More from this creator
Other episodes by Kitty Cat.
More like this
If you liked this, try these.
Transcript
The full episode, in writing.
The truck sat idling in the Kmart parking lot in Fairhaven, Massachusetts, long past midnight, its headlights casting weak cones into the dark. Inside, Conrad Roy III gripped his phone with shaking hands and read the message that would echo through courtrooms and headlines for years: “Get back in.” That night, July 12, 2014, he breathed deep, the air inside thick with carbon monoxide, and as the generator hummed, his final digital exchanges were still lighting up his screen.
Conrad Roy was just eighteen years old. He had spent much of his life around the water, working alongside his father, grandfather, and uncle in the family’s marine salvage business. Only a few weeks earlier, he had graduated from Old Rochester Regional High School with a 3.88 GPA, earning his captain’s license from the Northeast Maritime Institute after months of night classes. His transcript listed not just academic success, but athletic achievement as well—Roy played baseball, rowed crew, and ran track. Yet behind the surface of accomplishment was a history of struggle. He had battled depression and anxiety for years, receiving therapy and psychiatric care, and he’d attempted suicide before. As a teenager, after his parents’ divorce, he had been hospitalized following an overdose.
Michelle Carter, then seventeen, came into Roy’s life by chance in 2012 during family trips to Florida. Living just thirty-five miles apart in Massachusetts, they rarely saw each other in person—barely five times over two years. Instead, their relationship played out almost entirely on screens. Late-night texts, emails, and calls became their primary connection, each message carrying the weight of their private battles. Carter herself was struggling. She attended King Philip Regional High School, suffered from anxiety and an eating disorder, and, like Roy, had been prescribed citalopram, an antidepressant known to increase suicidal thinking in individuals under the age of twenty-four.
Their digital connection intensified between 2012 and 2014. At first, Carter urged Roy to get help, encouraging him to see professionals and reminding him of the people who cared about him. At times, she seemed desperate to rescue him from his worst impulses. But something changed in the summer of 2014. The tone of Carter’s messages shifted. She began, with increasing frequency, to encourage Roy’s suicidal thoughts rather than counter them. In one chilling exchange, Roy suggested they become like Romeo and Juliet—a double suicide pact. Carter’s responses stopped expressing concern and instead nudged him forward.
In the days leading up to Roy’s death, the messages multiplied. Carter’s texts described methods, set deadlines, asked Roy when he would “do it,” and at times expressed frustration that he hadn’t followed through. She wrote, “You can’t think about it. You just have to do it.” On July 12, 2014, as Roy prepared to enact his plan, Carter’s phone was never far from her hand. The digital conversation between them ran late into the evening, with Carter urging, prompting, and advising. When Roy, inside his truck, began to panic—stepping out, overwhelmed by fear—Carter’s call came through. She told him to get back inside, to finish what he had started.
The next morning, Conrad Roy’s body was found in the cab of his black Ford F-250, a portable generator in the back seat, dead from carbon monoxide poisoning. The funeral was held one week later at St. Anthony’s Church, the community struggling to understand how a young man with so much promise had ended his life in such a tragic fashion.
In the initial aftermath, Roy’s death appeared to be a private tragedy. But soon, investigators began to question the circumstances. They retrieved Roy’s phone and discovered a trove of digital correspondence—hundreds of messages exchanged over months, culminating in a furious flurry in the days and hours before his suicide. Michelle Carter’s role shifted from grieving girlfriend to person of interest.
Detectives pored over the text messages, noting the escalation in Carter’s encouragement. They saw how she discussed methods and timing with Roy, and how she provided step-by-step instructions. One message read, “You just need to do it, Conrad.” Another: “If you don’t do it now, you’re never going to do it.” The most damning evidence came from Carter’s own words to friends, describing her phone call with Roy as he sat in the filling truck. She confessed that he’d gotten out, overcome by fear, and that she had instructed him to get back in.
By February 2015, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts indicted Michelle Carter for involuntary manslaughter. The charge was unprecedented in the state—a test of whether words exchanged via text and phone could be considered criminal conduct when tied so directly to another’s death.
The prosecution’s case focused on Carter’s digital communication as the immediate catalyst for Roy’s suicide. They argued that while Roy had long struggled with mental illness, Carter’s persistent encouragement, especially in the final moments, constituted “wanton and reckless” behavior. Judge Lawrence Moniz, who presided over the bench trial after Carter waived her right to a jury, listened as prosecutors played a timeline of messages and calls. The prosecution emphasized that when Roy hesitated, Carter’s intervention tipped the balance.
The judge’s ruling rested not only on the texts, but on the content of the phone call as recounted in Carter’s own messages to friends. Judge Moniz noted that Roy had “broken the chain of self-causation” when he exited the truck, expressing panic. Carter’s instruction to return to the cab, he determined, was a critical act that made the difference between life and death. “At a critical point in time, the words spoken determined life or death,” Moniz said from the bench.
Carter’s defense argued that Roy’s decision was ultimately his own, and pointed to his history of prior attempts and psychiatric care. They raised questions about the effects of citalopram and about the boundaries of criminal speech, contending that Carter’s texts were protected under the First Amendment. The judge rejected these arguments. In June 2017, Michelle Carter was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
The sentence came on August 3, 2017: two and a half years in prison, with fifteen months to be served and the remainder suspended, followed by five years of probation. Carter remained out on bail as she appealed the conviction all the way to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. On February 6, 2019, the high court upheld the guilty verdict, finding that Carter’s encouragement and her failure to call for help once she knew Roy was dying satisfied the legal standard for “wanton or reckless conduct.”
In the wake of the verdict, the media and legal communities engaged in fierce debate. Some saw the conviction as a necessary evolution of the law in the digital era, an acknowledgment that words sent by text or spoken over the phone can carry the weight of physical actions. Others worried that the case set a dangerous precedent, criminalizing speech in ways that might run afoul of constitutional protections.
The case of Michelle Carter became a touchstone for discussions about technology, mental health, and legal responsibility. It forced courts and the public to confront whether it could be a crime to urge someone to commit suicide using only words, and whether the power of digital communication could meet the threshold for manslaughter. Legal scholars noted that the ruling may have signaled a new willingness among judges to interpret “wanton or reckless conduct” to include extreme verbal coercion, a realm previously dominated by physical acts.
The events and their aftermath spurred further examination in the public sphere. In 2019, HBO released the two-part documentary “I Love You, Now Die: The Commonwealth V. Michelle Carter.” The film reconstructed the digital exchanges between Carter and Roy, drawing on thousands of texts to recount the evolution of their relationship. It also presented the arguments from both the prosecution, who saw Carter’s words as deadly acts, and the defense, who argued she was a troubled teen herself, not a criminal.
The documentary premiered at South by Southwest on March 9, 2019, and aired on HBO that July, attracting a national audience. Reviews noted its complexity and the way it avoided simple conclusions, instead highlighting the ambiguities and pain at the heart of the tragedy. The film drew a 97% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with critics pointing to its journalistic rigor and its refusal to treat either teen’s suffering as spectacle.
Even as the media cycle moved on, the case left lasting marks on the American legal landscape. It demonstrated how, in the digital age, the boundaries of criminal behavior and responsibility can blur—how encouragement sent through a screen can, in the eyes of a court, become deadly. The case remains one of the first in Massachusetts, and one of the most prominent in the country, to secure a manslaughter conviction based solely on words.
After serving eleven months and twelve days of her fifteen-month sentence, Michelle Carter was released early for good behavior, as allowed by Massachusetts law. The remainder of her sentence was suspended, but her probation continued. The Roy family, meanwhile, established a scholarship fund in Conrad’s memory at the Northeast Maritime Institute, drawing attention to the struggles faced by young people battling anxiety and depression.
One of the starkest moments from the trial came not from legal argument, but from Carter’s own admission in a message to a friend. She wrote that she could have called for help or told Roy to get out of the truck, but she didn’t. Judge Moniz echoed this in his decision, emphasizing that Carter’s actions—her choice not to intervene—amounted to reckless conduct that directly caused Roy’s death.
The case pushed legal, ethical, and societal boundaries. It raised questions that remain unsettled: Where does support end and criminal coercion begin? How much responsibility can be laid on the sender of a text? What obligations do we have, even from afar, to intervene when we know someone is in mortal danger? As new generations live more of their lives online, the answers to these questions may yet reshape the law.
In the years since, the story of Conrad Roy and Michelle Carter has been retold on screens and in print, but it is the specific, chilling message—“Get back in”—that lingers as the case’s most haunting legacy.