Norfolk 'Fuzzy' Best Convicted Again in 1991 Whiteville Double Murder
A jury has again found Norfolk 'Fuzzy' Best guilty in the 1991 killings of a Whiteville couple, with sentencing reported as three consecutive life terms plus 12 years.
2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 1, 2026, 1:56 p.m. ET
Earlier reports
Sep 1, 2026, 1:56 p.m. ETFirst report
Fuzzy Best Convicted Again in 1991 Murders of Whiteville Couple
Fuzzy Best has been convicted on two counts of first-degree murder, first-degree rape, first-degree burglary, and robbery with a dangerous weapon in connection with the Nov. 30, 1991, deaths of the Baldwins, according to WWAY TV3.
The government alleged that Best was hired to do yard work at the Baldwins' home on the day of the killings, and that his fingerprint was found on a weapon near Leslie Baldwin's body and DNA evidence matched his profile. The Office of the Fifteenth Prosecutorial District handled the case.
Best faces a potential sentence of three consecutive life sentences plus 12 years, the statutory maximum. The case remains open as it develops.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 26 Sept 2026, 14:46current
Updated to reflect conflicting reports on proceeding stage and district; clarified attribution.
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 17:56current
First published.
- Version 11 Sept 2026, 18:00
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.