Cellphone data and two sets of surveillance video trace Walter Fowler’s movements around a fatal porch shooting, police say.

ST. LOUIS, Mo. — A murder case arising from the Aug. 4 shooting death of 34-year-old Dwayne Henderson-Murphy is built in large part around a digital trail that investigators say repeatedly placed the accused man near Henderson-Murphy’s home before gunfire erupted late that night.

Walter Fowler, 29, is charged with first-degree murder and armed criminal action in the killing, according to court records and St. Louis news reports citing a police probable cause statement. Investigators say cellphone-location information, a security camera at Henderson-Murphy’s residence and surveillance footage from a nearby gas station connect Fowler to the area at multiple points on the day of the shooting. Authorities have not announced a motive, and the available charging account does not explain what relationship, if any, existed between Fowler and Henderson-Murphy before Aug. 4.

The case did not begin with those records. It began with a late-night emergency response in the Walnut Park West neighborhood. Police were sent around 11:40 p.m. to Hiller Place near West Florissant Avenue after a report of gunfire. Officers found Henderson-Murphy on a porch with multiple gunshot wounds. Public reports differ on whether he was pronounced dead at the scene or after being taken for medical treatment, but they agree that he died from the injuries. That distinction does not change the central allegation now before the court: prosecutors accuse Fowler of intentionally killing him.

Investigators then worked backward through the day. According to the probable cause account described by First Alert 4 and Law&Crime, Fowler’s cellphone records placed him at or near Henderson-Murphy’s residence more than once on Aug. 4, including around the time of the shooting. Police also said a camera at the home captured Fowler earlier in the day. The record is significant because it does not describe only a single appearance near the house at the time of the gunfire. Instead, authorities allege a pattern of presence that began before the shooting itself.

Video from the residence was one part of that reconstruction. Police said Fowler could be identified on a Ring security camera at Henderson-Murphy’s back door earlier that day. The reports reviewed for this story do not state what Fowler was doing there, how long he remained, whether anyone spoke with him or whether Henderson-Murphy was present when the recording was made. Those unanswered details matter because the video is being cited as evidence of Fowler’s location, not as a public explanation for why prosecutors believe the shooting occurred.

A second camera system, this one at a nearby gas station, supplied another part of the alleged sequence. Investigators said surveillance footage showed Fowler in clothing matching what was seen in the earlier recording. The gas-station video allegedly showed him getting out of a vehicle and heading in the direction of Henderson-Murphy’s home while appearing to secure a firearm under his arm. After shots were heard, police said, the same footage showed him running back toward the vehicle. The reports do not identify the driver or explain whether anyone else was inside the car.

That surveillance account gives prosecutors a time-linked narrative, but the publicly described evidence remains an allegation that will have to be tested in court. The available reports do not say whether police recovered a firearm, whether ballistics testing linked a weapon to the shooting, whether DNA or fingerprint evidence was recovered, or whether an eyewitness identified the shooter. They also do not describe the precision or margin of error of the cellphone-location records. The charging documents, as summarized publicly, rely heavily on the combination of location data and video rather than on a publicly identified confession or eyewitness account.

The gunfire also coincided with a second emergency nearby. Police said another man was struck by a vehicle while he was crossing West Florissant as the shooting unfolded. First Alert 4 reported that the man was treated at the scene. Investigators did not say the vehicle that hit him was connected to Fowler, to Henderson-Murphy or to the shooting, and they did not publicly identify the pedestrian in the reports reviewed for this story. That leaves the traffic incident as part of the same chaotic scene without establishing that it was part of the alleged homicide itself.

Prosecutors later filed first-degree murder and armed criminal action charges against Fowler. First-degree murder in Missouri is an accusation that the killing was deliberate, but the filing of the charge is not a finding of guilt. The probable cause statement provides the prosecution’s initial account of why Fowler was arrested and charged; it is not a trial record and does not contain the full evidence that either side may eventually present. Fowler is entitled to challenge the state’s evidence and is presumed innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The timing of the formal case also helps explain why the digital evidence has become the center of public reporting. The shooting happened Aug. 4, while the murder charge was reported later in August after investigators had reviewed recordings and cellphone records. One local report said authorities sought an arrest warrant as the case moved forward. Law&Crime reported that Fowler was later held in the St. Louis City Justice Center without bond. The public reports reviewed here do not identify a defense attorney speaking on Fowler’s behalf or include a statement from him responding to the allegations.

Fowler also faces charges in a separate criminal case, including first-degree assault, drug trafficking and possession of a controlled substance, according to First Alert 4 and Law&Crime. Those allegations are legally separate from Henderson-Murphy’s death and do not establish that Fowler committed the Aug. 4 shooting. They are relevant to his current court status only to the extent that public records show other pending accusations. The available reporting does not describe a conviction in that separate matter, and those charges likewise should not be treated as proof of conduct.

Henderson-Murphy’s death, meanwhile, is the fixed point around which the investigation has been reconstructed. He was 34 and lived in St. Louis, according to police and local reporting. Officers found him wounded on the porch of the Hiller Place residence shortly before midnight. The public record summarized by news outlets does not include comments from his relatives, a description of his activities earlier that day or an explanation of whether he knew Fowler. No reliable source reviewed for this story has supplied a motive, and investigators have not publicly filled that gap.

That absence of an announced motive makes the sequence of movements especially important to the prosecution’s early theory. The state’s account, as reported, is essentially chronological: Fowler was allegedly near the residence several times; a home camera allegedly recorded him there earlier; a gas-station camera later showed a similarly dressed man leaving a vehicle and moving toward the home with what police described as a firearm; shots followed; and the man on the video then ran back toward the car. Cellphone records, police say, place Fowler near the scene at the relevant time.

What happens next will depend on court proceedings rather than the charging narrative alone. As of Sept. 29, publicly available reports located for this story did not describe a plea, trial date or final disposition in the murder case. Fowler remained publicly reported as facing first-degree murder and armed criminal action, with no motive announced by authorities. The central questions left for the case include how prosecutors authenticate and interpret the digital evidence, what additional evidence may exist beyond the probable cause statement, and how the defense responds to the state’s reconstruction of Aug. 4.

Author note: Last updated September 29, 2026.