Detective Schillinberg’s Testimony Raises Concerns About Investigative Shortcomings in Howard County
During the trial surrounding the October 12th shooting at Giant in Howard County, lead investigator Detective Schillinberg took the stand. His sworn testimony revealed troubling gaps in the police department’s handling of this case and raised broader questions about investigative standards in Howard County.
Key Details (Quick Reference)
October 12, 2023: Shooting occurs at the Giant in Howard County.
October 12, 2023: 911 caller describes a BMW; patrol officer stops a vehicle fitting the description.
October 14, 2023: Detective Schillinberg follows up with the victims, who point to the “guy with the LV hat” as the shooter.
Teenagers’ history: Known armed robbers, visible disputes (“beef”) on social media, attempted robbery of the LV hat seller before.
Missed opportunities:
Alleged shooter (LV hat) never interviewed.
Giant employees never interviewed.
Teens’ social media evidence never explored.
Detective’s admission: Under oath, he stated “There is no evidence against Ms. Traore.”
Background: Schillinberg has only one year in violent crimes; previously worked as an accountant.
What the Detective Said on the Stand
Under oath, Detective Schillinberg acknowledged a series of striking limitations in the investigation:
No evidence against Traore. When asked directly whether there was any evidence tying Ms. Traore to the crime, Schillinberg admitted, “There is no evidence against Ms. Traore.”
Reliance on a vague vehicle description. The only connection raised in court was a 911 call about a BMW near the scene and a patrol stop of a vehicle that “fit the description.” Beyond that, no concrete ties were made.
Failure to pursue other suspects. Although the teenagers involved are openly known for their history of armed robberies and identified the “guy with the LV hat” as the shooter, Schillinberg confirmed that he never interviewed this individual. Nor did he interview any of the Giant employees who might have witnessed what happened.
Minimal follow-up. The shooting took place on October 12th, but the detective did not follow up with the victims until October 14th. By then, the victims themselves pointed to the man with the LV hat as the shooter—yet that lead was never pursued.
Limited knowledge of Traore herself. Schillinberg testified that he did not know how many vehicles she had access to, whether she drove a company vehicle, or if she had multiple residences. His knowledge was limited almost entirely to the fact that she had previously contacted the police and school system regarding the ongoing harassment and armed robbery targeting her son.
A Detective Admits What He Didn’t Do
The most striking theme from Detective Schillinberg’s testimony is not what he did—but what he failed to do.
He admitted that he did not follow up on the well-documented “beef” between local teenagers, despite the fact that these disputes were highly visible on social media.
He was unfamiliar with common slang used by the teens, including the term “spin the block”, a phrase central to understanding the context of their actions.
He did not investigate the teens’ pattern of scoping out grocery stores in hopes of targeting Ms. Traore’s son.
He did not attempt to corroborate or challenge the teens’ conflicting stories, even though they were known to possess a firearm at the mall just one hour before the shooting.
Taken together, these omissions paint the picture of an investigation that was narrow, incomplete, and almost exclusively focused on Ms. Traore—even when evidence and testimony pointed elsewhere.
Experience—or Inexperience?
Another point of concern revealed in court was the detective’s background. Detective Schillinberg has only been in Howard County’s violent crimes division for a year. Before that, he worked as an accountant, with no long-term investigative experience inside HCPD. This lack of experience may help explain why critical leads were overlooked—but it does not excuse them.
When dealing with a violent crime, especially one with teenagers openly tied to weapons and past robberies, the community expects diligence, follow-up, and fairness. What the testimony revealed instead was a case built on assumptions rather than evidence.
Why This Matters
Howard County prosecutors continue to pursue this case despite the lead detective’s sworn admission that there is “no evidence against Ms. Traore.” This raises hard questions:
Why did the investigation zero in on Ms. Traore instead of following the evidence toward the teenagers’ own accounts?
Why were potential eyewitnesses ignored?
Why does the case continue when the lead detective himself admits there is no supporting evidence?
These are not minor oversights. They cut to the heart of whether justice is being pursued at all—or whether the system has prematurely decided its outcome.
