Witness accounts describe a calm encounter before Anjana Hari was struck, while prosecutors say another friend had been killed earlier that day.
MILPITAS, Calif. — Moments before Anjana Hari was fatally struck in her apartment complex parking lot, witnesses said she appeared comfortable approaching the SUV ahead of her, smiling toward a driver investigators say was her friend. Authorities have still not publicly explained what they believe turned that encounter deadly.
The unanswered question has grown larger as the case has expanded. Prosecutors now accuse Anila Baby of killing not only Hari, 35, but also Ann Mary Mathew, another woman Baby knew, in San Jose earlier on Aug. 28. Investigators say the two deaths occurred about 90 minutes apart. They have described evidence they believe connects Baby to both scenes and have charged her with two murders, yet no motive has been publicly disclosed. The prosecution is now temporarily suspended for another reason: Baby’s lawyer has questioned whether she is mentally competent to stand trial, prompting the court to order medical evaluations.
The description of Hari’s final approach to the vehicle is among the most striking details in the Milpitas court record because it contains no publicly reported warning of what investigators allege came next. A witness told police Hari walked toward a blue Toyota Highlander in the Mill Creek Apartments parking lot carrying a bag and appeared friendly toward the person inside. Another witness described Hari and Baby as good friends. Investigators have said the women lived at the same complex. Nothing in the released witness accounts describes Hari fleeing, confronting the driver or appearing frightened before she moved into the vehicle’s path.
Authorities allege the SUV was stopped as Hari approached. When she walked in front of it, investigators say, the Highlander suddenly accelerated and struck her. It continued through the lot and collided with three parked vehicles before leaving the apartment complex. Hari suffered fatal injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene. A traffic investigator who later examined the area reported finding no tire marks showing an attempt to brake before impact. That observation, combined with witness statements, led police to conclude that the collision was intentional and to investigate the death as a homicide rather than a traffic accident.
The case had not started with that conclusion. Milpitas police were called to 440 Dixon Landing Road shortly after noon after reports of a pedestrian being hit by a blue SUV that then left. Their first public statements described a fatal hit-and-run and said a 32-year-old Milpitas resident had been arrested after officers located a damaged blue SUV in a nearby parking lot. The victim and driver were not immediately identified in the initial announcement. Only as investigators interviewed witnesses and reviewed the collision scene did the allegation of an intentional act emerge in court filings.
Officers found the Highlander at a Walgreens less than a mile from Mill Creek. Baby was inside the damaged vehicle. Court records described her as incoherent and unable to answer questions, with visible injuries and blood on her arms and legs. At that point, police had enough information to hold her in connection with the Milpitas incident, but the full importance of what officers observed had not yet become clear publicly. Investigators in another city would soon be examining a second death involving a woman who also knew Baby.
San Jose police were called at about 1:53 p.m. to the 700 block of Linda Vista Street after someone reported suspicious circumstances. Officers found an unresponsive woman inside a residence. She was pronounced dead, and homicide investigators responded. The department later said the county crime lab and medical examiner’s office helped identify evidence that the woman had suffered at least one stab wound. Published court reporting identified her as Mathew, 39. Investigators said she and Baby knew each other, creating a second personal connection in a case already centered on the death of a friend in Milpitas.
Although Mathew was discovered after Hari died, prosecutors allege Mathew was killed first. Investigators say Baby was at Mathew’s home during the late morning, before the fatal encounter at Mill Creek. Detectives reviewed surveillance information and found that some motion-activated recordings from the relevant time had been deleted. A surviving recording showed footwear near the home, and investigators said the sandal visible in the image matched what Baby wore when she was arrested. Authorities also cited cellphone location information and vehicle surveillance as evidence supporting their reconstruction of Baby’s movements.
Forensic evidence added to the alleged connection. Investigators said blood on Baby’s clothing was tested and a stain was overwhelmingly likely to have come from Mathew. Mathew’s cellphone was also reported to have been recovered from Baby’s vehicle. Those findings gave San Jose detectives evidence independent of the Milpitas witness accounts. Rather than relying on the friendship among the women as proof, authorities built a case they say places Baby at Mathew’s residence and connects physical evidence from the defendant to the victim.
The two investigations then converged. Baby was already in custody because of Hari’s death when San Jose detectives identified her as a suspect in Mathew’s killing. On Sept. 8, the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office reviewed the San Jose homicide investigation and charged Baby with murder in that case, police said. The added count meant the prosecution now alleged that one woman killed two people she knew in separate locations within a short span on the same day. Prosecutors have characterized both deaths as deliberate.
Deputy District Attorney Marisa McKeown said after the second charge that both victims were mothers and that their families were struggling with the question of why someone would do this to a friend. Prosecutors have said their investigation involved forensic evidence and follow-up interviews, but they have not released an explanation of motive. That leaves the friendship among the women as context rather than an answer. It tells investigators and the public that these were not alleged attacks on strangers, but it does not explain what, if anything, happened before Aug. 28 that prosecutors believe led to the deaths.
The distinction is particularly important in Hari’s case because the last reported interaction appeared outwardly ordinary. The accounts of her smiling and approaching the SUV may help prosecutors argue that the collision was unexpected from her perspective, while the absence of braking evidence is part of their claim that the driver acted intentionally. But neither detail establishes motive. Authorities have not announced a dispute, financial conflict, threat, breakup in the friendship or other precipitating event. Filling that gap with speculation would go beyond the evidence that police and prosecutors have released.
The case also remains far from a final legal resolution. Baby has not been convicted, and the government’s evidence has not been tested at trial. In October, defense attorney Shawn George told the court that his conversations with Baby caused him to doubt whether she was competent to stand trial. The court suspended criminal proceedings and appointed two medical specialists to examine her. The prosecution did not oppose the competency review. The inquiry concerns whether Baby presently understands the proceedings and can assist her attorney; it is separate from determining whether she committed the alleged crimes.
The competency issue is also distinct from any question about Baby’s mental state on Aug. 28. Court-appointed evaluators are examining her present ability to participate in the case, not deciding why Mathew and Hari died. Their reports are expected to be reviewed at a Dec. 18 hearing. Until the court resolves that issue, the murder prosecution is paused. No public finding has been made that explains Baby’s alleged conduct, and the competency process should not be treated as evidence of motive or guilt.
That leaves the case suspended with its most human question still unanswered. Authorities say they can reconstruct a sequence stretching from Mathew’s San Jose home to the Mill Creek parking lot and then to the Walgreens where Baby was arrested. They have cited witnesses, crash analysis, surveillance records, location information and forensic testing. Yet the public record still does not explain why two women described as friends of the defendant were allegedly killed within about 90 minutes. Unless investigators disclose more or the case eventually proceeds to evidence in court, that question remains unresolved.
Author note: Last updated October 20, 2026.