Who Killed Nanette Krentel? The Evidence, Accusations And Unanswered Questions Behind One Of St. Tammany Parish’s Most Controversial Murder Cases

Who Killed Nanette Krentel? The Evidence, Accusations And Unanswered Questions Behind One Of St. Tammany Parish’s Most Controversial Murder Cases

Nearly nine years have passed since Nanette Krentel was found dead inside the burned remains of her Lacombe home, yet the most important question has never been answered: Who killed her?

Nanette was not killed by the fire. She had been shot in the head before the house was consumed by flames, and investigators later determined that the fire had been intentionally set. A gun matching the caliber used to kill her was reportedly recovered near her body, while a gun cabinet elsewhere inside the home was found locked and had to be forced open by investigators. Her animals also died inside the house. Whoever was responsible did not simply take Nanette’s life. The person either remained long enough to set the home on fire or arranged for the fire to begin after leaving, destroying a large portion of the scene and much of the evidence that might have explained what happened.

From the beginning, the case contained several possible motives, complicated personal relationships and people who had reasons to be examined closely. Nanette’s husband, Stephen Krentel, was the chief of St. Tammany Parish Fire Protection District 12. Their marriage had reportedly survived an affair involving Stephen and another woman connected to the fire department. Nanette had also expressed fear of Stephen’s brother, Bryan Krentel, whom relatives said she believed held a grudge against the couple. Then there was the troubling possibility that the person who killed her was someone she trusted enough to allow inside her home.

Stephen became the first major person of interest, as spouses commonly do during homicide investigations. Authorities later announced that he had been cleared, saying he cooperated and that his whereabouts had been accounted for. Bryan was also investigated, and authorities similarly said his location had been examined. No one has ever been arrested for Nanette’s murder, and neither man has been charged with causing her death.

Those official conclusions, however, did not quiet the questions surrounding the case. Instead, they became part of the controversy.

Nanette’s family openly questioned the direction and handling of the investigation. The coroner officially ruled her death a homicide after multiple examinations, while the sheriff initially expressed uncertainty about that conclusion before publicly describing the case as a homicide and announcing that Stephen had been cleared. Investigators said they had treated the death seriously from the beginning, but Nanette’s relatives were left trying to understand why agencies appeared to be publicly disagreeing while the person responsible remained free.

The deeper the case is examined, the more difficult it becomes to separate what is proven from what has been assumed. Some facts are firmly established. Nanette was alive on the morning of July 14, 2017. Surveillance footage captured a woman believed to be Nanette at a McDonald’s on Northshore Boulevard, and cellphone information was said to be consistent with her traveling there. Later that day, a child riding a bicycle noticed smoke coming from the Krentel property. By the time emergency crews arrived, the house was engulfed. Nanette was found inside after the flames were extinguished.

Other parts of the case remain far less clear. The public has never been given a complete minute-by-minute account of Nanette’s final hours. Authorities have not publicly identified the murder weapon with certainty. They have not explained exactly how the killer entered the home, how the fire was started, what physical evidence survived, or whether Nanette appeared to have been surprised by someone she knew. Most importantly, investigators have never publicly identified a current suspect.

That absence of answers has allowed several theories to follow the case for years. Was Nanette killed because of something happening inside her marriage? Was the affair truly over, and did it have any connection to her death? Did someone she feared finally carry out a threat? Was the gun recovered near her body placed there to suggest suicide, or did it actually belong at the scene? Could someone have used another person to establish an alibi? Did the killer understand fire well enough to know what it would destroy? Were investigators simply unable to recover enough evidence from the ruins, or were critical opportunities lost during the first hours and days?

These questions are not proof against any individual. They are the reasons the case refuses to disappear.

Nanette’s murder eventually became connected to another disturbing controversy when Jerry Rogers, a former St. Tammany Parish sheriff’s deputy who later worked as a federal investigator, began privately emailing members of Nanette’s family. Rogers criticized aspects of the sheriff’s investigation and raised concerns about people involved in the case. After the sheriff’s office identified him as the writer, he was arrested in 2019 under Louisiana’s criminal-defamation law.

The charge was never prosecuted. Rogers then sued Sheriff Randy Smith and other officials, alleging that his arrest violated his constitutional rights. Federal court proceedings later examined whether officials pursued Rogers even though they had allegedly been advised that the criminal-defamation statute could not constitutionally be used to punish criticism of public officials. The lawsuit did not solve Nanette’s murder, but it created an entirely separate question: Why did criticism of an unsolved homicide investigation appear to receive such an aggressive response?

By 2020, the relationship between the agencies involved had deteriorated enough that District Attorney Warren Montgomery subpoenaed the sheriff’s office for the complete Krentel investigative file. Montgomery’s office said the purpose was to review the evidence and determine whether additional investigative work was needed. To Nanette’s family and the public, the development reinforced the belief that this was no longer merely an unsolved murder. It was an unsolved murder surrounded by institutional conflict, competing narratives and a growing distrust of the people responsible for finding the truth.

There is evidence that investigators performed substantial work. Authorities reported executing more than 20 search warrants, interviewing more than 30 people, examining surveillance recordings and tracing cellphone information. The FBI also assisted with the investigation. Those efforts matter, but they produce another uncomfortable question: How can so much investigative activity still lead to no arrest, no publicly named suspect and no clear explanation of what happened inside Nanette’s home?

Perhaps the killer planned the crime exceptionally well. Perhaps the fire destroyed the one piece of evidence investigators needed. Perhaps someone provided information that could not be independently disproven. Perhaps the truth has already appeared somewhere in the case file but has never been recognized for what it is.

Or perhaps someone has known the answer from the beginning.

Nanette Krentel’s case is not compelling because it needs fictional scenery or exaggerated drama. The facts are disturbing enough on their own. A woman reportedly lived with fear, was shot inside her home, and was surrounded by flames intended to consume the scene. Her personal life contained several relationships investigators needed to untangle. Her family challenged the handling of the case. A critic of the investigation was arrested and later took the sheriff to federal court. The district attorney eventually demanded the case file. Years passed, agencies defended their work, and the person who killed Nanette remained unidentified.

Every theory may contain a piece of the truth, or every popular theory may be wrong.

What remains certain is that someone entered Nanette Krentel’s final hours knowing exactly what happened.

That person has never been held accountable.