FirstAlerts

Two Men Charged in Connection with Remains Found in Columbia Backyard

Ira C. Baldwin and Shane Smith face charges including abuse of a corpse and tampering with evidence after the remains of Nicole Slusser were found at a home on Mini Court. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 27, 2026, 8:52 p.m. ET
Two men have been in connection with the discovery of human remains in the backyard of a home on Mini Court in Columbia, according to reports from krcgtv.com and whio.com. Ira C. Baldwin and Shane Smith were indicted by a jury, with the charges announced on August 25, 2026. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The charges against the two men include abandonment of a corpse, 13 counts of gross abuse of a corpse, five counts of tampering with evidence (alter/destroy), and two counts of tampering with evidence (make/present), as reported by krcgtv.com and whio.com. The government claims Shane Smith committed the 13 counts of gross abuse of a corpse, five counts of tampering with evidence (alter/destroy), and two counts of tampering with evidence (make/present) in connection with the remains of Nicole Slusser, according to whio.com. Separately, the indictment alleges Baldwin knowingly abandoned, deserted, or left his roommate's corpse at their Columbia residence without properly reporting the location of the body to law enforcement, as reported by krcgtv.com. The case is being handled by the Columbia Police Department, according to krcgtv.com. Reports differ on the prosecuting authority: whio.com identifies the , while krcgtv.com identifies . The cause of death has not been determined, and the investigation is ongoing.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 128 Aug 2026, 00:52current

    First published.

  2. Version 125 Aug 2026, 17:07

    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.