Official records establish several points in the July 24 timeline, while leaving the confrontation itself and later court developments only partly explained.
RICHLAND TOWNSHIP, Mich. — Investigators can place a vehicle leaving Robert Walter Larsen’s home, a phone call in which his girlfriend allegedly said she thought she had killed him, and state troopers arriving to find him dead. What the public record does not yet provide is a complete account of what happened between Larsen and Brittany Leigh Groat inside the house.
That distinction defines the open murder case against Groat, 36, who was arrested after Larsen, 50, was found dead July 24 at a residence on Sturtevant Avenue in Kalamazoo County’s Richland Township. Police and court records described in contemporaneous reports establish a series of observations and statements, but they leave several major questions unanswered. Authorities have not publicly identified a confirmed motive. The available reports do not provide a full forensic analysis of the knife and baseball bat found near Larsen, nor do they show how prosecutors or defense attorneys intend to interpret Groat’s claim that Larsen cut her as she tried to leave. Groat is accused of murder, not convicted of it.
The earliest precise time publicly identified by investigators is about 7:11 p.m. Police said surveillance material showed Larsen’s vehicle leaving the residence then. The affidavit, as reported, does not provide a complete minute-by-minute reconstruction of the period that follows. At some point, authorities located the vehicle on Kings Highway and found Groat alone behind the wheel. Police said she was wearing a white shirt, jean shorts and black-and-white Converse shoes and that the clothes were extensively bloodstained. The reporting does not say whether surveillance footage captured the driver clearly as the vehicle departed the home or whether other cameras recorded its entire route.
Another documented point came at about 9 p.m., when police said Groat contacted someone and made statements about Larsen. Part of the call was recorded. After giving the home’s address, she allegedly repeated, “I think I killed him.” Other people then contacted 911, according to the investigative account, prompting the response by Michigan State Police. Troopers were dispatched at approximately 9:16 p.m. Public reports do not name the people who called emergency dispatch, explain whether they heard Groat’s words firsthand or describe what else may have been said during the conversation. Those details could provide context, but they are not contained in the material reviewed for this story.
At the residence, troopers found Larsen dead on a staircase. Investigators said blood evidence was present in multiple areas of the home and that footprints extended through the residence and toward the garage. Those observations helped establish the seriousness and scope of the scene, but the reports do not identify who made each footprint or whether investigators had completed all comparison testing when the affidavit was prepared. Police secured a search warrant and later recovered a folding knife and baseball bat near Larsen on the stairs and landing. Their presence is documented; their exact evidentiary significance remains less certain in the public account.
The medical examination resolved one question more firmly: how Larsen died. Investigators initially saw at least six stab wounds after his body was moved, according to the affidavit. An autopsy two days later documented 10 stab wounds as well as additional lacerations. The medical examiner concluded that Larsen died from blood loss caused by the stab wounds and classified the manner of death as homicide. That is an important finding because it identifies death caused by another person, but it does not resolve the separate criminal-law questions of intent, justification or degree. Those issues require evidence beyond the medical classification.
Groat’s police interview introduced another set of unresolved questions. Investigators said she waived her Miranda rights and denied responsibility for Larsen’s injuries. Asked about the blood on her clothing, she said she did not know how it got there, according to the affidavit. She confirmed that she and Larsen were dating and said she had stayed at his home for several weeks. When detectives asked about the period before she left the house, she allegedly said she did not remember. Public reporting contains no full interview transcript, meaning the precise wording, sequence and context of the questioning cannot be independently reconstructed from the available news accounts.
Later in the interview, police said, Groat told detectives that Larsen had cut her with a folding knife as she attempted to leave. She said he then returned inside and also told investigators that only the two of them had been in the home. That statement raises obvious questions because a folding knife was later found near Larsen, but the publicly available reports do not answer them. They do not state whether Groat had a medically documented cut, whether her blood was identified in the residence, whether Larsen’s blood was confirmed on her clothes, or whether the knife contained biological or fingerprint evidence. Nor do the reports establish that Groat has formally invoked self-defense in court.
The absence of those details is not unusual at the start of a criminal prosecution. A probable cause affidavit is intended to establish a legal basis for an arrest or charge, not to disclose the entire investigative file. Evidence can be tested after an arrest. Witnesses can be interviewed again. Attorneys can challenge statements, seek records and litigate whether evidence is admissible. What appears straightforward in an initial affidavit may become more detailed or more contested as a case progresses. That is why the allegations against Groat must remain separated from facts that have been adjudicated; the initial police account has not yet been tested through a completed trial in the reliable sources reviewed.
The form of the charge also leaves an important issue open by design. Groat was charged with open murder. Under Michigan law and state Supreme Court precedent, prosecutors may charge murder without specifying at that stage whether the alleged crime is first- or second-degree. The designation does not mean that both degrees have been proved. Rather, it allows the degree supported by the evidence to be addressed later in the process. Michigan law treats first-degree murder and second-degree murder differently, including in sentencing: first-degree murder carries mandatory life imprisonment, while second-degree murder permits life or a term of years.
Groat was arraigned in Kalamazoo County’s 8th District Court and denied bond. District court serves a limited but important role in felony prosecutions. It handles initial proceedings and can conduct a preliminary examination to determine whether probable cause exists to believe a felony occurred and that the defendant committed it. If the judge finds the required probable cause, the case can be sent to circuit court. The defendant may also waive the examination, and hearings can be adjourned. None of those outcomes amounts to a determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Early reporting said a preliminary hearing was scheduled for Aug. 5. Because that date has passed, the lack of a reliable public update is itself an important limit on what can be stated. The sources reviewed for this article did not confirm whether the hearing went forward, was waived, was postponed or resulted in a bindover. They also did not establish a subsequent plea, circuit court trial date or final judgment. Reporting the scheduled date as though it were the current status would therefore risk turning an old procedural expectation into a false present-tense fact.
Other limits are equally important. Police described the event as an apparent domestic dispute, but that phrase does not establish motive. The fact that Groat and Larsen were dating does not explain what preceded the violence. The presence of two potential weapons does not establish who used either one or in what sequence. Bloodstained clothing is significant evidence, but without the reported laboratory analysis it should not be described more specifically than the records allow. Groat’s recorded statement is also important, but the public does not have the whole conversation from which to judge context. Each piece may become more meaningful when combined with evidence that has not yet been made public.
What can be said with confidence is narrower. Larsen died from stab wounds in a death ruled a homicide. Groat was found driving his vehicle after it left the residence, according to investigators. Police said her clothes were bloodstained, that she made a recorded statement indicating she thought she had killed Larsen, and that she later denied harming him while also saying he had cut her. Investigators found a folding knife and baseball bat near Larsen’s body. Prosecutors then charged Groat with open murder, and a judge denied bond.
As of Aug. 29, those facts mark the boundary between the established public record and what remains to be resolved. Any later court filing, forensic report or hearing could clarify the timeline and the competing accounts, but no such development should be assumed without verification. Until a court reaches a disposition, Groat remains an accused defendant entitled to contest the state’s evidence, while Larsen’s death remains the subject of the pending homicide prosecution reflected in the available records.
Author note: Last updated August 29, 2026.