March 19, 2025 • 53 mins
Kenneth Perry thought he got away with the rape and murder of Pamela Sumter and the murder of her brother, John Sumter. Joseph Scott Morgan and Dave Mack dive into a case that remained unsolved for over 30 years but was eventually solved by a combination of good detective work and brilliant DNA work done by Othram labs. Check out www.dnasolves.com to find out how you can help. Joe explains the crime scene and how investigators were able to use a "dying declaration" to get justice for Pamela and John Sumter,
Kenneth Perry was convicted of the rape and murder of Pamela Sumter and the murder of her brother, John Sumter. He was sentenced on March 18, 2025 to three consecutive life sentences, plus 100 years in custody.
Transcribe Highlights
00:00:01.81 Introduction - Malignant Heart
00:03:19.67 Othram solving the cold cases
00:05:53.64 Unsolved case of double homicide
00:09:47.60 DNA And "dying declaration"
00:14:12.53 Why Would some die after surviving two weeks
00:20:48.31 Early days of genetic material of sex offenders
00:25:18.44 Pattern wear of shoe providing evidence
00:30:01.82 Determining knife, double edge or single edge
00:36:23.44 Learning about DNA watching the OJ Trial
00:41:31.50 Crowdfunding and Access to grant writers
00:46:05.88 Suspect is now 56, got DNA sample that matched victims in Ga and Detroit
00:49:01.54 Othram helping solve cold cases
00:53:02.29 Conclusion
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Body dyers, but Joseph's gotten more malignant heart. That's not
necessarily two words that you would commonly hear used in
concert with one another. I came across this term the
(00:26):
first time I ever looked at the murder statute in
the state of Georgia when I first arrived, because I'd
never heard of a charge before coming from Louisiana of
something called malice murder. And that's actually the way they
define it now. Me being a scientist, I don't necessarily
(00:50):
prefer the term murder. It's a lawyer's word. I like
the word homicide. But just so that we understand, with
a malignant heart being one of the components of malice murder,
it actually kind of plays out like this, when a
person causes the death of another human being with an
(01:14):
abandoned and malignant heart. I don't know that kind of
defines the ultimate into pravity, doesn't it to no longer care,
or that maybe you never cared and you diminish the
person to the point where you could rutalize them. Well,
today we're going to discuss not one, but two two
(01:42):
cases that are actually intertwined. A brother and sister that
lost their lives over thirty years ago and their cases
have been solved. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan and this is
body backs. Horrible stuff here, Dave. These two cases. Yeah, yeah,
(02:11):
I know, yeah, there ain't no thinking to it. This
is and you know, the thing about it is is
that you know, when you're you're dealing with a case
like this or cases rather, it's uh those that are
left behind the the family member, the family members of
the Sumpters. It it's one of these things that they
(02:36):
just they die over and over and over again. Uh,
you know, in the minds of the family because there's
no answers, there's nothing that has led to the solving
of a case of course until recently and an adjudication actually,
so yeah, I was anxious to get into this case
(02:59):
or cases with you and kind of pull it apart
and talk about it a little bit today here on
Body Batterge.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
It's one of the one of the many things that
I have learned since beginning the show with you and
learning about AUTHORAM and what they have done, the work
that Authoram does, and you explained it to me, you know,
and I didn't have a frame of reference. You know,
I'm not a scientist. Guy. I'm a broadcaster and I
(03:26):
specialize in certain things. But you know, really and truly,
when you get into the science of this, it's beyond
what most people have the ability to comprehend. And one
thing I do understand is a lack of funding and
how difficult it is. The work that AUTHORAM is doing
is life altering for those left behind. Solving crimes by
(03:51):
science is amazing. And the work that they do is
so intense that they actually have a timer on each
of the scientists and how long they can work in
a row on a particular thing, because it does get
so intense. But the bottom line, yeah, and you know again,
I go back to you telling me what was going on,
and I had no idea that they had to actually crowdfund.
(04:13):
I thought there was this bucket and based on what
we have learned recently about government waste, I don't know
why there hasn't been a bucket of money waiting for
them whenever they need something, just to grab a scoop
of cash, boom, get it done. But authoram is actually
crowdfunding people like you and me writing small donations are
actually helping to provide answers to questions that families have
(04:35):
been asking for decades, and in this particular case, it's
a crime that occurred July fifteenth, nineteen ninety. Now where
were you? Think about it? Friends, where were you July fifteenth,
nineteen ninety and realize that is the time since then
we're looking at thirty five years. Yep, brother and sister
(04:58):
were murdered and they didn't have an answer. Who did it?
How can we prove it? And it wasn't something they
didn't look into. It was investigated. You have an attack
that happens at an apartment complex on Tree Hills Parkway.
This is into cab County, Georgia. Now police arrived. Pamela
Sumter is forty three. She's able to tell officers that
(05:22):
she has been raped and stabbed, and that her brother,
forty six year old John Sumter, has also been stabbed
and possibly is dead in the apartment next door. Think
about that for a minute. She's able to tell police,
I know I was raped, I've been stabbed, She knows
she's breathing some of her last probably and tells them
(05:44):
my brother might be dead next door. She's able to
give police just enough information that they can begin an investigation,
and without that we wouldn't have the results that we
end up having thirty five years later, Joe, still an
awfully long time. So starting at July fifteen, nineteen ninety,
the stabbing deaths, I do want to point out one
(06:06):
thing that Pamela did not die immediately. It was some
time in between. You know, she languished for a few
days before she actually passed away, but she was able
to give police enough information to begin the investigation. So
starting there, how did we get how did we get
lost along the way with having that much information, Joe,
(06:29):
we started July fifteen, nineteen ninety, We've got the stabbing
death of John Sumter. We have Pamela Sumter has been
raped and stabbed, and she has actually told police enough
information that they can begin an investigation. Because she doesn't
die right then. Her brother was dead, but she did
not die for another two weeks. But she was fatally
(06:51):
Is it called fatally or mortally wounded? Right when somebody
had the injuries that lead to death.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Yeah, I like that the mortal wound, you know, implies
that it's going to be unsurvivable.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
And here's here's the thing, is you don't know, you know,
when clinicians are going in to assess an individual, particularly
if they've been stabbed multiple times. Uh, as crass as
it sounds. You're you're essentially puncturing the body multiple times.
And uh, not only are you affecting you know that
(07:25):
kind of uh top layer of the body where you're
passing through all kinds of vessels. Uh, you might even
be breaking bones with a knife. We know that a
knife was involved. But then you get into the various
organ systems and this is not something that's ordered like surgery. Okay,
You've you've got this kind of randomized stabbing most of
(07:48):
the times, and cuts that happen all over the body.
So yeah, you never know where you know, with every
stab that comes along, suddenly the the chances of survival
are you know, percentage wise are diminished every time. Did
the surgeon get everything when they're doing emergency surgery to
(08:08):
try to get these things closed off? Micro vessels and
all those sorts of things. But yeah, so she lingered
for two weeks, Dave, and she did give a description
of the individual. And when you think about genetics, a
(08:30):
big tail here is she's saying that she was raped. Okay,
that's very important. You know they would have done this
is not like, this is kind of this is kind
of fascinating. They would not have done a rape kit
on her at the morgue because if she lingered for
two weeks, okay, she lingered for two weeks, then just
(08:55):
being in the hospital for two weeks is going to
all of your evidence is going to be gone by
that time. Okay, So they would have done in the
state that she was in, Dave, just imagine this, this
trauma that she had endured, they would have done a
rape kit on her, maybe you know, in the emergency
room while they're trying to save her life, because they
(09:18):
understand the importance of this genetic material. Even in nineteen
ninety now, we didn't have We did not have the
same technology obviously, and I know we harp on this
all the time. We did not have the same level
of technology. This even predates you know, John Bennet, and
you know a lot of hay is being made over
(09:38):
her and her case. You know, what can they kind
of you know, conjure up relative to those the events
surrounding that case. That was in the mid nineties, so
this is actually five years earlier, and you think about it.
The sad simple that they would have needed back then
(10:04):
in order to try to begin a DNA assessment relative
to the perpetrator was really significant, particularly when you think
about blood evidence and all that sort of thing.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Okay, so if she doesn't tell them that she was raped,
they're going to focus on her injuries and trying to
save her life. But they're not going to do rape kit.
I mean, they're they're going to.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Do they're going to do a rape kit either way.
I just it's just one of those little little things
that you think about as a death investigator that and
this goes this goes to the mentality of the investigators
at that time and also the nursing staff that they
saw the need they saw the need to go to.
(10:44):
Because you've got a woman that is actually verbalizing. I
mean she's saying I was raped, okay.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
And my brother is probably dead next to her.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Yeah, she's able to to give them a tremendous amount
of dat uh, you know, And that's just not something
many times that you come across, and it's kind of
a these cases, the cases like this are outlayers relative
to where you have a homicide case where you've got
(11:17):
a rape victim who will in fact become a murder
victim because she succumbs in two weeks. Where you know,
you've got this kind of statement that is made, and
here's something that that you know, our our listeners, you know,
(11:38):
might not be aware of. There's this idea of what's
referred to as a dying declaration. I've always been fascinated
by this and the way the court looks at this
information that is conveyed by somebody, and I always imagine
it like in I have this kind of dramatic thing
in my mind where dying declaration. You've got somebody that's
(12:03):
rolling Code three. They're in the back of an ambulance,
lights and sirens, and you've got some orderly e MT
or maybe even a cop that's sitting on the bench
in the back of the ambulance. The person's covered in blood,
they're all traumatized, and they're saying it was so and
so and then they gassed their last breath, and all
(12:24):
the while this information is being written down or recorded
and that yeah, that's that's kind of a dying declaration.
But you've got a woman that that lingered for two weeks, Dave.
Now we don't really know her clinical status if she
drifted into a coma and then she was just kind
of in that stasis you know, which you go into,
you know, as a result of blood loss. But here's
(12:47):
the interesting thing about dying declaration is that if the
subject gives a declarative statement about you know, a perpetrator
and they don't I, that statement essentially becomes invalid. It's
not as valid and powerful as a dying declaration. So
(13:11):
what this poor woman Pamela offered up at that moment
in time ultimately was a huge piece to solving this
case where you know her what she had gone through,
and also obviously we can't forget about her her brother,
who she says, he's probably dead in the adjacent in
(13:36):
the adjacent apartment. So you know, that statement would have
been it would have been less impactful. And the way
the court looks at it, apparently is that if the defense,
you know, there's nobody to be cross examined at that
point in time for the defense, and so that's a
(13:58):
it's very very powerful if you can anchor if you
can anchor that statement in the early beginnings of the investigation.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
All right, well, let me ask you this, Joe, because again,
not being a medical guy, not being a scientist. To me,
it seems like she's able to describe or give them
the basics of what is transpired. I think my brother's dad,
I've been raped, and she's able to talk to them
enough to communicate all of what has taken place. Now
(14:27):
they're able to get her to the hospital, and then,
as you mentioned, we don't know if she drifted off
into a coma or what happened, But for her to
have lived for an additional two weeks to have been alive,
I guess in my mind's I'm thinking, wait a minute,
you're alive. When you got at the hospital, They're able
to treat your wounds and to stop whatever internal bleeding
is going on. Why would somebody die like that? It
(14:49):
seems to me, And I know I'm wrong, I just don't.
I can't quite fathom how somebody could survive the injuries
enough to tell you what has happened, get to the hospital,
and remain alive for two weeks.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Yeah. I think the key word here is catastrophic injuries,
Like there are just some injuries that people sustain, particularly
if you're going into organ systems. If you think about uh,
and I you know, again, the authorities have not you know,
offered up you know, the specifics here relative to to
(15:24):
the trauma that she sustained the extent of it. However,
if you're talking about multiple let's just say, for instance,
she had multiple sharp force injuries to the liver. Okay, well,
one sharp force's entry to the liver is significant, But
let's just say you got multiple. Oh and by the way,
yeah we clipped along and oh, by the way, you
(15:48):
got the spleen, you know, and oh, by the way,
you got into the bowel. So you've got all this
matrix of all of these things that the search have
to account for in order to sustain life. And we're
not even talking about we're not even talking about, say,
for instance, of a long life that can be lived here.
(16:14):
We're just right now. You know, they can stem the bleeding,
they can do transfusions, all that sort of thing, but
how many surgeries can one individual endure, you know, to
go into those various systems and stem the bleeding permanently
to get that person on the road to health. And
(16:34):
you know, with something like a multiple stabbing that has occurred,
it's just it's catastrophic. That's why, you know, like you know,
we talk about there's more people in the US from
a trauma standpoint that die in car accidents. Okay, I
mean you have a lot of motor vehicle fatalities. Well,
(16:57):
one of the reasons is is that those injury so
many times can be so extensive, and you know, it's
the it's the tiniest of little things within that within
that matrix, you know, that can lead to death. You
might maybe you will, you'll be able to you know
fix uh, you know, a ruptured bowel, a vowel has
(17:20):
been torn, but you know it's it's the bone fragment
that got into the liver or got into the lung
and how do you know it's that's why surgery and
surgeons in particular trauma surgeons are amazing, you know, because
of what they have to do, all the calculus they
have to do, you know, in their brain to try
(17:41):
to determine how to evaluate. And that's one of the
things that you know, you talk about triaging patients that
come in and in Pamela's case, they are dealing with
so much. I think it's a miracle. She probably survived
two weeks and and not just that that she was verbal,
you know, at the at the front end of this thing, uh,
(18:03):
you know, and she's been raped on top of it
and has borne witness to a guy that's been with
her her entire life, her brother. After a period of time,
(18:33):
I'm thinking that the the authorities are believing that, you
know that it's particularly on the front end when you
get a physical description, and I'm thinking about back then
you get a physical description of an individual, you're thinking that, well,
we're going to get this thing locked up, We're going
(18:54):
to be able to get this person identified, and we're
going to be able to bring some sense of justice
to this horrific situation where we've now got two homicide victims.
Thank god, we've got this bit of data from the
one surviving victim, who, of course, Pamela eventually dies, and
(19:17):
she's able to give the script of an individual. And
the upside I think for them, and it seems rather benign,
is that you've got a subject that is in fact,
you know that you're dealing with a male population because
(19:39):
you have a rape at this point in time, So
any mystery there may have been about, you know, was
this a female that came in and attacked this brother
and sister. You know, that's out the window. So you've
got it narrowed down here. You're looking for a male
based upon a physical description. Back then, the best you
(20:03):
could hope for with a and we were just in
the early early stages of having some type of rudimentary
database as it applied to sex offenders and genetic material,
and it wasn't anything, and they would still have to
(20:24):
wait a few years before you could actually plug that
data in. So in State of Georgia at you know,
just the local level, they're not getting any hits at
all as to who who may have been responsible for
let's let's face it, this savagery that was exacted upon
(20:46):
this brother and sister. There's no way that they could
have been able to to really marry this up. I think, uh,
it's it's you know. And all you're left with now
is the words of a woman who's now deceased and
(21:07):
the evidence that's left behind at the scene, you know,
in the person of her brother.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
So, Joe, we've got John Sumter and Pamela Sumter. John
is forty six years old and he is stabbed to
death in his apartment. Pamela Sumter is in a neighbor
apartment next door, according to what she says to police,
and she's been raped to stab Now she tells police
(21:33):
that John is probably dead in our apartment. And that's
where I keep thinking that police walk into all types
of different scenarios, Joe, but walking into this one where
they are told by the one of the victims what's
going on. And I have to guess that when police
(21:54):
are hearing a woman who has obviously been stabbed in it,
you know, and is in bad shape, and she's saying
she's been raped, they're trying to figure out what all
was going on? Why is her brother dad? If she
was raped and stabbed, Why is her brother dead? Why
is he over there in a different apartment. Why do
we have two different crime scenes, one with a man
(22:15):
who has been stabbed to death and now a woman
who has been raped in staff. I'm thinking these sound
like two totally different scenarios, two totally different crimes. They
don't say it, They just don't seem like these should
happen together like this, So you begin looking into it.
How do you start What kind of information are police
looking from you? Well?
Speaker 1 (22:37):
Yeah, I think that probably uh, trying to understand the different. Well,
let's just look at the blood, okay, because you know,
we've talked about so many times on body backs relative
to you know, kind of the commingling of blood and
the overlay that takes place when you have multiple vicarvictims
(23:00):
of stab ones or or shootings, you know, where you've
got copious amounts of blood everywhere. How do you make
sense of this if they're domiciled together, the brother and sister,
and they're living in this apartment. The first thing, and
this is more investigative than it is forensics, however, I
have to say, how bold is it for a perpetrator
(23:22):
to come in and with If you've got this, I
think this scenario cooked up in your mind as a
sexual predator where you're fantasizing perhaps about her. You didn't
(23:43):
case the joint very well because now you're going to
walk into a situation with a grown man in the
same house, and you're going to have to fight through
him to get to her, and then you're still going
to have to do her in order to carry out
this horror that you're trying to perpetrate. That doesn't sound
(24:08):
like this, I don't know. To me, It doesn't at
least sound like you've got an individual that has thought
this thing through very much. And when you show up
to a scene like this, the bloody dynamic in there
where you've got probably with a blood letting like this,
(24:29):
you might have bloody footprints that are all over the place,
shoeprints in particular. You know, I can only imagine you've
got two adults that have been stabbed multiple times. You're
going to have blood that could be tracked through, and
then you're trying to determine I think, well, whose footprints
(24:50):
are these? Well, you know that if you've got shoeprints
and both these people are in their home, I don't
know about you. I don't sit around the house in
my shoes, you know, It's just not something want to do.
I want to get comfortable. I might be in my
sock feet, you know, or might be barefooted. And you've
got a perpetrator that walks in and they're wearing some
(25:11):
type of shoe with a very specific pattern on it.
How how did he track in and track out? And
did they have evidence of him X filling you know,
from the apartment, you know, and walking out the door,
going through a window. How did he get access to
both of these individuals to be able to and it's
(25:34):
not like he shot him, he stabbed both of them.
Did he show up with a knife that was his
that he chooses to use. And when you have a
sexual predator, most of them like to use the same
tools over and over again. You know, this is a
really bold thing to do. You know, you begin to
think about this and it's like, whoever perpetrated this, this
(25:55):
is probably not their first rodeo, you know.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
They're interesting that in case, Joe so that when Pamela
Sumpter told police she had been raped and stabbed, she
actually was able to tell them enough information. She said
that her brother had brought a man to their apartment.
He was down. This is again just outside of Atlanta
into Cap County, Georgia, and she tells police that her
brother has brought a guy in from Detroit into their apartment.
(26:21):
So she's been able to give them just enough information
to know that whoever did this attack, the first suspect
is the man that came from Detroit that her brother
brought to their apartment. Now she's not in their apartment
that she shares with her brother, she's a neighbor apartment.
When she calls police, and police arrived to the standard
(26:41):
somebody stabbed. I don't know what police think when they
go into that. If I got a call said somebody
was stabbed, that would be a little different than a
double homicide in a rape, than a simple stabbing in
an apartment.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Right, yeah, yeah, it would be. And well, first off,
you never know what these uh, these folks are going
to walk into that are you know, taking care of
us out there law enforcement offers, But you've got obviously violence,
uh that you're you know that you're having to deal
with when you walk in and you think, well, there's
(27:15):
been a stabbing, Well, you know, I don't know what
was going on in a card game and uh, a
dice game, a lover's quarrel. Uh and somebody pulls out
a blade and stabs somebody, Well that's a.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
Stask you very quickly about the blade. You've told me
before about how strangling and knifing are different than a
gunshot because they're so personally you have to be right
their hands on. Is that something that police when they
go into with this scenario that they're thinking, boy, this
is close, this is this is personal? Or is a
knife a weapon of opportunity. I had a knife laying here,
(27:49):
That's what I grabbed.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
Yeah, yeah, And it can be it can be a
weapon of opportunity that you have, uh, you know, lying
about maybe on a counter or on a knife blow.
You know how many times have we It seems like
I was doing a show the other day the case
that was being covered, and I don't know if it
was Nancy or who was.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
With so many appearances gang, I got to tell you
that Joe Scott Morgan is the most sought after forensic
guy in America. And I know that there are times
when I know what our schedule is, you and me,
and I see you on a network at ten thirty
at night, you know, doing something and it's like in
six hours, I know where he's going to be. You know,
(28:33):
you got to sleep sometimes, Joe, You got to.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
You got to sometimes that I've been paying the price
for lately. How you know, you think about the knife blocks.
You know, we were just talking about a case I
was and they all run together, unfortunately, and those are
those are weapons of opportunity. You know, you look over
(28:56):
with most serialized defense, if you have an individual that
is participating, you know, in this violent sexual fantasy that
they have they're going to carry a knife with them
if a knife is part of that fantasy, you know,
part of the attack fantasy that they're you know, and
that's why the beauty of that for us and forensics
(29:21):
is to try to understand the nature and dimensions of
the knife. Because what we will do we track knife
wounds in the morgue just like we do gunshot wounds
to a great degree. You know, let's say, for instance,
we have a knife wound to the chest. Okay, well,
we're going to do the external examination and we're going
(29:42):
to get the the the depth of the wound. People
think about that, but there's also the external dimensions of
the defect that's that's left behind. First off, you have
to be able to categorize it. And the biggest thing
with knife wounds is you want to know if it's
a sin or double edged knife. There's not that many
(30:03):
double edged knives that are out there that you come across.
You know, you're thinking, when you think double edge, you
think dagger. Okay, not too many people carry daggers. Now
you have retractable knives sometimes that will have double edges
to them, and they're brutal injuries to have to deal
with because you're not just cutting on one side, You're
(30:25):
cutting on two sides and slicing through. Whereas if you
have single edged knife, the backstrap of that knife is
a bit more blunted. You know, it might push vessels away,
is not necessarily going to clip vessels, you see what
I'm saying. And so it's you know, and literally double
edged knife is doubly destructive, okay. And so you think
(30:48):
about what is the tool that the individual is bringing
with them, And I think that a lot of the
psychological types out there that profile these things, you know,
they think about what does the individual feel most comfortable with.
Is it a fixed blade or is it a or
is it a you know, a deployable blade, you know,
(31:11):
like a pocket knife, a buck knife, if you will.
And so, you know, you try to understand the nature
of it. You look at it. And one of the
things if you think that it might be a pattern
that's developing relative to an individual that is perpetrating multiple
of these and they've stabbed other people and yet those
(31:32):
individuals have survived. Well, is it the same type of blade, okay?
Or does this individual use combination of both an edged
weapon and their bare hands. Do they like to pick
up other things that are at the scene and beat
people with them. You know, you do have that happen
as well, So there's a lot that you have to
kind of work through relative to what you're seeing at
(31:56):
the scene. You know, I've worked cases where I've got
these really violent, violent perpetrators that have not only stabbed
and choked, but they, for instance, they liked to stomp
as well. I remember working a case of an eight
(32:18):
year old girl that this guy had choked this little
eight year old girl as he sexually assaulted her and
then stomped her into the ground. He was wearing a
very specific pair of shoes with a distinctive pattern, and
(32:39):
we could still see the pattern on her face. Well,
he had done this to other people over the years,
and shoes change over a period of time, but the
you know, the methodology is still very much the same.
(33:10):
I'd like to say that police are very frustrated by
cold cases, and they are, you know, you hear that.
You can listen to interviews with police officers that you
know long since retired, and it's you know, they describe
how cases haunt them. And I always find that that fascinating.
I don't think that most people can identify with that
(33:34):
haunting because you know, when you you know, you shut
your desk stroyer for the last time, and you you know,
you throw the badge up on the desk and you
hang it up and you're walking out the door. You
still you still have those images in your mind. You know,
you still have those Uh, you can still see the
family sitting there before you, weeping, and you you're no
(33:56):
closer to an answer than you were, you know, the
day that the case happened, or at least you would
think that that's the case. And you never know. I
think even as an individual that was intimately involved in
the case, you never know what's really going on, particularly
after you walk away from it. You never really know
(34:18):
what's going on. In this case, Dave, You've got a
you've actually got a DA investigator involved in what's now
thirty five year old cold case that's conducting an audit
of And I hate to reduce it down to this,
but this is just the way it works. Out of
(34:41):
all the cold cases that they had in the cap County, Georgia,
he's doing an audit and it's like a probability audit.
What is what are our best chances of getting a
case off of the books. And in this particular instance,
this de investigator decided to go and not just get one,
(35:03):
but two off the books and voided he meet with success.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
Dave. Yeah, I've looked into this because I've often wondered
Joe money comes into play. Yes, and in the last
since nineteen ninety twill now the technology has changed, you know,
especially my goodness from ninety to ninety five. You know,
I think about that, and I think of how much
we learned because of the OJ Simpson trial being on
(35:28):
broadcast on television. That has to mean something. I think
it does anyway, because people actually, you know, just regular
people in all walks of life that were interested in
that case because of the former NFL player, Hall of Famer,
celebrity actor and all that accused of this heinous crime
against his XBO dealt with domestic abuse and so many
(35:50):
other things. And because of that, we we as a
nation and beyond, looked at it and watched it, and
we heard about DNA, We heard about we heard testimony
about blood that we never would have heard except for
that trial being on the air. And I think that
caused a lot of things that we're still thankfully dealing
with now, where I think there's money available on the
(36:13):
federal level that investigators can go back and do an
audit on. We've got all these unsolved crimes, but in
this case here from nineteen ninety, we've got blood, we've
got possible person, we've got a suspect. We couldn't tie
them to them. What can we do now? And so
when they've exhausted all they can do, meaning I'm talking
about investigators at that local level and even at the
(36:36):
state level, sometimes time and money come into play. And
once they gather the info, what do we do with it?
We haven't solved it, We just have the information. And
that's where Authoram comes in, this incredible company that thankfully
you've introduced us to them and you've explained so much more.
But all those years later, what do you do, Joe.
(36:58):
You've got this, You've got this cold case that is
now thirty plus years old. It's a double homicide, that
enter rape that nobody has been punished for. They have
been that, nobody's been held accountable. Yet you've got people
that are in the grave and their family doesn't know
what happened and how they ended up there.
Speaker 1 (37:16):
You hope that, you know, you do hope that there
is I don't know, you're you're looking for You're looking
for a life ring at this point in time to
try to hopefully, you know, salvage something and you understand
that the technology is there, and will you have the
(37:37):
resources to be able to put this forward? And look,
everybody struggles with money and that that extends out to
you know, you've got this this one cop and it's
probably a team, but you know, they've talked extensively about
the DA investigator in this particular in these particular cases,
(37:58):
and he's not can't reach into his wallet and say, hey,
you know, I'm going to go out here and solve
I'm going to go out here and independently solve this
case and finance the whole thing. And so something that's
you know, kind of worthy. I think as far as
governmental funding goes. You've got this this grant that's available
(38:22):
from the dj now, UH, and it's actually called prosecuting
cold Cases using DNA, and you can there's a pool
of funds that are out there in this particular case, UH,
to do this, Now, you have to understand you know
to Cap County is it's not just a bedroom community
(38:45):
of Atlanta. I mean it it is a matter of fact,
part of Atlanta, rest within the City of Atlanta, rest
within the Cap County. So it's it is part of Atlanta.
Oh yeah, yeah, it's it's uh uh it is part
of Atlanta. And you're talking about a place that has money. Okay,
(39:06):
they do have money, but what are they going to
throw the money at locally, and what are they going
to you know, where do you get the manpower? Well,
for in this particular case, the the Cab County DiscT
Attorney's Office actually has their own cold case team, and
you've got grant writers that are on you know a
(39:27):
lot of the staffs that are out there and they're
they're looking for funding. They always say this, looking for
funding opportunities. They do this at universities as well. And
this is certainly something I think that is most worthy
of all uh you know, you want to It goes
back to a quote from a guy named Vernon Gabrath
that wrote a book called Practical Homicide Investigation. I think
(39:49):
it's in the forward of that book. It's like a reminder,
you know, he's a retired lieutenant with the NYPD, and
he's famous for this book. He's traveled all over has
written this thing, and the statement in the front of
it is he says, we do God's work. And it's
(40:10):
always that kind of anchoring moment, you know, where you
realize that what you're doing is something that many people
have forgotten about or they don't want to hear about.
Many times they don't want to hear about the brutality
of what we do and what we've seen over the years.
And the fact that now you have an organization, you know,
(40:31):
like authorm with DNA solves where you can go to
them if you have enough money, and it doesn't really
take a lot to initiate this thing, you know. I
think they their starting point is, like in the whole
grand scheme of things, is like seven thousand bucks.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
A lot less than I thought. I thought you're talking
hundreds of thousands of dollars to get started, and when
I found it was seventy five hundred bucks to get started,
It's like, you've got to be kidding me.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Yeah, I know. And so for uh, a bigger governmental
entity entity like you know, like the cap County for instance,
and they have access to grant writers and they're they're
looking for this money. You know they can find it. Now,
if you're in smaller jurisdiction, you've you know, you've got
unsolved cases there. That's where crowdfunding really does come in,
(41:22):
and you know people need that help. But in the
case of Sumpters, though, this investigator, you know, set the
hook in this case and wouldn't let it get off
the line. And that's the beauty of it.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
But I'm sorry, jo I apologize, No, go ahead, Okay.
Something caught my attention that when they did start the
audit and started going back and finding cases, that they
did take what they found the DNA and they ran
it up the flagpole in Georgia because that's the first step,
and they got zero. They got no hits in Georgia.
This is where the investigation from the detectives come in.
(41:58):
Because we got the DNA profile and we have no hit.
What's next, good old fashioned police work. Well, who was
the main suspect here? Who was the guy from Detroit
that Pamela Sumpter said had recently come into our life?
And they start tracking and boom, they have Detroit, Michigan
(42:19):
on the radar. So they reach out, where did they
get a hit?
Speaker 1 (42:22):
Detroit, Detroit, Michigan. Yeah, and that was a Yeah, that's
the detective work.
Speaker 2 (42:27):
They had the DNA with no hit, they could have
walked away right then because we can't do this, Yeah,
we can't do it.
Speaker 1 (42:33):
It's just too overwhelming. But this guy again, that's why
I'm saying, you know, big kudos to this detective that
stayed on this thing, you know, and that's where this
you know, you're looking for that piece of the puzzle. Uh,
to try to get something out of nothing, I think,
and I'm not trying to diminish by saying it's nothing,
you know, because we do have the rape kit that
(42:56):
they performed on Pamela all those years ago. But you've
got this case that turns out that is an unprosecuted
rape case dave out of Detroit from nineteen ninety two.
And remind me again, when did Pamela and her brother's
homicide take place? What year was it?
Speaker 2 (43:17):
It was July fifteen, nineteen ninety that's when the case here.
So you've actually got this man in Decab County, Georgia
in nineteen ninety they know he's from Detroit. And now
we've got a Detroit case from nineteen ninety two. Now
remember this is not in the time, this is thirty
(43:38):
years after the fact. And so in nineteen ninety two,
there's a man whose DNA profile pops up to match
the nineteen ninety and this man actually was accused of
raping an ex girlfriend. So now we have this same
person who was in Detroit. They find out he had
(44:01):
been in Georgia in nineteen ninety That's the catcher, you know,
as I mentioned a few minutes ago, that when they
ran the DNA up the state of Georgia, nothing came
back because apparently this individual had not committed a crime
in Georgia at that point. And so instead of leaving
it there, they took it to the next level. We
got the DNA, let's find out what else. And that's
(44:23):
where they started putting two and two together and finding
that that unprosecuted case in Michigan just was everything that
opened up everything.
Speaker 1 (44:34):
Yeah, I did, and they were able to actually pull
a name, you know, with this particular case, you know
that originated out of Detroit, where it's an unprosecuted rape.
They go back. Here's a fascinating thing. They go back
to this woman, God bless her man that had been raped.
Speaker 2 (44:57):
Can you imagine this?
Speaker 1 (44:59):
I can't. It's just it's it's beyond the pale. Uh
you think, uh, you know, she had been raped all
those years ago, and she's known, you know, she's probably
known who this is. And she says that it was actually,
uh actually her boyfriend, a fellow by the name of
(45:21):
Kenneth Perry. Well, you know that's enough for the police
to go out and be able to get a warrant,
you know, to take this guy in. And as it
turned out, it was you know, the Cap County Fugitive
Squad that went and he's now living in Loganville, Georgia,
(45:48):
which is Loganville is an adjacent county, is in an
adjacent county to Decab County. And they serve that warrant
on the house and you know, he he didn't resist,
you know, when they go in to hook him up.
He's fifty six years old now, by the way, And
(46:09):
what they needed was to get a DNA sample from him,
and they were able to obtain that from him and
when they did, Dave it matched. It matched Pamela Sumpter's
rape kit. And in addition, to that. It was a
spot on match for you know, obviously, for for what
(46:29):
had happened all those years ago up in Detroit. And
a lot of this, you know, comes comes about as
a result of the work that Athram had done, you know,
because look, this guy's Dave, this guy's sixty, he's fifty
six years old. It's not like he is an old man.
This guy's still out on the street. And I you know,
(46:52):
the terrifying thing about this is that you wonder how
many other cases there are that are out there that
haveage DNA linkage back to him. Are there any other
open cases? Because the way I look at it, if
you'll walk into a place and you'll you'll perpetrate two homicides,
there's not a whole lot more that there's. Let me see,
(47:19):
how can I put this? The breaks are really off
morally at this point in time. You'll pretty much do
any anything, You'll pretty much do anything to anybody. And
he's only fifty six. He's still roaming the countryside, living life,
living life out in Loganville, Georgia, while this poor woman
(47:43):
up in Detroit is still probably dealing with nightmares after
all these many years, and both of the Sumpter siblings
are dead, cold in the grave, and their families are
probably you know, their family, and we have statements from them.
The family is, you know, has been waiting all these
(48:07):
years for something to happen, and David finally happened.
Speaker 2 (48:10):
And you know, we've pointed this out on numerous occasions
that this took a combination of the work that Authoram
does and detectives who didn't give up. And I like
pointing that out because so much I wrongly thought, hey,
you get a DNA sample from somebody, you get a
good that, you're done. We can find this, you know,
(48:32):
boom boom boom, everybody's DNA is somewhere, that kind of thing.
I really did think that until we started doing these cases,
and oftentimes we realized how many times a detective, an investigator, underpaid, overworked,
could walk away, legitimately walk away from a case and
say enough, you know, we did our best, we couldn't
find anything, move on to the next one. It's a
(48:54):
math issue, you know. But they didn't. They don't. These guys,
these men and women, they don't give up. They are
looking for justice. There's a different streak in them, in
their personality, in their character that takes them up. That's
where the respect comes in for that blue line. I
look at those individuals and I think about the time
that they invest away from their families, away from not
(49:17):
going out golfing, not taking that vacation, because they want
to solve this crime. And that's what it takes on
the part of the detectives and then AUTHORM they come
in with that same intensity to actually solve a crime
that's over thirty years old. And I have to wonder
how many other crimes will be solved as they start
(49:37):
exploring this possible this guy has a possible suspect and
other related crimes.
Speaker 1 (49:42):
Yeah, I agree, and I'll be very interested to see
if he's part of, you know, involved in any other
cases that might be out there. But I know that
through this, you know, the wonder of forensic genetic genealogy.
(50:04):
You know, when this untested rape kit, you know that
had you know, that had been sitting on the shelves
for all this period of time, it was handed over
to AUTHORM and they were able to get a match
through forensic genetic genealogy. It's it's one more of these
(50:26):
people that are off of streets. I just and I
think that for people that are still alive, that are involved,
family members that remember that remember these victims, it's a
bit of peace that has come their way. However, I
(50:48):
wonder how many others are having sleepless nights right now
because they don't have answers. Maybe this guy is the
answer relative to being a perpetrator. I don't know. We'll see,
but hoping that you will, UH consider just for a moment,
the possibility of helping out Authorm and understanding. By the way,
(51:15):
UH an update, Authorm Labs has just uh created their
own app, uh that you can you know, you can
download for you know, whatever platform that you might be on,
whether it's uh it's Apple or or Android. I've downloaded
it to my phone. I get an alert every time
(51:37):
a new case has solved. Phone went off a couple
of times this past week. UH and it's it's you know,
it's like a miracle, you know, happening every single time
that the thing goes off. But I urge you to
download their app, authorm uh that is, and also UH
check out their website. It's uh DNA solves dot com.
(52:00):
That's d and A solves dot com. You can go
there and you can contribute as much as you possibly can,
and if it's just a few bucks, push it that way.
You never know. You the dollars that you give to them,
and that you give to this program, no matter how
(52:21):
insignificant you might think that is, it might be just
enough to push things over that limit that they have
where they have to have those moneies in order to
initiate the opening or the follow through on one of
these cases. You never know. You might be part of it.
You might be part of the solution. Just as kind
(52:44):
of a final here. I think that it's with as
much joy as you can muster over something so dark.
Just last week, Kenneth Perry was found guilty and convicted
on two counts of malice murder, two counts of felony murder, rape,
(53:09):
four counts of agassault, two counts of AG battery, two
counts of possession of a knife during the commission of
a felony, and theft by taking. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan
and this is body Backs
Body dyers, but Joseph's gotten more malignant heart. That's not
necessarily two words that you would commonly hear used in
concert with one another. I came across this term the
(00:26):
first time I ever looked at the murder statute in
the state of Georgia when I first arrived, because I'd
never heard of a charge before coming from Louisiana of
something called malice murder. And that's actually the way they
define it now. Me being a scientist, I don't necessarily
(00:50):
prefer the term murder. It's a lawyer's word. I like
the word homicide. But just so that we understand, with
a malignant heart being one of the components of malice murder,
it actually kind of plays out like this, when a
person causes the death of another human being with an
(01:14):
abandoned and malignant heart. I don't know that kind of
defines the ultimate into pravity, doesn't it to no longer care,
or that maybe you never cared and you diminish the
person to the point where you could rutalize them. Well,
today we're going to discuss not one, but two two
(01:42):
cases that are actually intertwined. A brother and sister that
lost their lives over thirty years ago and their cases
have been solved. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan and this is
body backs. Horrible stuff here, Dave. These two cases. Yeah, yeah,
(02:11):
I know, yeah, there ain't no thinking to it. This
is and you know, the thing about it is is
that you know, when you're you're dealing with a case
like this or cases rather, it's uh those that are
left behind the the family member, the family members of
the Sumpters. It it's one of these things that they
(02:36):
just they die over and over and over again. Uh,
you know, in the minds of the family because there's
no answers, there's nothing that has led to the solving
of a case of course until recently and an adjudication actually,
so yeah, I was anxious to get into this case
(02:59):
or cases with you and kind of pull it apart
and talk about it a little bit today here on
Body Batterge.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
It's one of the one of the many things that
I have learned since beginning the show with you and
learning about AUTHORAM and what they have done, the work
that Authoram does, and you explained it to me, you know,
and I didn't have a frame of reference. You know,
I'm not a scientist. Guy. I'm a broadcaster and I
(03:26):
specialize in certain things. But you know, really and truly,
when you get into the science of this, it's beyond
what most people have the ability to comprehend. And one
thing I do understand is a lack of funding and
how difficult it is. The work that AUTHORAM is doing
is life altering for those left behind. Solving crimes by
(03:51):
science is amazing. And the work that they do is
so intense that they actually have a timer on each
of the scientists and how long they can work in
a row on a particular thing, because it does get
so intense. But the bottom line, yeah, and you know again,
I go back to you telling me what was going on,
and I had no idea that they had to actually crowdfund.
(04:13):
I thought there was this bucket and based on what
we have learned recently about government waste, I don't know
why there hasn't been a bucket of money waiting for
them whenever they need something, just to grab a scoop
of cash, boom, get it done. But authoram is actually
crowdfunding people like you and me writing small donations are
actually helping to provide answers to questions that families have
(04:35):
been asking for decades, and in this particular case, it's
a crime that occurred July fifteenth, nineteen ninety. Now where
were you? Think about it? Friends, where were you July fifteenth,
nineteen ninety and realize that is the time since then
we're looking at thirty five years. Yep, brother and sister
(04:58):
were murdered and they didn't have an answer. Who did it?
How can we prove it? And it wasn't something they
didn't look into. It was investigated. You have an attack
that happens at an apartment complex on Tree Hills Parkway.
This is into cab County, Georgia. Now police arrived. Pamela
Sumter is forty three. She's able to tell officers that
(05:22):
she has been raped and stabbed, and that her brother,
forty six year old John Sumter, has also been stabbed
and possibly is dead in the apartment next door. Think
about that for a minute. She's able to tell police,
I know I was raped, I've been stabbed, She knows
she's breathing some of her last probably and tells them
(05:44):
my brother might be dead next door. She's able to
give police just enough information that they can begin an investigation,
and without that we wouldn't have the results that we
end up having thirty five years later, Joe, still an
awfully long time. So starting at July fifteen, nineteen ninety,
the stabbing deaths, I do want to point out one
(06:06):
thing that Pamela did not die immediately. It was some
time in between. You know, she languished for a few
days before she actually passed away, but she was able
to give police enough information to begin the investigation. So
starting there, how did we get how did we get
lost along the way with having that much information, Joe,
(06:29):
we started July fifteen, nineteen ninety, We've got the stabbing
death of John Sumter. We have Pamela Sumter has been
raped and stabbed, and she has actually told police enough
information that they can begin an investigation. Because she doesn't
die right then. Her brother was dead, but she did
not die for another two weeks. But she was fatally
(06:51):
Is it called fatally or mortally wounded? Right when somebody
had the injuries that lead to death.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Yeah, I like that the mortal wound, you know, implies
that it's going to be unsurvivable.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
And here's here's the thing, is you don't know, you know,
when clinicians are going in to assess an individual, particularly
if they've been stabbed multiple times. Uh, as crass as
it sounds. You're you're essentially puncturing the body multiple times.
And uh, not only are you affecting you know that
(07:25):
kind of uh top layer of the body where you're
passing through all kinds of vessels. Uh, you might even
be breaking bones with a knife. We know that a
knife was involved. But then you get into the various
organ systems and this is not something that's ordered like surgery. Okay,
You've you've got this kind of randomized stabbing most of
(07:48):
the times, and cuts that happen all over the body.
So yeah, you never know where you know, with every
stab that comes along, suddenly the the chances of survival
are you know, percentage wise are diminished every time. Did
the surgeon get everything when they're doing emergency surgery to
(08:08):
try to get these things closed off? Micro vessels and
all those sorts of things. But yeah, so she lingered
for two weeks, Dave, and she did give a description
of the individual. And when you think about genetics, a
(08:30):
big tail here is she's saying that she was raped. Okay,
that's very important. You know they would have done this
is not like, this is kind of this is kind
of fascinating. They would not have done a rape kit
on her at the morgue because if she lingered for
two weeks, okay, she lingered for two weeks, then just
(08:55):
being in the hospital for two weeks is going to
all of your evidence is going to be gone by
that time. Okay, So they would have done in the
state that she was in, Dave, just imagine this, this
trauma that she had endured, they would have done a
rape kit on her, maybe you know, in the emergency
room while they're trying to save her life, because they
(09:18):
understand the importance of this genetic material. Even in nineteen
ninety now, we didn't have We did not have the
same technology obviously, and I know we harp on this
all the time. We did not have the same level
of technology. This even predates you know, John Bennet, and
you know a lot of hay is being made over
(09:38):
her and her case. You know, what can they kind
of you know, conjure up relative to those the events
surrounding that case. That was in the mid nineties, so
this is actually five years earlier, and you think about it.
The sad simple that they would have needed back then
(10:04):
in order to try to begin a DNA assessment relative
to the perpetrator was really significant, particularly when you think
about blood evidence and all that sort of thing.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Okay, so if she doesn't tell them that she was raped,
they're going to focus on her injuries and trying to
save her life. But they're not going to do rape kit.
I mean, they're they're going to.
Speaker 1 (10:24):
Do they're going to do a rape kit either way.
I just it's just one of those little little things
that you think about as a death investigator that and
this goes this goes to the mentality of the investigators
at that time and also the nursing staff that they
saw the need they saw the need to go to.
(10:44):
Because you've got a woman that is actually verbalizing. I
mean she's saying I was raped, okay.
Speaker 2 (10:51):
And my brother is probably dead next to her.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Yeah, she's able to to give them a tremendous amount
of dat uh, you know, And that's just not something
many times that you come across, and it's kind of
a these cases, the cases like this are outlayers relative
to where you have a homicide case where you've got
(11:17):
a rape victim who will in fact become a murder
victim because she succumbs in two weeks. Where you know,
you've got this kind of statement that is made, and
here's something that that you know, our our listeners, you know,
(11:38):
might not be aware of. There's this idea of what's
referred to as a dying declaration. I've always been fascinated
by this and the way the court looks at this
information that is conveyed by somebody, and I always imagine
it like in I have this kind of dramatic thing
in my mind where dying declaration. You've got somebody that's
(12:03):
rolling Code three. They're in the back of an ambulance,
lights and sirens, and you've got some orderly e MT
or maybe even a cop that's sitting on the bench
in the back of the ambulance. The person's covered in blood,
they're all traumatized, and they're saying it was so and
so and then they gassed their last breath, and all
(12:24):
the while this information is being written down or recorded
and that yeah, that's that's kind of a dying declaration.
But you've got a woman that that lingered for two weeks, Dave.
Now we don't really know her clinical status if she
drifted into a coma and then she was just kind
of in that stasis you know, which you go into,
you know, as a result of blood loss. But here's
(12:47):
the interesting thing about dying declaration is that if the
subject gives a declarative statement about you know, a perpetrator
and they don't I, that statement essentially becomes invalid. It's
not as valid and powerful as a dying declaration. So
(13:11):
what this poor woman Pamela offered up at that moment
in time ultimately was a huge piece to solving this
case where you know her what she had gone through,
and also obviously we can't forget about her her brother,
who she says, he's probably dead in the adjacent in
(13:36):
the adjacent apartment. So you know, that statement would have
been it would have been less impactful. And the way
the court looks at it, apparently is that if the defense,
you know, there's nobody to be cross examined at that
point in time for the defense, and so that's a
(13:58):
it's very very powerful if you can anchor if you
can anchor that statement in the early beginnings of the investigation.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
All right, well, let me ask you this, Joe, because again,
not being a medical guy, not being a scientist. To me,
it seems like she's able to describe or give them
the basics of what is transpired. I think my brother's dad,
I've been raped, and she's able to talk to them
enough to communicate all of what has taken place. Now
(14:27):
they're able to get her to the hospital, and then,
as you mentioned, we don't know if she drifted off
into a coma or what happened, But for her to
have lived for an additional two weeks to have been alive,
I guess in my mind's I'm thinking, wait a minute,
you're alive. When you got at the hospital, They're able
to treat your wounds and to stop whatever internal bleeding
is going on. Why would somebody die like that? It
(14:49):
seems to me, And I know I'm wrong, I just don't.
I can't quite fathom how somebody could survive the injuries
enough to tell you what has happened, get to the hospital,
and remain alive for two weeks.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
Yeah. I think the key word here is catastrophic injuries,
Like there are just some injuries that people sustain, particularly
if you're going into organ systems. If you think about uh,
and I you know, again, the authorities have not you know,
offered up you know, the specifics here relative to to
(15:24):
the trauma that she sustained the extent of it. However,
if you're talking about multiple let's just say, for instance,
she had multiple sharp force injuries to the liver. Okay, well,
one sharp force's entry to the liver is significant, But
let's just say you got multiple. Oh and by the way,
yeah we clipped along and oh, by the way, you
(15:48):
got the spleen, you know, and oh, by the way,
you got into the bowel. So you've got all this
matrix of all of these things that the search have
to account for in order to sustain life. And we're
not even talking about we're not even talking about, say,
for instance, of a long life that can be lived here.
(16:14):
We're just right now. You know, they can stem the bleeding,
they can do transfusions, all that sort of thing, but
how many surgeries can one individual endure, you know, to
go into those various systems and stem the bleeding permanently
to get that person on the road to health. And
(16:34):
you know, with something like a multiple stabbing that has occurred,
it's just it's catastrophic. That's why, you know, like you know,
we talk about there's more people in the US from
a trauma standpoint that die in car accidents. Okay, I
mean you have a lot of motor vehicle fatalities. Well,
(16:57):
one of the reasons is is that those injury so
many times can be so extensive, and you know, it's
the it's the tiniest of little things within that within
that matrix, you know, that can lead to death. You
might maybe you will, you'll be able to you know
fix uh, you know, a ruptured bowel, a vowel has
(17:20):
been torn, but you know it's it's the bone fragment
that got into the liver or got into the lung
and how do you know it's that's why surgery and
surgeons in particular trauma surgeons are amazing, you know, because
of what they have to do, all the calculus they
have to do, you know, in their brain to try
(17:41):
to determine how to evaluate. And that's one of the
things that you know, you talk about triaging patients that
come in and in Pamela's case, they are dealing with
so much. I think it's a miracle. She probably survived
two weeks and and not just that that she was verbal,
you know, at the at the front end of this thing, uh,
(18:03):
you know, and she's been raped on top of it
and has borne witness to a guy that's been with
her her entire life, her brother. After a period of time,
(18:33):
I'm thinking that the the authorities are believing that, you
know that it's particularly on the front end when you
get a physical description, and I'm thinking about back then
you get a physical description of an individual, you're thinking that, well,
we're going to get this thing locked up, We're going
(18:54):
to be able to get this person identified, and we're
going to be able to bring some sense of justice
to this horrific situation where we've now got two homicide victims.
Thank god, we've got this bit of data from the
one surviving victim, who, of course, Pamela eventually dies, and
(19:17):
she's able to give the script of an individual. And
the upside I think for them, and it seems rather benign,
is that you've got a subject that is in fact,
you know that you're dealing with a male population because
(19:39):
you have a rape at this point in time, So
any mystery there may have been about, you know, was
this a female that came in and attacked this brother
and sister. You know, that's out the window. So you've
got it narrowed down here. You're looking for a male
based upon a physical description. Back then, the best you
(20:03):
could hope for with a and we were just in
the early early stages of having some type of rudimentary
database as it applied to sex offenders and genetic material,
and it wasn't anything, and they would still have to
(20:24):
wait a few years before you could actually plug that
data in. So in State of Georgia at you know,
just the local level, they're not getting any hits at
all as to who who may have been responsible for
let's let's face it, this savagery that was exacted upon
(20:46):
this brother and sister. There's no way that they could
have been able to to really marry this up. I think, uh,
it's it's you know. And all you're left with now
is the words of a woman who's now deceased and
(21:07):
the evidence that's left behind at the scene, you know,
in the person of her brother.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
So, Joe, we've got John Sumter and Pamela Sumter. John
is forty six years old and he is stabbed to
death in his apartment. Pamela Sumter is in a neighbor
apartment next door, according to what she says to police,
and she's been raped to stab Now she tells police
(21:33):
that John is probably dead in our apartment. And that's
where I keep thinking that police walk into all types
of different scenarios, Joe, but walking into this one where
they are told by the one of the victims what's
going on. And I have to guess that when police
(21:54):
are hearing a woman who has obviously been stabbed in it,
you know, and is in bad shape, and she's saying
she's been raped, they're trying to figure out what all
was going on? Why is her brother dad? If she
was raped and stabbed, Why is her brother dead? Why
is he over there in a different apartment. Why do
we have two different crime scenes, one with a man
(22:15):
who has been stabbed to death and now a woman
who has been raped in staff. I'm thinking these sound
like two totally different scenarios, two totally different crimes. They
don't say it, They just don't seem like these should
happen together like this, So you begin looking into it.
How do you start What kind of information are police
looking from you? Well?
Speaker 1 (22:37):
Yeah, I think that probably uh, trying to understand the different. Well,
let's just look at the blood, okay, because you know,
we've talked about so many times on body backs relative
to you know, kind of the commingling of blood and
the overlay that takes place when you have multiple vicarvictims
(23:00):
of stab ones or or shootings, you know, where you've
got copious amounts of blood everywhere. How do you make
sense of this if they're domiciled together, the brother and sister,
and they're living in this apartment. The first thing, and
this is more investigative than it is forensics, however, I
have to say, how bold is it for a perpetrator
(23:22):
to come in and with If you've got this, I
think this scenario cooked up in your mind as a
sexual predator where you're fantasizing perhaps about her. You didn't
(23:43):
case the joint very well because now you're going to
walk into a situation with a grown man in the
same house, and you're going to have to fight through
him to get to her, and then you're still going
to have to do her in order to carry out
this horror that you're trying to perpetrate. That doesn't sound
(24:08):
like this, I don't know. To me, It doesn't at
least sound like you've got an individual that has thought
this thing through very much. And when you show up
to a scene like this, the bloody dynamic in there
where you've got probably with a blood letting like this,
(24:29):
you might have bloody footprints that are all over the place,
shoeprints in particular. You know, I can only imagine you've
got two adults that have been stabbed multiple times. You're
going to have blood that could be tracked through, and
then you're trying to determine I think, well, whose footprints
(24:50):
are these? Well, you know that if you've got shoeprints
and both these people are in their home, I don't
know about you. I don't sit around the house in
my shoes, you know, It's just not something want to do.
I want to get comfortable. I might be in my
sock feet, you know, or might be barefooted. And you've
got a perpetrator that walks in and they're wearing some
(25:11):
type of shoe with a very specific pattern on it.
How how did he track in and track out? And
did they have evidence of him X filling you know,
from the apartment, you know, and walking out the door,
going through a window. How did he get access to
both of these individuals to be able to and it's
(25:34):
not like he shot him, he stabbed both of them.
Did he show up with a knife that was his
that he chooses to use. And when you have a
sexual predator, most of them like to use the same
tools over and over again. You know, this is a
really bold thing to do. You know, you begin to
think about this and it's like, whoever perpetrated this, this
(25:55):
is probably not their first rodeo, you know.
Speaker 2 (25:57):
They're interesting that in case, Joe so that when Pamela
Sumpter told police she had been raped and stabbed, she
actually was able to tell them enough information. She said
that her brother had brought a man to their apartment.
He was down. This is again just outside of Atlanta
into Cap County, Georgia, and she tells police that her
brother has brought a guy in from Detroit into their apartment.
(26:21):
So she's been able to give them just enough information
to know that whoever did this attack, the first suspect
is the man that came from Detroit that her brother
brought to their apartment. Now she's not in their apartment
that she shares with her brother, she's a neighbor apartment.
When she calls police, and police arrived to the standard
(26:41):
somebody stabbed. I don't know what police think when they
go into that. If I got a call said somebody
was stabbed, that would be a little different than a
double homicide in a rape, than a simple stabbing in
an apartment.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Right, yeah, yeah, it would be. And well, first off,
you never know what these uh, these folks are going
to walk into that are you know, taking care of
us out there law enforcement offers, But you've got obviously violence,
uh that you're you know that you're having to deal
with when you walk in and you think, well, there's
(27:15):
been a stabbing, Well, you know, I don't know what
was going on in a card game and uh, a
dice game, a lover's quarrel. Uh and somebody pulls out
a blade and stabs somebody, Well that's a.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
Stask you very quickly about the blade. You've told me
before about how strangling and knifing are different than a
gunshot because they're so personally you have to be right
their hands on. Is that something that police when they
go into with this scenario that they're thinking, boy, this
is close, this is this is personal? Or is a
knife a weapon of opportunity. I had a knife laying here,
(27:49):
That's what I grabbed.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
Yeah, yeah, And it can be it can be a
weapon of opportunity that you have, uh, you know, lying
about maybe on a counter or on a knife blow.
You know how many times have we It seems like
I was doing a show the other day the case
that was being covered, and I don't know if it
was Nancy or who was.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
With so many appearances gang, I got to tell you
that Joe Scott Morgan is the most sought after forensic
guy in America. And I know that there are times
when I know what our schedule is, you and me,
and I see you on a network at ten thirty
at night, you know, doing something and it's like in
six hours, I know where he's going to be. You know,
(28:33):
you got to sleep sometimes, Joe, You got to.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
You got to sometimes that I've been paying the price
for lately. How you know, you think about the knife blocks.
You know, we were just talking about a case I
was and they all run together, unfortunately, and those are
those are weapons of opportunity. You know, you look over
(28:56):
with most serialized defense, if you have an individual that
is participating, you know, in this violent sexual fantasy that
they have they're going to carry a knife with them
if a knife is part of that fantasy, you know,
part of the attack fantasy that they're you know, and
that's why the beauty of that for us and forensics
(29:21):
is to try to understand the nature and dimensions of
the knife. Because what we will do we track knife
wounds in the morgue just like we do gunshot wounds
to a great degree. You know, let's say, for instance,
we have a knife wound to the chest. Okay, well,
we're going to do the external examination and we're going
(29:42):
to get the the the depth of the wound. People
think about that, but there's also the external dimensions of
the defect that's that's left behind. First off, you have
to be able to categorize it. And the biggest thing
with knife wounds is you want to know if it's
a sin or double edged knife. There's not that many
(30:03):
double edged knives that are out there that you come across.
You know, you're thinking, when you think double edge, you
think dagger. Okay, not too many people carry daggers. Now
you have retractable knives sometimes that will have double edges
to them, and they're brutal injuries to have to deal
with because you're not just cutting on one side, You're
(30:25):
cutting on two sides and slicing through. Whereas if you
have single edged knife, the backstrap of that knife is
a bit more blunted. You know, it might push vessels away,
is not necessarily going to clip vessels, you see what
I'm saying. And so it's you know, and literally double
edged knife is doubly destructive, okay. And so you think
(30:48):
about what is the tool that the individual is bringing
with them, And I think that a lot of the
psychological types out there that profile these things, you know,
they think about what does the individual feel most comfortable with.
Is it a fixed blade or is it a or
is it a you know, a deployable blade, you know,
(31:11):
like a pocket knife, a buck knife, if you will.
And so, you know, you try to understand the nature
of it. You look at it. And one of the
things if you think that it might be a pattern
that's developing relative to an individual that is perpetrating multiple
of these and they've stabbed other people and yet those
(31:32):
individuals have survived. Well, is it the same type of blade, okay?
Or does this individual use combination of both an edged
weapon and their bare hands. Do they like to pick
up other things that are at the scene and beat
people with them. You know, you do have that happen
as well, So there's a lot that you have to
kind of work through relative to what you're seeing at
(31:56):
the scene. You know, I've worked cases where I've got
these really violent, violent perpetrators that have not only stabbed
and choked, but they, for instance, they liked to stomp
as well. I remember working a case of an eight
(32:18):
year old girl that this guy had choked this little
eight year old girl as he sexually assaulted her and
then stomped her into the ground. He was wearing a
very specific pair of shoes with a distinctive pattern, and
(32:39):
we could still see the pattern on her face. Well,
he had done this to other people over the years,
and shoes change over a period of time, but the
you know, the methodology is still very much the same.
(33:10):
I'd like to say that police are very frustrated by
cold cases, and they are, you know, you hear that.
You can listen to interviews with police officers that you
know long since retired, and it's you know, they describe
how cases haunt them. And I always find that that fascinating.
I don't think that most people can identify with that
(33:34):
haunting because you know, when you you know, you shut
your desk stroyer for the last time, and you you know,
you throw the badge up on the desk and you
hang it up and you're walking out the door. You
still you still have those images in your mind. You know,
you still have those Uh, you can still see the
family sitting there before you, weeping, and you you're no
(33:56):
closer to an answer than you were, you know, the
day that the case happened, or at least you would
think that that's the case. And you never know. I
think even as an individual that was intimately involved in
the case, you never know what's really going on, particularly
after you walk away from it. You never really know
(34:18):
what's going on. In this case, Dave, You've got a
you've actually got a DA investigator involved in what's now
thirty five year old cold case that's conducting an audit
of And I hate to reduce it down to this,
but this is just the way it works. Out of
(34:41):
all the cold cases that they had in the cap County, Georgia,
he's doing an audit and it's like a probability audit.
What is what are our best chances of getting a
case off of the books. And in this particular instance,
this de investigator decided to go and not just get one,
(35:03):
but two off the books and voided he meet with success.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
Dave. Yeah, I've looked into this because I've often wondered
Joe money comes into play. Yes, and in the last
since nineteen ninety twill now the technology has changed, you know,
especially my goodness from ninety to ninety five. You know,
I think about that, and I think of how much
we learned because of the OJ Simpson trial being on
(35:28):
broadcast on television. That has to mean something. I think
it does anyway, because people actually, you know, just regular
people in all walks of life that were interested in
that case because of the former NFL player, Hall of Famer,
celebrity actor and all that accused of this heinous crime
against his XBO dealt with domestic abuse and so many
(35:50):
other things. And because of that, we we as a
nation and beyond, looked at it and watched it, and
we heard about DNA, We heard about we heard testimony
about blood that we never would have heard except for
that trial being on the air. And I think that
caused a lot of things that we're still thankfully dealing
with now, where I think there's money available on the
(36:13):
federal level that investigators can go back and do an
audit on. We've got all these unsolved crimes, but in
this case here from nineteen ninety, we've got blood, we've
got possible person, we've got a suspect. We couldn't tie
them to them. What can we do now? And so
when they've exhausted all they can do, meaning I'm talking
about investigators at that local level and even at the
(36:36):
state level, sometimes time and money come into play. And
once they gather the info, what do we do with it?
We haven't solved it, We just have the information. And
that's where Authoram comes in, this incredible company that thankfully
you've introduced us to them and you've explained so much more.
But all those years later, what do you do, Joe.
(36:58):
You've got this, You've got this cold case that is
now thirty plus years old. It's a double homicide, that
enter rape that nobody has been punished for. They have
been that, nobody's been held accountable. Yet you've got people
that are in the grave and their family doesn't know
what happened and how they ended up there.
Speaker 1 (37:16):
You hope that, you know, you do hope that there
is I don't know, you're you're looking for You're looking
for a life ring at this point in time to
try to hopefully, you know, salvage something and you understand
that the technology is there, and will you have the
(37:37):
resources to be able to put this forward? And look,
everybody struggles with money and that that extends out to
you know, you've got this this one cop and it's
probably a team, but you know, they've talked extensively about
the DA investigator in this particular in these particular cases,
(37:58):
and he's not can't reach into his wallet and say, hey,
you know, I'm going to go out here and solve
I'm going to go out here and independently solve this
case and finance the whole thing. And so something that's
you know, kind of worthy. I think as far as
governmental funding goes. You've got this this grant that's available
(38:22):
from the dj now, UH, and it's actually called prosecuting
cold Cases using DNA, and you can there's a pool
of funds that are out there in this particular case, UH,
to do this, Now, you have to understand you know
to Cap County is it's not just a bedroom community
(38:45):
of Atlanta. I mean it it is a matter of fact,
part of Atlanta, rest within the City of Atlanta, rest
within the Cap County. So it's it is part of Atlanta.
Oh yeah, yeah, it's it's uh uh it is part
of Atlanta. And you're talking about a place that has money. Okay,
(39:06):
they do have money, but what are they going to
throw the money at locally, and what are they going
to you know, where do you get the manpower? Well,
for in this particular case, the the Cab County DiscT
Attorney's Office actually has their own cold case team, and
you've got grant writers that are on you know a
(39:27):
lot of the staffs that are out there and they're
they're looking for funding. They always say this, looking for
funding opportunities. They do this at universities as well. And
this is certainly something I think that is most worthy
of all uh you know, you want to It goes
back to a quote from a guy named Vernon Gabrath
that wrote a book called Practical Homicide Investigation. I think
(39:49):
it's in the forward of that book. It's like a reminder,
you know, he's a retired lieutenant with the NYPD, and
he's famous for this book. He's traveled all over has
written this thing, and the statement in the front of
it is he says, we do God's work. And it's
(40:10):
always that kind of anchoring moment, you know, where you
realize that what you're doing is something that many people
have forgotten about or they don't want to hear about.
Many times they don't want to hear about the brutality
of what we do and what we've seen over the years.
And the fact that now you have an organization, you know,
(40:31):
like authorm with DNA solves where you can go to
them if you have enough money, and it doesn't really
take a lot to initiate this thing, you know. I
think they their starting point is, like in the whole
grand scheme of things, is like seven thousand bucks.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
A lot less than I thought. I thought you're talking
hundreds of thousands of dollars to get started, and when
I found it was seventy five hundred bucks to get started,
It's like, you've got to be kidding me.
Speaker 1 (41:00):
Yeah, I know. And so for uh, a bigger governmental
entity entity like you know, like the cap County for instance,
and they have access to grant writers and they're they're
looking for this money. You know they can find it. Now,
if you're in smaller jurisdiction, you've you know, you've got
unsolved cases there. That's where crowdfunding really does come in,
(41:22):
and you know people need that help. But in the
case of Sumpters, though, this investigator, you know, set the
hook in this case and wouldn't let it get off
the line. And that's the beauty of it.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
But I'm sorry, jo I apologize, No, go ahead, Okay.
Something caught my attention that when they did start the
audit and started going back and finding cases, that they
did take what they found the DNA and they ran
it up the flagpole in Georgia because that's the first step,
and they got zero. They got no hits in Georgia.
This is where the investigation from the detectives come in.
(41:58):
Because we got the DNA profile and we have no hit.
What's next, good old fashioned police work. Well, who was
the main suspect here? Who was the guy from Detroit
that Pamela Sumpter said had recently come into our life?
And they start tracking and boom, they have Detroit, Michigan
(42:19):
on the radar. So they reach out, where did they
get a hit?
Speaker 1 (42:22):
Detroit, Detroit, Michigan. Yeah, and that was a Yeah, that's
the detective work.
Speaker 2 (42:27):
They had the DNA with no hit, they could have
walked away right then because we can't do this, Yeah,
we can't do it.
Speaker 1 (42:33):
It's just too overwhelming. But this guy again, that's why
I'm saying, you know, big kudos to this detective that
stayed on this thing, you know, and that's where this
you know, you're looking for that piece of the puzzle. Uh,
to try to get something out of nothing, I think,
and I'm not trying to diminish by saying it's nothing,
you know, because we do have the rape kit that
(42:56):
they performed on Pamela all those years ago. But you've
got this case that turns out that is an unprosecuted
rape case dave out of Detroit from nineteen ninety two.
And remind me again, when did Pamela and her brother's
homicide take place? What year was it?
Speaker 2 (43:17):
It was July fifteen, nineteen ninety that's when the case here.
So you've actually got this man in Decab County, Georgia
in nineteen ninety they know he's from Detroit. And now
we've got a Detroit case from nineteen ninety two. Now
remember this is not in the time, this is thirty
(43:38):
years after the fact. And so in nineteen ninety two,
there's a man whose DNA profile pops up to match
the nineteen ninety and this man actually was accused of
raping an ex girlfriend. So now we have this same
person who was in Detroit. They find out he had
(44:01):
been in Georgia in nineteen ninety That's the catcher, you know,
as I mentioned a few minutes ago, that when they
ran the DNA up the state of Georgia, nothing came
back because apparently this individual had not committed a crime
in Georgia at that point. And so instead of leaving
it there, they took it to the next level. We
got the DNA, let's find out what else. And that's
(44:23):
where they started putting two and two together and finding
that that unprosecuted case in Michigan just was everything that
opened up everything.
Speaker 1 (44:34):
Yeah, I did, and they were able to actually pull
a name, you know, with this particular case, you know
that originated out of Detroit, where it's an unprosecuted rape.
They go back. Here's a fascinating thing. They go back
to this woman, God bless her man that had been raped.
Speaker 2 (44:57):
Can you imagine this?
Speaker 1 (44:59):
I can't. It's just it's it's beyond the pale. Uh
you think, uh, you know, she had been raped all
those years ago, and she's known, you know, she's probably
known who this is. And she says that it was actually,
uh actually her boyfriend, a fellow by the name of
(45:21):
Kenneth Perry. Well, you know that's enough for the police
to go out and be able to get a warrant,
you know, to take this guy in. And as it
turned out, it was you know, the Cap County Fugitive
Squad that went and he's now living in Loganville, Georgia,
(45:48):
which is Loganville is an adjacent county, is in an
adjacent county to Decab County. And they serve that warrant
on the house and you know, he he didn't resist,
you know, when they go in to hook him up.
He's fifty six years old now, by the way, And
(46:09):
what they needed was to get a DNA sample from him,
and they were able to obtain that from him and
when they did, Dave it matched. It matched Pamela Sumpter's
rape kit. And in addition, to that. It was a
spot on match for you know, obviously, for for what
(46:29):
had happened all those years ago up in Detroit. And
a lot of this, you know, comes comes about as
a result of the work that Athram had done, you know,
because look, this guy's Dave, this guy's sixty, he's fifty
six years old. It's not like he is an old man.
This guy's still out on the street. And I you know,
(46:52):
the terrifying thing about this is that you wonder how
many other cases there are that are out there that
haveage DNA linkage back to him. Are there any other
open cases? Because the way I look at it, if
you'll walk into a place and you'll you'll perpetrate two homicides,
there's not a whole lot more that there's. Let me see,
(47:19):
how can I put this? The breaks are really off
morally at this point in time. You'll pretty much do
any anything, You'll pretty much do anything to anybody. And
he's only fifty six. He's still roaming the countryside, living life,
living life out in Loganville, Georgia, while this poor woman
(47:43):
up in Detroit is still probably dealing with nightmares after
all these many years, and both of the Sumpter siblings
are dead, cold in the grave, and their families are
probably you know, their family, and we have statements from them.
The family is, you know, has been waiting all these
(48:07):
years for something to happen, and David finally happened.
Speaker 2 (48:10):
And you know, we've pointed this out on numerous occasions
that this took a combination of the work that Authoram
does and detectives who didn't give up. And I like
pointing that out because so much I wrongly thought, hey,
you get a DNA sample from somebody, you get a
good that, you're done. We can find this, you know,
(48:32):
boom boom boom, everybody's DNA is somewhere, that kind of thing.
I really did think that until we started doing these cases,
and oftentimes we realized how many times a detective, an investigator, underpaid, overworked,
could walk away, legitimately walk away from a case and
say enough, you know, we did our best, we couldn't
find anything, move on to the next one. It's a
(48:54):
math issue, you know. But they didn't. They don't. These guys,
these men and women, they don't give up. They are
looking for justice. There's a different streak in them, in
their personality, in their character that takes them up. That's
where the respect comes in for that blue line. I
look at those individuals and I think about the time
that they invest away from their families, away from not
(49:17):
going out golfing, not taking that vacation, because they want
to solve this crime. And that's what it takes on
the part of the detectives and then AUTHORM they come
in with that same intensity to actually solve a crime
that's over thirty years old. And I have to wonder
how many other crimes will be solved as they start
(49:37):
exploring this possible this guy has a possible suspect and
other related crimes.
Speaker 1 (49:42):
Yeah, I agree, and I'll be very interested to see
if he's part of, you know, involved in any other
cases that might be out there. But I know that
through this, you know, the wonder of forensic genetic genealogy.
(50:04):
You know, when this untested rape kit, you know that
had you know, that had been sitting on the shelves
for all this period of time, it was handed over
to AUTHORM and they were able to get a match
through forensic genetic genealogy. It's it's one more of these
(50:26):
people that are off of streets. I just and I
think that for people that are still alive, that are involved,
family members that remember that remember these victims, it's a
bit of peace that has come their way. However, I
(50:48):
wonder how many others are having sleepless nights right now
because they don't have answers. Maybe this guy is the
answer relative to being a perpetrator. I don't know. We'll see,
but hoping that you will, UH consider just for a moment,
the possibility of helping out Authorm and understanding. By the way,
(51:15):
UH an update, Authorm Labs has just uh created their
own app, uh that you can you know, you can
download for you know, whatever platform that you might be on,
whether it's uh it's Apple or or Android. I've downloaded
it to my phone. I get an alert every time
(51:37):
a new case has solved. Phone went off a couple
of times this past week. UH and it's it's you know,
it's like a miracle, you know, happening every single time
that the thing goes off. But I urge you to
download their app, authorm uh that is, and also UH
check out their website. It's uh DNA solves dot com.
(52:00):
That's d and A solves dot com. You can go
there and you can contribute as much as you possibly can,
and if it's just a few bucks, push it that way.
You never know. You the dollars that you give to them,
and that you give to this program, no matter how
(52:21):
insignificant you might think that is, it might be just
enough to push things over that limit that they have
where they have to have those moneies in order to
initiate the opening or the follow through on one of
these cases. You never know. You might be part of it.
You might be part of the solution. Just as kind
(52:44):
of a final here. I think that it's with as
much joy as you can muster over something so dark.
Just last week, Kenneth Perry was found guilty and convicted
on two counts of malice murder, two counts of felony murder, rape,
(53:09):
four counts of agassault, two counts of AG battery, two
counts of possession of a knife during the commission of
a felony, and theft by taking. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan
and this is body Backs
Host
Joseph Scott Morgan
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!