Girly Chew Hossencofft waited on Linda Henning at a Bank of America in Albuquerque on August 20, 1999. It was a routine transaction. The bank kept a record of it. That record mattered a few weeks later, when Girly disappeared and Henning told a grand jury she’d never met her. [1]
Girly had lived and worked in Albuquerque since 1992. She was 36, had family in Malaysia and had worked at the bank since 1997. Coworkers remembered a teller who was good at her job and well liked. They last saw her a little after five on September 9. Friends couldn’t reach her that evening or the next morning. When she didn’t come in for work, police were called. [1]
In October 2026, a New Mexico judge set aside Henning’s convictions and granted a new trial after finding she hadn’t been competent to stand trial in 2002. The court ordered her release under conditions and paused the case for a new competency evaluation. The ruling concerns Henning. The criminal judgment against Diazien, who entered a plea in 2002, is separate. [1] [3] [4] [5]
The apartment and the roadside
Girly had gone home from work on September 9. The investigation turned to her apartment and to her estranged husband, Diazien Hossencofft. In the apartment, investigators found blood that testing attributed to Henning. She told the grand jury she’d never been inside. [1]
Away from Albuquerque, a roadside discovery gave investigators another place to look. A tarp and clothing turned up near Magdalena on September 10. Tests linked blood on the recovered material to Girly. The federal court record describes evidence that Henning had bought a tarp of the same size and style at Home Depot two days before. The store purchase was a lead about a kind of tarp sold to customers, with no unique mark tying that purchase to the one found by the road. [1]
No body was recovered in the investigation described in the court record. The evidence led to charges, but it left the authorities unable to establish exactly how Girly had been killed. [1]
What the bank could tell police
The August 20 record put Henning and Girly across a counter from each other. Records showed two other visits by Henning, on August 26 and September 3, without establishing that Girly served her on those occasions. A witness also said that on September 17, after Girly went missing, Henning pointed out her apartment. The bank record spoke to whether the two women had met. The witness could speak to what Henning knew about where Girly lived. Neither account explained how Henning’s blood got inside. [1]
That was the part of the case on which the defense had an answer. It came from Girly’s husband. [1]
What Diazien said he did
Diazien entered a plea in 2002, and the federal court’s account says he admitted arranging Girly’s kidnapping and murder. His plea resolved the prosecution against him. In Henning’s separate trial, he testified for the defense that he’d put her blood in the apartment and that she hadn’t taken part in the kidnapping or killing. [1]
The defense could accept the identification of the blood and still dispute the prosecution’s account of how it got there. The state asked jurors to consider the test results alongside the evidence of Henning’s contact with Girly, the tarp purchase and testimony about Henning’s connection to Diazien. A federal magistrate reviewing the trial years later explained that relying on Diazien’s account rather than disputing the DNA result had been a deliberate choice by Henning’s lawyers. [1]
What the courts decided the first time
The jury found Henning guilty of felony murder, kidnapping and other offenses in 2002. Her original sentence totaled life plus 43 and a half years. On direct appeal, the court reversed the perjury convictions because Henning hadn’t received adequate notice of those charges. It affirmed the other convictions. The original total includes counts that were later overturned. [2]
Henning continued to challenge the case. A federal magistrate recommended denying relief in 2009, and the district judge reviewed the record and adopted the recommendation. In June 2010, the Tenth Circuit denied permission to proceed with her appeal. At that point, the murder and kidnapping convictions still stood. [1] [2]
A different question about the 2002 trial
In orders filed October 23, 2026, Judge Cindy Leos found that Henning had been unable to participate competently in her own defense in 2002. Leos also found that her trial lawyer had failed to raise the issue. The judge vacated the remaining convictions and ordered a new trial. The ruling addressed whether Henning could fairly be tried at the time. It made no finding about who put the blood in the apartment. [3] [5]
The court set conditions for Henning’s release and stayed the case while it considers whether she is competent to stand trial now. As of November 12, the court’s public filings showed that stay, with the charges still pending. [4]
In 2026, the court could revisit whether the first trial should ever have gone ahead. It still couldn’t give Girly’s family the answer they’d been without since her friends tried to reach her that September evening. Her remains had not been found in the records and reporting reviewed for this update. [1] [5]
Case brief
Albuquerque, New Mexico · 1999
- Recorded outcome
- Diazien Hossencofft was convicted after entering a plea in 2002. Linda Henning’s convictions were vacated in October 2026. A new trial was ordered; proceedings were stayed pending a competency decision.
Key moments
People in this case
- Girly Chew Hossencofft
Missing person and murder victim
Photo at source · The Charley Project · identified case photographs
Look closer · 3 visuals
Inside the evidence.
Open a visual to explore what it contributed to the case—and the limits of what it shows. These original illustrations explain the record; they are not photographs of the actual evidence.
The roadside tarp
Original editorial illustration — not an actual evidence photograph or exhibit.
Read the evidence notes
The recovered tarp and clothing supplied physical evidence away from the apartment. A purchase was compared with the tarp’s size and style.
Generic tarp, not the actual exhibit. A commercially available type is not a unique object identification.
The transaction that tested a denial
Original editorial illustration — not an actual evidence photograph or exhibit.
Read the evidence notes
A bank transaction documented contact relevant to Henning’s denial of having met Girly.
No real customer data or bank record reproduced. It does not show the murder.
Blood and the planting defense
Original editorial illustration — not an actual evidence photograph or exhibit.
Read the evidence notes
The defense argued that Diazien planted Henning’s blood. The association and its explanation were distinct questions.
Non-graphic laboratory symbol. The defense allegation is not presented as an established finding.
★ Key evidence used in a conviction · ✓ Exclusion or reversal · ◇ Disputed evidence · ⊘ Excluded at retrial · ◆ Identity / investigative finding, not a conviction. A symbol does not mean one item proved the whole case.
Follow the locations
Put the story on the map.
Follow the dated entries, then select an event to find its regional setting. Shared-location pins open a group of events. Evidence symbols identify important findings and their limitations.
Open the map in its own window ↗Sources & further reading
- Henning v. Cooper, magistrate's proposed findings and recommended dispositionVictim background, disappearance, trial testimony, blood evidence, competing planting theory and procedural history.
- Henning v. Cooper, Tenth Circuit orderPerjury reversals, remaining convictions, district court adoption and denial of certificate of appealability.
- State v. Henning: order granting habeas relief and a new trialFinding of incompetence at the 2002 trial and vacatur of the convictions.
- New Mexico Second Judicial District: State v. Linda Henning filingsRelease conditions, stay, order for a competency evaluation and notice of a status hearing.
- Albuquerque Journal: Judge orders Henning released after vacaturCompetency findings, release hearing, unrecovered remains and separate judgment against Diazien.
Editorial review: 2026-11-12 · 872 words