Case file 06 · Chapter 5 of 6
The chief who reopened it
Brookford’s young police chief reopened the case in 2023. A phone left recording during an interview led to his indictment in 2025, a dismissal at trial in June 2026 and a lawsuit that is still pending.
Move your cursor or finger across the photograph
Photograph: The historic Catawba County Courthouse in Newton. Upstateherd · Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 3.0
People in this chapter · Willie Armstrong · D. Scott Reilly · Ronald Crawley · Sheriff Don Brown
The reopening at a glance
- Who
- Brookford Police Chief Willie Armstrong, chief since 2023, who has described himself as the youngest Black police chief in the country when he was hired at 24
- Reopened
- July 2023, after the family asked him to look at the case
- Allegation
- That he left a phone recording a man he interviewed in October 2023, and later clipped and deleted parts of the recording
- Charges
- Felony altering, destroying or stealing evidence; misdemeanor willful failure to discharge duties (May 5, 2025)
- Outcome
- Dismissed by the trial judge for insufficient evidence after the state rested, June 11, 2026
- Still pending
- His lawsuit over the DA’s credibility notice, filed Oct. 2, 2026
The family asks for help
Dee Dee’s father died in 2022. Dateline reports that his death is when the family began investigating on its own. In July 2023 the family met with Willie Armstrong, Brookford’s new police chief. He opened a Brookford Police Department investigation and asked the other agencies for their files. He told Dateline he met resistance from the sheriff’s office and the SBI.
A year later Armstrong showed WSOC a case file about two inches thick and said four Brookford investigators had spent months re-interviewing everyone connected to the case. He said they had developed possible suspects and that some people in the community might be afraid to talk. “It’s an active murder investigation,” he said. The Hunting 4 Answers podcast reported his belief that someone in the small town knew something and had kept silent out of fear.
“We just need that someone with that one piece of key evidence.”Chief Willie Armstrong to WSOC, July 2024
Sources: NBC News Dateline, Cold Case Spotlight · WSOC, Dave Faherty, July 23, 2024 · Hunting 4 Answers podcast, Jan. 15, 2026
The phone that kept recording
In October 2023 Armstrong and a Brookford police captain went to a private home to interview a man about the case. Armstrong recorded the interview on his phone. When he left, the phone stayed behind and kept recording. Armstrong has said he realized it was missing and went back for it. The Brief does not name the man who was interviewed. He has not been charged with anything, and police have not publicly named a suspect.
On November 7, 2024, the sheriff’s office reported allegations against Armstrong to the FBI and the SBI, and a joint investigation began. In January 2025, days after Armstrong announced he would run for Catawba County sheriff, an SBI agent told him he was the subject of a criminal investigation. Armstrong told WBTV he had gone to that meeting believing the second man present was a polygrapher. He was with the FBI.
On May 5, 2025, a grand jury indicted Armstrong on one felony count of altering, destroying or stealing criminal evidence and one misdemeanor count of willful failure to discharge his duties. Prosecutors alleged that he clipped and deleted parts of the recording. He pleaded not guilty in November 2025 and said the charges were politically motivated, tied to his campaign. He remained Brookford’s chief.
Sources: NBC News Dateline, Cold Case Spotlight · WBTV, Derrion Henderson, July 20, 2026 · WBTV, Cassidy Johncox and Derrion Henderson, June 11, 2026

Three days of trial
The trial began in June 2026. On June 10 prosecutors played more than 40 minutes of audio of an interview between Armstrong and SBI Agent Ronald Crawley, who asked why Armstrong had left the recording phone in the man’s home. Armstrong maintained that he did not intentionally record the conversation. WBTV reported that the case turned on North Carolina’s recording law. After the state rested, the defense moved to dismiss for insufficient evidence. On Thursday, June 11, the judge granted the motion and dismissed both charges. WBTV reported the judge found his actions did not rise to the level of a crime.
Armstrong was back in his office the next morning. He told WSOC that prosecutors had offered him a plea to a lesser charge and he refused. Dee Dee’s family and the mayor had supported him throughout. The mayor called the prosecution a waste of taxpayer money. Armstrong said he would keep investigating Dee Dee’s death.
Sources: WBTV, Cassidy Johncox and Derrion Henderson, June 11, 2026 · WSOC, Dave Faherty, June 12, 2026 · WBTV, Derrion Henderson, July 20, 2026
Legal notes from an attorney
- The evidence statute
- G.S. 14-221.1 makes it a felony to alter, destroy or steal evidence relevant to a criminal offense. The misdemeanor count describes the offense in G.S. 14-230, willful failure to discharge official duties.
- Recording law
- North Carolina is generally a one-party consent state: under G.S. 15A-287, a person who is a party to a conversation may record it. The harder question is a device that keeps recording after its owner leaves, when no one in the room has consented. News coverage described the trial as turning on the state’s consent law.
- “Acquitted” or “dismissed”?
- Both words appear in coverage. The judge dismissed the charges for insufficient evidence after the state rested. For double jeopardy purposes, a ruling that the evidence was legally insufficient operates as an acquittal and bars retrial (Burks v. United States).
- Giglio
- Prosecutors must disclose information that could impeach their witnesses, including police officers (Giglio v. United States). Many offices keep lists of officers they will not call to testify.
General legal information, not legal advice.
After the verdict
The dismissal did not end the fight. The district attorney, D. Scott Reilly, had placed Armstrong on his office’s Giglio list. In March 2026, Reilly wrote to Brookford’s mayor that Armstrong was “no longer a credible witness for criminal prosecution.” Hickory police ended their mutual aid agreements with Brookford on March 24, 2026, citing that determination. Sheriff Don Brown had also revoked mutual aid, saying the decision concerned jurisdiction and was not related to the charges. Reilly said the letter was not meant to pressure the town and that his office would keep the determination in place.
On October 2, 2026, Armstrong sued. WBTV reported that the suit challenges the notice Reilly issued in October 2025 under N.C. General Statute 17C-16, argues the statute is unconstitutional because it has no evidentiary standard or appeal, names the attorney general and the legislature’s leaders along with Reilly, and seeks more than $25,000 in damages. WBTV also reported that court filings include text messages between a sheriff’s lieutenant and an SBI agent about a vigil held for Dee Dee. Those are allegations in a pending lawsuit, and no court has ruled on them.
In July 2026 Armstrong told WBTV that in 33 years no one had been arrested in Dee Dee’s case, and that the only person arrested was him.
Sources: WBTV, Derrion Henderson, July 20, 2026 · WBTV, Alianna Kendall-Brooks, Oct. 4, 2026 · WBTV, Derrion Henderson, Oct. 6, 2026
Whatever one concludes about the chief’s case, it has kept Dee Dee’s name in the news. The next chapter turns back to her family and to what could still solve it.
Do you know what happened to Dee Dee?
Tell the people who can check it
Catawba County Sheriff’s Office: 828-465-8340 or 828-464-5241 · Senior Investigator Daniel Jenkins, djenkins@catawbacountync.gov
N.C. State Bureau of Investigation: 919-582-TIPS (8477) or 800-334-3000
Brookford Police Department: 828-358-2025
Family tip line: 828-383-4063 · justice4deedee@gmail.com
The state reward is up to $25,000 for information leading to an arrest and conviction. Firsthand details, dates, names and original photographs are the most useful. This site does not collect tips.
This dossier summarizes public records and published reporting. Where sources disagree, the disagreement is shown rather than resolved by guesswork. No private person is accused of anything here, and the charges once brought against a police chief were dismissed. It is history and legal education, not legal advice. Corrections are welcome through the contact page.

← Chapter 4The file, the shoe and the long silence
Chapter 6 →Justice for Dee Dee and the people still asking