MURDERED: Rachel Hansen

Summary of MURDERED: Rachel Hansen

by Audiochuck

54m•February 23, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of MURDERED: Rachel Hansen

This episode (Audiochuck / Crime Junkie) investigates the unsolved killing of 19‑year‑old Rachel Hansen in Gilbert, Arizona (early June 2022). Rachel was shot in her apartment just after 2:00 a.m.; she called 911 and was taken to surgery but died. The police file released in 2024 is heavily redacted, leaving major questions. The episode reviews the crime scene, timelines, three main investigative theories (sub‑letter/drug connection, ranch employers, and the fiancé’s father), and concerns about the police response. The Hansen family and a pro bono private investigator continue to press for answers and are offering a reward.

Key points / main takeaways

  • Rachel was shot in her Gilbert apartment just after 2:00 a.m. (the shooting occurred the night of June 3 → early June 4, 2022); she survived long enough to call 911 but later died in surgery.
  • The night before the shooting someone reportedly entered her bedroom, stood over her bed and fled when she screamed; that intruder allegedly left a jar of pickles on the counter.
  • Neighbors reported a long history of people coming and going and heavy marijuana smell in the unit (Rachel had been subletting out the unit previously).
  • Surveillance and police records are heavily redacted; many obvious leads (Ring camera clips, building cameras, the “pickle jar,” shoe prints) are either redacted, missing, or unexplained.
  • Police eventually declared the case inactive (winter 2024); the family hired PI Justin Yentes pro bono. The posted reward is $20,000.

Timeline of events (condensed)

  • June 1–2, 2022: Rachel regains access to her apartment after living elsewhere; she spends days cleaning and moves back in.
  • Night before the shooting: Rachel wakes to find someone standing over her bed; the person runs away and—reportedly—leaves a jar of pickles on the kitchen counter. Rachel does not call police that night; she texts/asks fiancé Jomet to stay or change locks.
  • Midnight (night of the shooting): Jomet is at the apartment and leaves around midnight after a call from his father.
  • ~2:00 a.m., early June 4, 2022: A dark figure enters Rachel’s bedroom, holds up a gun and shoots her (bullet entered abdomen and upper back). Shooter flees. Rachel calls 911 from bathroom; first responders arrive within ~5 minutes. She dies after three hours of surgery.
  • Aftermath: Family not notified until ~7:00 a.m. (after Rachel had died). Police investigation file heavily redacted when released in 2024; case later moved to inactive status.

Crime scene & physical evidence

  • Scene: Minimal furniture (box spring and mattress), blood on mattress and bathroom, one bullet and one shell casing recovered.
  • Entry: No apparent forced entry at the front door noted initially, but photos show bedroom door kicked in and a clear partial shoe print on the door.
  • Surveillance: Apartment complex had no operational cameras according to leasing staff. A nearby neighbor’s Ring camera captured footage of Rachel with a long‑haired man (likely fiancé Jomet) earlier the evening before the shooting; most Ring footage in police records is redacted.
  • Pickle jar: Family reports a sealed jar of kosher dill pickles left on the counter after the first intrusion; they say police did not collect it. Police records contain no reference to the jar (one bodycam clip faintly repeats “no pickles”), and the family later discarded it — a lost potential piece of evidence.
  • Other: Neighbors reported they heard nothing despite the shot and the kicked door; questions remain about whether a suppressor was used or why there was no disturbance.

Main investigative theories (with strengths and weaknesses)

1) Subletter / drug‑related theory

  • Summary: Rachel had sublet the apartment to a woman (identified only as “America”) while Rachel worked at a ranch; neighbors suspected drug sales. Theory: the violence targeted the subletter or people connected to drug activity; Rachel was an unintended victim who’d returned too soon.
  • Strengths: Neighbors observed people coming/going and drug smell for months; access had been off‑books (subletting without management permission); police reportedly obtained Rachel’s devices and social media warrants.
  • Weaknesses: Little public information about “America” (only first name), investigators reportedly questioned at least one involved person but no arrest. If the shooter mistook Rachel, the prior-night intruder’s behavior (leaving pickles, no theft) is odd.

2) Horse ranch / employers theory

  • Summary: Rachel had been employed at a nearby horse ranch and fired late May 2022 after disputes; online speculation accused ranch owners (Liz and Amanda) of involvement.
  • Strengths: Tense relationships, professional conflict, and a recent public fight over Rachel’s horse (Dash) and money create motive in the public imagination.
  • Weaknesses: The podcast calls this the least likely theory. Ranch owners reportedly called 911 on Rachel during her mental‑health crisis (suggesting concern), were interviewed early and given alibis per their attorney, and records released do not provide corroboration for police targeting them. No public evidence links them to violence or to the shooting.

3) Gary Bailey theory (fiancé Jomet’s father)

  • Summary: Jomet’s father, Gary Bailey, had a documented history of erratic, threatening behavior toward Jomet’s family and Rachel (alleged death threats; Ava — Jomet’s mom — describes escalation). Gary called Jomet home the night of the shooting; Jomet left Rachel minutes later. Theory: Gary either acted or arranged the killing.
  • Strengths: Multiple witnesses describe Gary’s threatening messages toward Rachel and a campaign of unstable/harassing behavior (people at church called him “Scary Gary”); an altercation months earlier included an alleged text from Gary saying “if I ever see you in my house again I will shoot you in the head.” Gary allegedly told congregation that “the Holy Spirit” told him to call his son the night before — a suspicious timing detail.
  • Weaknesses: Gary reportedly was never formally interviewed by police (family was told they left a message but couldn’t force cooperation). Ava (Jomet’s mom) claims Gary was home with their daughter that night (an alibi she provides). No public evidence ties Gary to hiring a shooter; no charges have been filed. Jomet was interviewed and reportedly cleared by police after an interview.

Police response — concerns & gaps

  • Heavily redacted 338‑page file released in 2024 yields limited public information.
  • Family issues: Hansons were not notified of Rachel being at hospital or in surgery; learned of her death ~7:00 a.m. Police reportedly met with family periodically but family says they rarely saw progress and were later told the case was inactive.
  • Evidence handling: Family alleges police did not collect obvious items (the pickle jar) and/or later denied knowledge of them; surveillance footage largely redacted; the leasing office claimed property cameras were not operational.
  • Interviews and leads: Questions about why Gary was not questioned in person despite reported threats; unclear what other suspects were fully investigated. The PI and family report limited transparency and told that police “exhausted every lead.”

Family & community impact

  • Parents: Kim and Todd Hansen received little communication and have been frustrated with the investigative transparency.
  • Fiancé: Jomet Bailey professes he is distraught; family says they believe him innocent but details of his movements (left after father’s call) are a critical unresolved timeline element.
  • Community reaction: Online harassment targeted the ranch owners; a sense of injustice has led family to hire a pro bono PI (Justin Yentes).
  • Legacy: In Rachel’s memory, her mother founded “Rachel’s Rescue” (a dog/puppy rescue) to keep her story alive.

How to help / call to action

  • If you have information, contact:
    • Gilbert Police Department: 480‑503‑6500
    • Silent Witness (anonymous): 480‑948‑6377
    • Private Investigator Justin Yentes (Arizona Investigative Associates): 602‑252‑2474
  • Reward: Posted reward for information is $20,000.
  • The episode asks listeners to keep talking about Rachel’s case and share any possible leads, however small.

Notable quotes & observations

  • “There is something intuitive in us that, if we trust, can tell you that you are in trouble.” — opens the episode and frames the first-night intrusion.
  • The “pickle jar” detail became emblematic of investigative frustration — an apparently collectible item that was never processed and later discarded.
  • Reporter/PI perspective: given the redactions and gaps, the case likely needs someone with direct knowledge to come forward; otherwise it may remain unsolved.

Final takeaway

Rachel Hansen’s murder remains unsolved amid redacted files, inconsistent evidence handling, and unanswered questions about key people and surveillance. The episode lays out three primary theories (subletter/drug connection, workplace conflict at the ranch, and possible involvement of the fiancé’s father), evaluates each, and emphasizes investigative gaps. Authorities and the family are asking anyone with information to come forward; the case hinges on someone providing actionable details.