In December 2009, the disappearance of an 11-year-old girl from her bedroom in Salisbury, Maryland, just days before Christmas, sparked one of the largest search efforts in the region’s history. More than 3,000 volunteers joined investigators in the hunt for Sarah Foxwell, a case that would ultimately reveal a series of chilling facts and a suspect with a deeply troubling past.
Sarah was born on May 18, 1998, and grew up in a large family with two sisters and four brothers. Her mother also had three older children from a previous marriage. After her parents divorced, her mother worked long hours to support the household, and the children often stayed with relatives.
Sarah, the middle child, was known for her positivity and her ability to keep the peace among her siblings.
In December 2009, Sarah was temporarily living with her aunt and grandparents on the outskirts of Salisbury. The large farmhouse offered plenty of space for the children to play, and with Christmas approaching, the mood was festive. On the evening of December 22, the family ordered pizza, and the children went to bed around 9 p.
m. Sarah shared a room with her six-year-old sister, Emma, in a bedroom at the end of the hallway near the back door.
The next morning, Sarah’s grandfather found only Emma in the room. A search of the house turned up no sign of Sarah. Her aunt initially thought the girl might have gone outside to play in the snow, but Sarah’s jacket and shoes were still in the house.
Then the aunt noticed something odd: Sarah’s toothbrush was missing from the bathroom.
The family called Sarah’s mother, who rushed over, and together they contacted the police. Officers arrived within minutes. The aunt insisted she had locked all doors and windows the night before, but when police checked the back door near Sarah’s room, it opened easily.
A spare key that the family kept outside near the entrance was also gone. The fact that the perpetrator knew about the hidden key suggested he was familiar with the family. Another detail stood out: the family dog had not barked that night.
Investigators quickly moved toward an abduction theory. The missing toothbrush hinted that the kidnapper might intend to keep Sarah alive, prompting a massive allocation of resources. Outside the house, police found relatively fresh tire tracks in the snow, indicating the abductor had arrived by car.
Since all of Sarah’s warm clothing was left behind, it seemed unlikely she had left on foot.
At the police station, Sarah’s relatives were gathered when Emma pulled her grandmother aside and whispered that she had a secret. The six-year-old said she had woken up during the night and seen a man talking to Sarah. She had been scared and pretended to be asleep.
Then she watched the man leave the room with her sister. When asked if she recognized him, Emma said it was “Mr. Tommy.”
The adults knew exactly who she meant: 30-year-old Thomas Legs, the former boyfriend of Sarah’s aunt. He had spent considerable time at the house before their breakup a few months earlier, and all the children knew him well.
Police were also familiar with Thomas. His criminal record was extensive and centered on crimes against women and girls. At 18, he was sentenced to four years for assaulting a 12-year-old girl but was released early.
Months later, he received a seven-year sentence for assaulting another minor, yet was released after serving only six months. He later received a six-month sentence for another assault. He attempted to assault another girl on the same day his wife returned from the hospital with their newborn daughter.
His wife later divorced him and obtained a restraining order after he threatened to kill her and their child.
In another incident, Thomas approached a young girl sitting on her porch, told her he had been watching her play, called her a “wild girl,” and struck her with a stick. The girl’s mother reported him, but the case was complicated when the court asked her not to mention his prior convictions or his status on the sex offender registry, for fear of biasing the jury. Thomas avoided punishment in that case.
Just months before Sarah’s disappearance, Thomas was arrested again after breaking into a woman’s bedroom in the middle of the night and committing a lewd act while she slept. He was released on bail. He had initially hidden his criminal history from Sarah’s aunt, and when she learned the truth, he convinced her the accusations were false.
Detectives had no doubt Thomas was behind Sarah’s abduction. Relatives also noted that during his relationship with Sarah’s aunt, he had spent more time with Sarah than with the other children. At the time, no one thought much of it, but in hindsight, it was deeply disturbing.
Police went to Thomas’s residence, a shed on his parents’ property a few miles away. A search of the shed revealed squalid living conditions and a large collection of adult magazines and DVDs, but no evidence linking him to Sarah. During questioning, Thomas denied any involvement.
He claimed he had avoided being alone with children while dating Sarah’s aunt to prevent false accusations. When told that Emma had identified him, he dismissed the girl as someone who often made up stories.
Investigators did not believe him. During the interrogation, Thomas smiled and mocked the sheriff, giving the impression that he considered his crime perfect and believed police could not prove his guilt. He offered an alibi, saying he had been at a bar with a friend until late.
The alibi was partially confirmed: Thomas was seen at the bar, but he left around 1 a. m. No one, including his parents, saw him again until around 7 a.
m. Phone records showed he had sent messages to several women that night offering to meet, but all declined.
A break came when police seized Thomas’s pickup truck. Inside, they found Sarah’s green toothbrush and a large lollipop, which investigators believed was used to lure her into the vehicle. The tire tracks matched those found in the snow outside the house.
Thomas had claimed he had not been to the house in over a month, but the evidence proved otherwise.
Despite the mounting evidence, Thomas continued to deny everything. The search for Sarah continued with hundreds of officers and volunteers scouring abandoned buildings, forests, ravines, and bodies of water. Canine units and helicopters joined the effort.
The community response was overwhelming. Volunteers signed up in such numbers that the coordination center was moved to a baseball stadium. By the second day, 3,000 people were involved.
Investigators also found foreign DNA on Thomas’s underwear, which matched a sample from Sarah obtained from her belongings. The grim conclusion was that Thomas had sexually assaulted her after the abduction.
On the morning of December 25, Christmas Day, thousands of volunteers again went out to search. That same day, police received GPS data from Thomas’s phone. The data showed he had connected to three cell towers on the night of the disappearance, allowing investigators to determine a triangular area of focus about eight miles from Sarah’s aunt’s house, near the state border.
The area was heavily wooded, and hundreds of people combed through it.
Around 4 p. m. , police found Sarah’s body.
She lay on her back with her arms raised upward, pointing toward the sky. Medical experts were shocked by what they found. Sarah had been sexually assaulted.
There were signs of strangulation, but that had not killed her. Dirt found in her lungs indicated the perpetrator had attempted to drown her in a puddle. She lost consciousness during the attack.
Then she suffered severe burns. Investigators believed Thomas had left her in the forest, gone to get gasoline, returned, and set her on fire. Traces of smoke in her lungs indicated she was still alive when the fire was set.
Her raised arms were a natural reaction to being exposed to flames.
The cruelty of the crime shocked everyone involved. Detectives were determined to secure the death penalty for Thomas, who continued to deny his guilt. More evidence emerged: forensic experts found Sarah’s hairs and fabric particles from her pajamas on the front seat of Thomas’s truck.
The trial was delayed for more than a year. In early 2011, the prosecution offered Thomas a plea deal: he would admit his guilt and receive a life sentence instead of the death penalty. There were serious reasons for this decision.
Sarah’s younger sister, Emma, would have had to testify repeatedly in court in the presence of her sister’s killer, a prospect that could cause further trauma. Additionally, the prosecution could not be certain of securing a death sentence. If Thomas’s lawyers achieved a different verdict, he could potentially be released someday.
The state governor at the time also opposed the death penalty, further reducing the chances of obtaining that sentence.
Thomas accepted the deal. He admitted to tricking Sarah into leaving her house, taking her away, sexually assaulting her, and killing her. He received two life sentences without the possibility of parole and was transferred to a maximum-security prison.
Within days, another inmate attacked him with a makeshift weapon during lunch, inflicting several serious cuts. Thomas survived, and prison staff took extra measures to protect him from other inmates who wanted to harm him.
Sarah’s case sparked outrage because the system had repeatedly given Thomas opportunities to be released and continue committing crimes. In response, the state of Maryland passed “Sarah’s Law,” which mandates that anyone convicted of child abuse must serve at least 15 years in prison before becoming eligible for parole. The law was a direct legacy of a case that exposed the failures of the justice system and the devastating consequences of leniency.