CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — The 1992 murder of Michelle Miller, a case that had gone cold for decades, has seen new developments, sparking controversy and skepticism from her son, Daniel Irvin. The Middlesex District Attorney’s office recently charged 65-year-old Edward Watson of Mattapan with Miller’s murder, citing a murder-for-hire scheme allegedly orchestrated by Daniel Innis, Miller’s former partner and Irvin’s biological father.
At a press briefing, District Attorney Marian Ryan detailed the charges against Watson, explaining that the murder occurred in a Cambridge basement under a contract supposedly issued by Innis. The case, which had languished unresolved, gained momentum through the work of a dedicated cold case team.
Irvin, in an exclusive interview with a local station, expressed doubts about the narrative presented by prosecutors. He questioned the supposed motive involving a custody dispute, highlighting inconsistencies with his personal knowledge and family circumstances. Irvin and his sister had been placed in foster care and were not under their parents’ custody at the time of the murder.
Further complicating the narrative, Irvin revealed details of his conversations with his father prior to his death in 2012. Despite a troubled past that included a manslaughter conviction and other criminal activities, Innis vehemently denied his involvement in Miller’s death. “He was straightforward about his past, but assured me he would never hurt her in that way,” Irvin recounted.
Prosecutors have defended their case, assuring that their evidence, gathered from interviews and social worker reports, robustly supports the charges against Watson. Ryan, addressing concerns raised by Irvin and other family members, reiterated her confidence in the investigative process and the transparency with which it has been conducted.
The re-emergence of the case has provoked a reexamination of the personal histories of all involved. Both Miller and Innis struggled with drug addiction, a factor that shaped their lives and the upbringing of their children. Irvin and his sister spent their early years navigating the foster care system, eventually being adopted.
Irvin’s skepticism stems in part from his understanding of his father’s character, despite his criminal history. “I can’t reconcile the father I knew with the one they’re describing,” Irvin told reporters. He maintains that had his father truly intended to harm Miller, he would have acted directly rather than through an intermediary.
The discussion of motive also draws attention to a note reportedly written by Miller in 1991, in which she relinquished custody of her children, further casting doubt on the custody battle theory as a motive for murder.
As the legal process unfolds, questions remain about the veracity of the charges and the implications for everyone involved. Irvin remains adamant that without more compelling evidence, he cannot accept the narrative that his father masterminded the tragic events that led to his mother’s untimely death.
While the charges against Watson introduce a possible closure to a painful chapter that has lingered over the family and the Cambridge community, they also stir old memories and unresolved questions about motive, opportunity, and the nature of justice in prolonged cases such as this. The trial, expected to garner significant attention, will be a crucial test of the prosecution’s case and the enduring mysteries surrounding Michelle Miller’s death.