. His wife, Sharon, was listed in his obituary as previously deceased.

In 2021 a book was published that was written by Gary's attorney, Lisa Peebles and a reporter, John O'Brien. I have not read the book but for those interested it is called “Scrapped. Justice and a Teen Informant, The Real Story of Heidi Allen's Kidnapping.” Now of course as all books, movies, documentaries... etc are, I am sure that this is bias in some way. That is not to say that the information in the book is false, just likely leaning in a direction of their opinion. They claim that Steen, Breckenridge and Bohrer were the real killers and that her body was “likely crushed in a stolen van and transported to a scrap metal yard in Canada.”

In June of 2019 a television station produced a documentary called the “Heidi Allen Files.” The show “revealed a note from former District Attorney Donald Dodd that instructed sheriff deputies not to turn over a certain file to defense attorneys for the Thibodeau brothers.” I did not determine what this particular file pertained. Questions linger whether it was a file about Heidi being a confidential informant.

The current district attorney, or at least the one who had defended the office during all of the appeals that were filed, maintains that the right man was convicted, the three other men were not involved and the case is closed.

In 2004 Heidi's cousin went to her mailbox and found a brown envelope. Inside the envelope was a bracelet she had given Heidi that had her name on it. It was said that she did not report this for many years to authorities. There was nothing that I could find that indicated she may have kept the envelope or even how many years she waited before telling the police and whether any forensics could have been obtained or if it was even tried.

In March of 2018 both Gary's brother, Richard and Tonya Priest appeared on some television show that talked about the crime. Prior to the airing they were both given lie detector tests and passed. There is an article that discusses the exact questions they were asked. To be fair it was said that the man who conducted the test was well known and I found nothing to indicate that he is not respected in his field. Of course authorities argued that lie detectors mean nothing and people know how to “cheat” them. Their comments brings up a whole new issue for me about how while I absolutely agree that lie detector tests are not a reliable source considering the courts still do not allow them to be presented as evidence, I also find it very convenient how many investigators still use it as a tool. It has become one of those things where if the results are in their favor they want to spread the word but when they are not the results they want or expect or go against their public beliefs they use words like “cheat.”

After more than eight pages of typing and putting this all together I am finally to the point that I come to in my blogs where I analyze the information I have found whether it be the things here that I have written or things I have seen on the multiple crime shows I have seen on this case. Do I believe Gary Thibodeau was guilty? Obviously I cannot say with complete certain but I have to say that I do lean towards the fact that it could be highly likely that he was innocent. In addition to this whether he was guilty or innocent from my assessment I simply do not believe the prosecution had enough evidence to prove his guilt, nor do I believe that he likely got a fair trial. So lets look at things that led me to this conclusion.

I spoke earlier of tunnel vision with investigators and I do feel as if there was some of that in this case. It was concluded that Richard Thibodeau entered the convenient store and made a purchase at 7:42 in the morning for two packs of cigarettes. There obviously were not cameras in the store or this case could have been solved more easily. Without Richard Thibodeau calling authorities and telling them that he had been in the store that morning and bought cigarettes they would likely have not known that he was Heidi's last customer. If in fact Richard was guilty of kidnapping and murdering Heidi why would he call authorities and tell them that he was there. Sure, there is the idea that murderers like to be involved in the investigation and see what authorities know as things are moving forward but I am not feeling that being the case here. In addition to this while Richard has always said he was in the store that morning, he has always maintained he was alone.

Since there was never any forensic evidence linking either Richard or Gary to Heidi or to the case almost all of the evidence presented against the men came from eyewitness testimony or in Gary's case alleged statements that he made. Let's start with the eyewitnesses. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously flawed. Whether that was known in 1994 as much as it is now is unknown, but it should have been. It appears that several people described Richard's van being at the store. Well, it was at the store and he readily admitted it. Were the witnesses who claimed to also see two men with a woman and describing the van led in those interviews? When asked to describe the van were they given clues as to what Richard's van looked like?

Then there were the witnesses against Gary that stated he confessed. They were all inmates, or former inmates, who spent time with Gary when he served the sentence for “minor drug possession.” One would actually come back years later and say that while he had testified that Gary had all but confessed to him, in fact he had heard that information from another inmate and not directly from Gary himself. If this were true he would not have been allowed to testify in the trial as it was complete hearsay. Were the others that testified given any kind of reduced sentences? I found nothing in my research that stated they were given anything for certain but very few jail informants do things without something to gain for themselves.

Some could argue that there was also not forensics linking James Steen, Roger Breckenridge and Michael Bohrer to the disappearance either. Some could also argue that, just like with Gary's case, others claimed the men have confessed. One of the differences is that I never saw anything that indicated that any of those people were inmates in a jail at the time that they told the story they allegedly heard from the men. I also saw nothing other than Gary's minor drug charge that implicated either Gary or his brother had a criminal history, unlike these three men. Another argument would be that the crime happened in 1994 and it does not appear that the men were investigated until 2013, long after Gary had been convicted. Richard's van had been analyzed but that is the only thing I saw that was tested forensically. By the time the story of the three men came out there was obviously time to get rid of evidence that could have been tested.

Then there is the issue of Heidi being a confidential informant. The courts argued two things pertaining to this. First, they argued that appeal lawyers failed to prove that the original trial lawyers were given this information. Now, I am uncertain whether anything in any of the appeals addressed ineffective counsel. I did not see anything mentioned but this is such a staple at times it can be overlooked. Here is my opinion on this issue. I obviously cannot say with 100% certainty that the trial lawyers were given this information but regardless it seems to me that it seems fairly obvious that it was not mentioned in the original trial. This means either a) trial lawyers were unaware of her status as a confidential informant or b) they failed to bring it up at trial. I believe this information is very important. It gives credence to the alleged motive of the three men who were later accused. To play devil's advocate I also acknowledge that since Gary himself was facing charges it could have also played a role although from my understanding his charges were out of Massachusetts and not the New York, let alone New Haven, area.

The second thing that the appeal court address with Heidi's status as a confidential informant revolved around the issue in which the deputy had dropped a card showing her picture which stated she was a drug informant. They ruled that it had been two years since that had occurred and they did not believe that it had contributed to her disappearance. I found nothing that indicated when the deputy may have lost it nor did I find how long it was until it was returned to the police department. How can the courts say that the person who found it did not innocently, or maybe not so innocently, mention it to someone else who mentioned it to someone and so on? How can the courts say how long that card was left out and visual for others to see? Let's say that Gary, the three other accused men, or someone else who may have been responsible for Heidi's disappearance either saw the card or had been told by someone else in the community about it at some point. Maybe this person or persons did not have any criminal issues at the time but by 1994 were facing drug charges and believed Heidi was responsible for them being caught. Maybe they had not got caught yet but wanted to prevent being caught in the future. The point I am making is that I feel as if the courts completely dismissed the issue of Heidi being a confidential informant when that information, and the fact that her card had been dropped at some point, could have been vital to her disappearance.

Heidi's sister has been vocal about her disappearance and what it did to her family. While I could not find a complete answer to my question on whether she and her family believe Gary Thibodeau was guilty I got the impression that they did and with his death they would likely never locate her body.

I could probably go on for many more pages writing about this case. When I sit down to write a case out I try to do it in one sitting as much as possible so my brain does not get jumbled and I either forget to add some things that I wanted or repeat things I do not intend to. This case has taken me about three days, obviously off and on, to finish. I know there are things that I did not mention, yet I took a note down about; I know there are things that I am sure I never discovered about things in this case. As always I welcome civil debates in the comments as well as information I may not have discovered or posted here.