Prosecutors accuse Walter Fowler of killing Dwayne Henderson-Murphy after police say records placed Fowler near the victim’s home several times.
ST. LOUIS, Mo. — The criminal case against Walter Fowler begins with a formal accusation of first-degree murder, but the public evidence described so far reaches back through the hours before Dwayne Henderson-Murphy was shot on his porch and focuses on why investigators believe Fowler repeatedly came near the home.
Fowler, 29, also faces an armed criminal action charge in connection with Henderson-Murphy’s Aug. 4 death. Prosecutors in St. Louis filed the case after police assembled cellphone-location records and surveillance footage that they say link Fowler to the Walnut Park West residence before and around the shooting. The filing sets out a theory of deliberate homicide, but it does not answer one of the most basic questions surrounding the case: authorities have not publicly identified a motive for the killing.
The distinction between an accusation and proof is especially important at this stage. A probable cause statement summarizes information investigators rely on to justify charges; it is not a verdict and does not necessarily contain every piece of evidence gathered by police. Fowler has not been convicted of Henderson-Murphy’s killing, and the prosecution will be required to prove the charges in court. The reporting reviewed for this story does not include a public response from Fowler or a defense attorney addressing the specific allegations in the murder case.
What prosecutors do have, according to the police account reported by First Alert 4 and other outlets, is a sequence of alleged movements. Cellphone records placed Fowler near Henderson-Murphy’s home several times on Aug. 4, including around the time of the fatal shooting. Police also say a Ring camera at the residence captured Fowler earlier that day. The records are presented as separate points that reinforce one another: the phone data identifies repeated proximity, while the camera footage allegedly provides a visual identification at the property.
The state’s account then shifts from the residence to a nearby gas station. Surveillance video there allegedly showed Fowler in the same clothing seen in the earlier residential footage. Police said the video captured him leaving a vehicle and walking toward Henderson-Murphy’s home while appearing to carry and secure a firearm under his arm. Investigators further allege that, after gunshots were heard, the man on the footage ran back toward the car. Public reports do not say whether that camera recorded the shooting itself or merely the movements before and after it.
That limitation matters because the publicly described case is circumstantial in the ordinary sense of the word: investigators are linking multiple facts to infer what happened rather than pointing, in the reports reviewed, to a publicly identified eyewitness who says he saw Fowler fire. Circumstantial evidence can be used in criminal cases, but each piece must still be authenticated and evaluated. The reports do not say whether police recovered the firearm allegedly visible on video, whether forensic testing connected a weapon to the bullets or casings, or whether another camera captured the moment Henderson-Murphy was shot.
The fatal encounter occurred late in the day. Officers were called at about 11:40 p.m. to Hiller Place near West Florissant Avenue after a shooting was reported. They found Henderson-Murphy, 34, wounded on a porch. He died from those injuries. Published accounts conflict over whether he was pronounced dead there or after being transported for treatment, so the exact place of death is not clear from the reporting. The core point is undisputed across the reviewed accounts: Henderson-Murphy was found shot at his residence, and the homicide investigation followed.
Another man became part of the emergency response even though police have not tied him to the alleged attack. Investigators said the man was crossing West Florissant during the gunfire when he was struck by a vehicle. First Alert 4 reported that he was treated at the scene. Authorities did not say that the driver was helping the shooter escape, participating in the homicide or otherwise connected to Fowler. Without that link, the collision is best understood as a dangerous event that unfolded at the same time rather than as an established part of the prosecution’s murder theory.
The repeated-location evidence is also narrower than the strongest possible interpretation of it. A phone being recorded near a location can support an allegation that its user was in an area, but the public reports do not describe the technology used, its precision or whether investigators independently verified that Fowler possessed the device at every relevant time. The home-camera footage provides one alleged visual confirmation earlier in the day, while the gas-station footage supplies another later image. Prosecutors may have more detailed records, but those details have not been made public in the sources reviewed.
Likewise, the fact that Fowler allegedly appeared at or near the residence several times does not by itself explain intent. No reviewed source says investigators found a message threatening Henderson-Murphy, documented a dispute between the two men or obtained a statement describing why Fowler would have wanted him dead. First-degree murder is the most serious homicide accusation in the case, and proving it will require more than establishing that Fowler was nearby. The prosecution must connect the evidence to the charged conduct and required state of mind under Missouri law.
Fowler’s custody status is another part of the case, but public reports are clearer about the result than every step that produced it. Local outlets reported that he was held without bond after the murder charge was filed. FOX 2 reporting republished by AOL said the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office charged him with first-degree murder and armed criminal action. Some secondary reports have described the timing of his arrest differently, so this account does not assign a precise arrest date beyond noting that authorities took him into custody as the investigation progressed.
Coverage of the homicide has also noted that Fowler faces first-degree assault, drug trafficking and possession of a controlled substance charges in a separate case. Those charges are independent allegations and should not be used as evidence that he committed the Aug. 4 homicide. The available reports do not say those separate accusations resulted in convictions. Their presence may affect court scheduling or custody matters, but Henderson-Murphy’s death remains a distinct prosecution with its own burden of proof.
The murder case therefore arrives at its next stage with a detailed allegation about where Fowler was but comparatively little public information about why the killing happened. Investigators say the phone data and two camera systems form a chain that follows Fowler from earlier contact with the residence to the period surrounding the shots. What has not been publicly disclosed includes a motive, the nature of any prior relationship, a statement from the accused, a publicly identified eyewitness to the gunfire, or forensic findings connecting a specific weapon to the shooting.
As of Sept. 29, no later reliable public report located for this story showed that the murder charge had been resolved, that Fowler had entered a plea or that a trial date had been announced. The allegations remain pending in the public record reviewed here. The next meaningful developments will come from court filings and hearings that reveal whether the digital and video evidence described in the probable cause statement is admitted, challenged or supplemented by evidence that has not yet been disclosed publicly.
Author note: Last updated September 29, 2026.