A quadruple murder on Halloween night in 2015 left investigators baffled for years. Now, almost a decade later, a South Carolina woman and her husband are behind bars for the murders. Legal experts say Amy Vardi, who once gave TV interviews about the horrific crime, could soon have her own words used against her in court.
On November 2, 2015, first responders in Pendleton, South Carolina, received a frantic 911 call. Amy Vardi reported finding four dead bodies. The victims were Vardi’s mother, 60-year-old Kathy Scott; her stepfather, 59-year-old Michael Scott; her grandmother, 82-year-old Violet Taylor; and her step-grandmother, 80-year-old Barbara Scott. The victims had been shot and stabbed to death days prior, on October 31st.
Eight years after the brutal murders, Vardi and her husband, Rossmore “Ross” Vardi, were arrested and charged with four counts of murder.
The big question surrounding this case is why it took so long to make an arrest. South Carolina criminal defense attorney Chris Adams speculates that there wasn’t enough evidence to make an arrest in 2015, or in the years immediately following. He suggests that something must have changed in the case to lead to the arrests.
Adding to the intrigue, the suspects were named persons of interest back in March of this year, but weren’t arrested until December. Adams posits that this could have been a strategic move by investigators to breathe new life into a stalled investigation, hoping that media coverage might encourage new witnesses to come forward.
Investigators have remained tight-lipped about what new information, if any, led to the arrests of the Vardi couple. Adams believes that this new information will likely come out during a preliminary hearing, where a judge will determine if the case has enough merit to proceed.
Motive remains a significant question mark in this case. While not a legal requirement for a murder conviction, understanding why someone would commit such a heinous crime, especially against their own family, is crucial.
Adding another layer to this complex case, in 2018, both suspects petitioned for the return of cars, electronic devices, firearms, and cash seized during the investigation. Adams notes that while the fact these items were seized could be relevant, their attempt to retrieve them might suggest innocence rather than guilt.
As a seasoned criminal defense attorney, Adams outlines the challenges of defending such a case, particularly one that is eight years old. The passage of time makes it difficult to track down witnesses and gather evidence that might have been readily available closer to the time of the crime.
Furthermore, Amy Vardi’s past interviews with local TV stations could potentially be used against her in court. Any statements made to law enforcement or the media could be viewed as incriminating and used by the prosecution to build their case.
In an unusual move, the South Carolina Attorney General’s office has taken over the case. This decision draws parallels to the high-profile Alec Murdaugh trial, where the local prosecutor recused himself due to a conflict of interest. While the reasons behind the Attorney General’s involvement in the Vardi case are unclear, it suggests that there might be factors at play that necessitate an outside perspective.
Currently, both defendants are being held without bond. However, due to the nature of the charges, a circuit court judge will ultimately decide if bond is set and for what amount. Given that the defendants have ties to South Carolina and have not attempted to flee, it’s possible that a reasonable bond could be set.
The upcoming court proceedings will undoubtedly shed more light on this perplexing case. As the investigation unfolds, the prosecution will need to present compelling evidence, including any new information that led to the arrests, while the defense will face the challenge of defending a case shrouded in mystery and marked by the passage of time.
