More than three decades after her 19-year-old daughter was brutally m.u.r.d.e.r.e.d in Tennessee, May Martinez is still confronting a question no grieving mother should have to ask: Where is the missing piece of her daughter’s remains?

The question has resurfaced amid renewed scrutiny of the Christa Pike case following Tennessee’s reported failed execution attempt in September 2026.

While much of the public attention has focused on Pike’s survival, hospitalization, and legal future, a separate controversy concerns the treatment of Colleen Slemmer’s remains and whether one particularly significant fragment of her skull was ever returned to her family.

According to a recent episode of Tear Talk, hosted by Anthony Gangi with retired correctional sergeant Russ Hamilton, Martinez has continued questioning the whereabouts of the fragment Pike reportedly took from the crime scene in January 1995.

The fragment was recovered during the original investigation and became important evidence in the prosecution.

But the question of its eventual return has produced conflicting accounts.

Martinez has maintained that the particular fragment was never returned. Pike’s attorneys, meanwhile, have disputed that account, saying they repeatedly confirmed with the state that all skull fragments retained as trial evidence were returned.

Neither position, as presented in the discussion, conclusively establishes what happened to the specific item.

The dispute is especially painful because Martinez has described a years-long struggle to recover her daughter’s remains, including receiving portions at different times and having to reopen Colleen’s grave for additional burials.

The controversy now raises questions about evidence preservation, chain-of-custody records, communication with victims’ families, and whether the justice system adequately considers the emotional consequences of retaining human remains.

At the center is a mother who says she still does not have the answers she needs.

Colleen Slemmer Was Only 19 When Her Future Was Taken Away

Before the legal disputes, the execution controversy, and the decades of appeals, Colleen Slemmer was a young woman preparing for adulthood.

According to the victim-advocacy material discussed in Tear Talk, Colleen left Orange Park, Florida, on October 31, 1994, to pursue computer training through Job Corps in Knoxville, Tennessee.

She was 19 years old.

She had traveled away from home to develop skills and prepare for a career.

Less than three months later, in January 1995, she was m.u.r.d.e.r.e.d.

Christa Pike was subsequently convicted and sentenced to d.e.a.t.h for her role in the crime.

One of the most disturbing elements of the case involved a fragment of Colleen’s skull that investigators reportedly recovered from Pike’s jacket.

Witness accounts also described Pike displaying the fragment to other students.

The item became significant because it connected physical evidence to the defendant and formed part of the prosecution’s account of the crime.

But for Colleen’s mother, the fragment was never simply an exhibit.

It was part of her daughter.

That distinction would become central to a dispute lasting decades.

The Skull Fragment That Became Evidence

During the Tear Talk discussion, Gangi emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between three separate questions.

What evidence was originally recovered?

What material was retained during the criminal proceedings?

And what was ultimately returned to Colleen’s family?

Those questions may sound similar, but they are not interchangeable.

An item can be recovered during an investigation and assigned an evidence number.

It may later be transferred to a laboratory, held by prosecutors, or retained under a court order.

Eventually, it may be released to an authorized recipient.

Each stage should generate records documenting what happened.

In this case, the specific fragment reportedly recovered from Pike’s jacket carries unusual significance.

It was not merely an unidentified portion of human remains.

It was an item associated with the original criminal investigation and witness testimony.

That makes its chain of custody particularly important.

Gangi argues that resolving the dispute requires tracing the precise fragment from its recovery through every subsequent transfer.

Without that documentation, broad statements about the return of skull remains may not answer the family’s question.

May Martinez Was Fighting for the Fragment Years Before the Execution Controversy

The controversy did not begin in 2026.

According to the sources cited during Tear Talk, Action News Jax reported in 2013 that Martinez was still trying to recover the fragment.

At that point, approximately 18 years had passed since Colleen’s m.u.r.d.e.r.

The fragment was reportedly being retained as evidence while Pike pursued legal appeals.

A 2015 report from WBIR also discussed Martinez’s efforts to recover it.

These older accounts establish that the return of the fragment had been disputed for many years.

They do not, however, establish that it remained withheld permanently.

That distinction is essential.

An item retained in 2013 or 2015 could have been returned later.

Determining whether that happened requires examining subsequent records.

The Tear Talk discussion also describes the assistance Martinez received from the Justice Coalition, a victim-advocacy organization.

Because Martinez lived in Florida while the criminal proceedings took place in Tennessee, she faced the additional challenge of navigating an unfamiliar legal system hundreds of miles from home.

Victim advocates reportedly helped her understand the proceedings and pursue information.

The distance made clear communication especially important.

Yet Martinez’s later account suggests that the process of recovering her daughter’s remains remained extraordinarily difficult.

A Mother Describes Receiving Her Daughter’s Skull in a Box

One of the most emotionally difficult details discussed in the episode concerns Martinez’s account of receiving Colleen’s skull after years of requests.

According to a September 2025 victim-advocacy article cited by Gangi, Martinez described receiving skull remains in a box at an airport.

She reportedly had to count the pieces with victim advocate Anne Duggar in the presence of a judge.

For investigators, an inventory may be a necessary administrative procedure.

For a grieving parent, the experience is profoundly different.

Martinez was not examining ordinary property.

She was trying to determine whether the remains of her daughter had finally been returned.

The discussion emphasizes that receiving a collection of skull fragments does not necessarily prove every previously recovered fragment was included.

A particular piece could have been separately cataloged.

It might have been retained under a different evidence number.

Or it could have been included among the returned material.

Those are possibilities, not findings.

Without a detailed inventory, the transcript does not establish which explanation is correct.

What it does establish is that Martinez’s experience involved a level of personal distress that extended far beyond the original criminal proceedings.

The Repeated Deliveries That Allegedly Forced Three Additional Burials

The account becomes even more troubling when Gangi describes how Martinez reportedly received additional remains.

According to the victim-advocacy material discussed in the episode, some portions were sent through the mail without sufficient warning or explanation.

Martinez also reportedly had to reopen Colleen’s grave in Pennsylvania three times to bury additional remains.

Each reopening allegedly required judicial authorization.

The transcript does not include the shipping records, burial orders, or correspondence needed to independently reconstruct every delivery.

Nevertheless, the account raises serious questions about how such sensitive material should be returned.

Was Martinez notified before each shipment?

Was she told precisely what was being sent?

Did an agency coordinate the process with a victim advocate?

Was a complete inventory provided?

Could the remains have been returned through a more organized and compassionate procedure?

Gangi and Hamilton argue that these questions deserve attention regardless of whether the original evidence retention was legally justified.

There may be legitimate reasons to preserve human remains during criminal proceedings.

But that does not eliminate the responsibility to communicate respectfully with surviving family members.

A legally authorized transfer can still be handled in a manner that causes unnecessary distress.

The September 2026 Dispute: Was the Fragment Returned or Not?

The central disagreement emerged again in September 2026.

According to Gangi’s discussion of WBIR reporting, Martinez maintained that the specific skull fragment Pike took had never been returned.

She also expressed concern that it might have been lost.

Pike’s attorneys challenged that account.

The episode cites reporting from NewsChannel 5 and the Chattanooga Times Free Press indicating that Pike’s legal team said it had repeatedly confirmed with Tennessee officials that all skull fragments retained as trial evidence had been returned.

The wording matters.

The attorneys’ account refers to material retained as trial evidence.

Martinez’s concern involves a particular fragment reportedly recovered from Pike’s jacket.

To determine whether the statements conflict factually, investigators would need to establish whether the fragment was included in the inventory referenced by the attorneys.

If it was included, the next question would be whether a documented transfer shows that it reached Martinez.

If it was not included, officials would need to establish its separate disposition.

The supplied transcript does not contain those records.

Therefore, it does not establish that the fragment was lost.

It also does not establish that Martinez received the specific piece she is seeking.

The dispute remains unresolved within the evidence presented.

Why the Exact Fragment Matters So Much

During the episode, Gangi suggests that Martinez may be looking for the particular piece that became notorious during the original investigation.

His theory is that she may recognize its shape from photographs or descriptions and therefore feel certain that it was not among the remains she received.

Hamilton acknowledges that this is possible.

But neither speaker claims to have direct knowledge of Martinez’s reasoning.

That limitation is important.

A mother’s personal understanding of what was returned may be based on information not included in the interview.

Likewise, the original evidence records may contain details unavailable to the public.

What can be said is that the fragment has a significance beyond its physical size.

It was associated with an especially disturbing aspect of Colleen’s m.u.r.d.e.r.

For the prosecution, it helped establish facts about the crime.

For Martinez, recovering it could represent an essential part of bringing her daughter’s remains home.

That is why a general assurance that remains were returned may not provide the clarity she seeks.

She wants to know what happened to that particular piece.

What the Chain-of-Custody Records Could Reveal

Gangi proposes a practical method for resolving the controversy.

The first step would be identifying the original evidence item.

Investigators would need to locate the report documenting the recovery of the fragment from Pike’s jacket.

That report might include an evidence number, physical description, photographs, or forensic testing information.

The second step would involve reconstructing the chain of custody.

Who collected the fragment?

Where was it stored?

Was it transferred to a laboratory?

Did prosecutors or court personnel take possession?

Was it retained during appellate proceedings?

The third step would involve examining any court orders authorizing the release of human remains.

Those documents could establish which items were approved for transfer.

Finally, investigators would need to examine the actual release records.

A signed receipt might confirm that a package of remains was delivered.

But unless the contents were adequately identified, the receipt might not establish that a particular fragment was included.

That is the difference between documenting a transfer and accounting for an individual piece of evidence.

The investigation might also require records from multiple agencies.

Police departments, medical examiners, forensic laboratories, prosecutors, and courts may each maintain different documentation.

That does not establish that any agency mishandled the evidence.

It means a complete reconstruction could require cooperation across several institutions.

Could the Fragment Still Be Held Somewhere?

The transcript raises several possible explanations.

The fragment may have been returned with other remains.

It may have been cataloged separately.

It may have been retained in a different evidence collection.

Or the available records may be insufficient to establish its disposition.

None of these possibilities is confirmed.

The important question is whether officials can produce documentation connecting the original recovered item to its final location.

If the records establish that the fragment was returned, that would provide a factual basis for resolving the dispute.

If they show it remains in official custody, the responsible agency could explain why.

If the records cannot account for it, that uncertainty would require acknowledgment and potentially further investigation.

Gangi repeatedly emphasizes that an evidence-based inquiry should not simply choose between competing statements.

It should establish what the records actually demonstrate.

Why the Retention of Evidence Can Continue for Decades

Hamilton offers a correctional professional’s perspective on why evidence might be retained long after a conviction.

In serious criminal cases, especially those involving capital punishment, agencies may preserve evidence for extended periods.

Appeals, post-conviction litigation, and other legal proceedings can create continuing preservation obligations.

Physical evidence may be important even after guilt has been established.

Hamilton suggests that the skull fragment’s evidentiary significance may have been heightened by its connection to Pike’s conduct after the crime.

But he also questions whether the item would still possess substantial probative value after decades of proceedings.

That is his professional opinion, not a judicial finding.

The legal justification for retaining a particular item would depend on applicable law, court orders, and the status of relevant proceedings.

The larger issue is whether agencies maintained an appropriate balance between preserving evidence and respecting the interests of the victim’s family.

Christa Pike’s Hospitalization Brings New Attention to the Case

The episode also addresses Pike’s reported condition following the unsuccessful execution attempt.

According to the transcript, Pike remained hospitalized under correctional supervision.

Her attorneys had raised concerns about the use of restraints during medical treatment.

Gangi says a Thursday court filing by attorney Luke Iron confirmed that Pike’s handcuffs had been removed.

One foot reportedly remained restrained to the hospital bed.

The episode also describes three armed correctional officers assigned to guard her.

Gangi speculates that the increased security presence may have been connected to the removal of the hand restraints.

However, the transcript does not establish who authorized the change or why that particular staffing arrangement was selected.

Medical personnel reportedly requested the removal of hand restraints.

Pike’s attorneys subsequently withdrew their related request after learning that the handcuffs had already been removed.

These details concern her hospital security arrangements.

They do not establish the extent of her medical recovery or the outcome of any pending legal challenge.

For Gangi, the restraint issue is secondary to the question of how Martinez has been treated.

He argues that the public discussion should not lose sight of Colleen’s family while attention focuses on Pike’s hospitalization.

Did Pike Have the Potential to Commit Further Violence?

During the episode, Gangi asks Hamilton whether Pike might have committed additional killings if she had not been arrested.

Hamilton responds cautiously.

He says female serial killers are relatively uncommon and does not believe Pike necessarily fits a classic serial-killer pattern.

However, he suggests that she may have been capable of further violence under certain circumstances.

He discusses possible motivations involving jealousy, vengeance, and emotional triggers.

These comments are speculative assessments based on the case history discussed during the interview.

They are not a clinical diagnosis or a reliable prediction of hypothetical future crimes.

Gangi also references a prior discussion involving a scale of criminal behavior associated with forensic psychiatrist Michael Stone.

He acknowledges that he does not remember Pike’s exact placement.

That uncertainty means no specific ranking should be treated as established from this transcript.

The discussion illustrates how the brutality of the original crime continues to shape public perceptions of Pike.

But the question of what she might have done under different circumstances cannot be answered definitively.

The Concern That Victims’ Families Become Lost in the System

One of the strongest themes of the discussion is the possibility that victims’ relatives can become marginalized during lengthy criminal proceedings.

Gangi argues that Martinez’s persistence should be understood as a mother’s effort to protect her daughter’s dignity and recover her remains.

He speculates that repeated requests for information may have been viewed by some officials as burdensome.

But he acknowledges that he does not know whether this actually occurred.

The transcript provides no internal correspondence or testimony establishing that officials deliberately avoided Martinez.

Hamilton makes a broader observation.

Correctional and legal institutions can become focused on procedures, schedules, and evidence management.

When that happens, the emotional needs of surviving relatives may receive insufficient attention.

He argues that victim advocates and agency representatives should make greater efforts to communicate clearly, even when interactions are difficult.

That responsibility is particularly important in cases involving traumatic evidence.

The goal should be to minimize additional suffering while fulfilling legal obligations.

Could Better Victim Advocacy Have Prevented Years of Distress?

The account raises important questions about how agencies communicate with families during prolonged criminal cases.

Victim advocates can help explain court procedures, coordinate with prosecutors, provide updates, and assist with the return of personal property or remains.

But effective advocacy requires cooperation from the institutions controlling the evidence.

If an agency plans to release human remains, the family should ordinarily receive clear information about the process.

That may include advance notice, a description of what is being returned, and an opportunity to arrange a respectful transfer.

In this case, Martinez’s account suggests that the process did not consistently provide that clarity.

Hamilton argues that agencies should recognize the emotional significance of every interaction.

The return of evidence may be routine administrative work for officials.

For a parent, it can mean reopening the most painful chapter of their life.

The Failed Execution Added Another Painful Chapter

The Tear Talk episode also recalls Martinez’s reported experience during the September 2026 execution attempt.

According to Gangi, Martinez said she and her husband spent approximately 12 hours waiting in connection with the execution proceedings.

She reportedly described receiving inadequate updates during that period.

The transcript does not include an official timeline explaining every delay or communication.

Nevertheless, the account adds to the family’s broader frustration.

After more than three decades of litigation, Martinez had expected the scheduled execution to bring a particular form of legal closure.

Instead, Pike survived the procedure and was transported for medical treatment.

New legal questions followed.

For Martinez, the uncertainty surrounding her daughter’s remains remains a separate and deeply personal issue.

The failed execution did not create that dispute.

It brought renewed public attention to a struggle that had already lasted many years.

The Questions Tennessee Still Needs to Answer

The central issue can be reduced to a straightforward evidentiary inquiry.

Was the specific fragment recovered from Pike’s jacket returned to May Martinez?

If so, when, and under what evidence-release record?

If not, where is it now?

The supplied transcript does not provide enough documentation to answer those questions.

It presents Martinez’s account, the position attributed to Pike’s attorneys, and the hosts’ analysis of the records that would be needed.

A definitive resolution would require more than public statements.

It would require a comparison of the original evidence inventory, chain-of-custody documentation, court orders, and final release records.

Such a review could also clarify whether the return of other remains was properly coordinated.

That would not undo the suffering Colleen’s family has endured.

But it could provide an authoritative account of what happened.

Thirty-One Years Later, a Mother’s Search for Answers Continues

Colleen Slemmer left Florida in 1994 with plans for her future.

She was 19 years old.

She was pursuing training and preparing for adulthood.

Her life ended in January 1995.

More than three decades later, the criminal case continues generating legal and public controversy.

Christa Pike’s failed execution has prompted renewed questions about capital punishment, medical treatment, and the state’s responsibilities.

But the dispute over Colleen’s remains presents a different question.

It concerns what the justice system owes a victim’s family after the prosecution has obtained a conviction and the years of litigation have continued.

May Martinez has described receiving remains after prolonged efforts, counting skull fragments, and reopening her daughter’s grave for additional burials.

She has also maintained that one particular fragment remains unaccounted for.

Pike’s attorneys dispute that claim.

The available information does not establish which account is correct.

That uncertainty should not be filled with speculation.

It should be resolved through records.

The original evidence inventory should identify what was recovered.

The chain-of-custody records should establish where it went.

The release documents should show what was returned.

And the family should receive a clear explanation supported by those records.

Because this controversy is not simply about a missing exhibit.

It is about whether a mother can finally know what happened to every identifiable part of her daughter’s remains.

For 31 years, May Martinez has lived with the consequences of a devastating crime.

The question now is whether the institutions responsible for preserving the evidence can provide the clarity she has spent decades seeking.

Until the specific fragment is conclusively accounted for, that question remains unanswered.