June 18, 2025 • 49 mins
In this week’s conclusion of a two-parter, Paul and Kate return to 1970 Sacramento where an open murder case seems to be eerily similar to another active investigation. Using crime scene data and extensive bloodwork, the police do their best to strengthen both cases.
Support this podcast by shopping our latest sponsor deals and promotions at this link: https://bit.ly/4buCoMc
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 (00:03):
I'm Kate Winkler Dawson.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm a journalist who's spent the last twenty five years
writing about true crime.
Speaker 3 (00:09):
And I'm Paul Hols, a retired cold case investigator who's
worked some of America's most complicated cases and solve them.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Each week, I present Paul with one of history's most
compelling true crimes.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
And I weigh in using modern forensic techniques to bring
new insights to old mysteries.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Together, using our individual expertise, we're examining historical true crime
cases through a twenty first century lens.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Some are solved and some are cold, very cold.
Speaker 4 (00:38):
This is buried Bones.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Hey Paul, Hey Kate, you know you've got this case.
I'm really interested to hear this other case. It might
or might not be related.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
We'll wrap up some stuff with Nancy first and I'll
give you a recap, and then we'll get into the
other case and we'll see where we go here. So,
just to recap for the last episode, we are in
nineteen seventy Sacramento and twenty eight year old Nancy beIN
Alac was murdered and sexually assaulted in her apartment. The
(01:32):
front door was locked. There doesn't seem to be any theft,
any disturbance in anywhere in the apartment except for in
the bedroom. Nancy is face down, thirty stab wounds, very
very violent. They collect evidence, including these weird finger coverings
that the offender apparently made. Now they're going to start
really trying to get the timeline down. We have some
(01:54):
ear witnesses who say somewhere in the one am to
two am range they heard different kinds of noises. We
have no idea if any of it has to do
with Nancy, and so now you know, we're at a
little bit of a loss. As they moved forward, Did
I miss anything? Is there anything that I didn't include? Paul?
Speaker 3 (02:10):
You know, the one thing that I think stands out
is the prowler that had been seen. So they have
the composite of that prowler, but that may or may
not be the person responsible for Nancy's homicide.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Exactly right, So let's continue. They talk to a lot
of people, including of course her fiance, Ferris, who is
the chief public defender. And I read an obituary of
him and he just seems like this legend in that area,
so that was really interesting. He tells police that he
last saw Nancy Sunday night, so presumably not long before
(02:42):
she was killed. So aside from the offender, if he
is not the offender. Aside from the offender, it seems
like her fiance is the last one to have seen
her so earlier in the day. They went from Nancy's hometown,
Grass Valley, which is about an hour outside of Sacramento,
where they hung out with her mom, and they went
back to Sacramento. They got dinner, Ferris brought Nancy to
(03:04):
her apartment. They spent some time together, which could have
meant sex. I don't have a lot of details here,
but he did not stay the night. He left around
one thirty and then he went back home. So he
says when he left Nancy's apartment, she was asleep in
bed and wearing just her underwear, which would have been
(03:25):
you know, her way. He said that her sliding glass
door is where he was sure the entry was made.
And I'll tell you why in a minute. Looking for patterns.
But what do you think so far? You know, I mean,
the fiance nobody saw him coming or going. He was
around all the time, you know, I don't know if
police buy his story or not. It seems feasible for
(03:46):
a Sunday.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
Well, yeah, I think you know, of course, he has
to be looked at pretty hard because he's putting himself
in her apartment almost in the middle of what the
ear witnesses are saying when they hear, you know, the
baby cry, hurried footsteps, somebody driving out of the parking
lot at a I'm assuming a high rate of speed,
you know. So it's like, okay, so what is going
(04:09):
on here with him? We see this all the time.
It's entirely possible. He's telling absolute truth, you know. It
just so happens that once he left, the offender came
in and then is, for whatever reason, attacking Nancy.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
The interesting part of the entry is when we talk
about Nancy's sliding glass door. You know, the droplets were there,
there was a trail of blood that dropped down to
the first floor, the ground floor, the boat shoe that
was there, the print, and then the trail off to
the parking lot. So he said that nancy sliding glass
(04:43):
door when he left was slightly open, okay, And the
reason was she had a cat and that way the
cat could go in and out of the apartment. So
the police find this out from Ferris, and of course
they're not crossing him off the list just yet. But
when we're talking about access, they're saying, okay, well that
that seems to make sense. But they now feel pretty certain.
(05:04):
And this is what I want to know from you too,
that whomever killed Nancy knew this, knew her habit, knew
that this would be accessible at some point, and was
potentially watching.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
You know, my question would be, well, what's the visibility
of that sliding door, Let's say, from somebody who is
just kind of wandering the grounds. You know, at least
with the photo of the apartment complex, I could kind
of see that the top of like I'm assuming windows
or sliding doors, So it's possible you have a prowler
who happens to notice, oh there's an there's an opening.
(05:36):
How does the prowler get up to the second floor.
Is there something that this this person could climb up
to get onto the balcony to walk through this open
sliding door. That's one thing I'd be taking a look at.
And this is where it's just trying to trying to determine,
like you had brought up all this, did the offender
have pre existing knowledge of Nancy's habit and knew that
(05:57):
sliding door would be unlocked and open. And is this
something that's because the offender has, you know, a personal
connection to Nancy or is this a stranger who is
doing surveillance ahead of time and happens to notice this.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Yeah? Absolutely, I think And I had forgotten to mention
this in my recap. Investigators think that the offender climbed
up that fence. So if you look at that photo again,
there's a fence, and that once he got on the fence,
he was able to sort of pull himself over the
railing onto her balcony. The question would be would he
be able to see whether or not she was leaving
this door open and letting the cat in and out.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
I think he could, you know, based on what I'm
seeing from this this photo of the apartment complex. Now, Yeah,
to climb up that fence and to get up over
that balcony, I mean there's some physical agility here. Yeah,
you know, so that's that would be something you know,
as I'm eballing, you know, suspects, you know, does this
guy look like he's physically capable of getting up into
(06:56):
Nancy's apartment as well? As being able to jump down
and run away. You know, I know I might be
able to do that today, but I would probably struggle
at my age, right. So that's just an interesting observation,
is that the physicality he's demonstrating to get in and
out of her apartment.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
Yes, Glenn Campbell, as in our sketch, the prowler would
have been able to do something like that. We'll see
how it goes. Okay, so faris the fiance doesn't have
an alibi for that evening. She says alibi basically. Then
she goes home. He goes home, and that's it. He's
very cooperative with the police. He says, come search my house,
(07:37):
take all my clothing, look for anything you want. He
takes that light detector. He even says, take some of
my blood. You know. They compare it against the blood
they found at the scene, and he's ultimately ruled out
as a suspect. I don't know what that means. I
don't know if they look at the blood and he's
got an obvious different blood type and that is ruling
him out, and that's it. Is that going to be enough,
(07:57):
I guess in the nineteen seventies to rule somebody out right.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Well, that's you know, that really was the power of
the ABO testing was to exclude. And so under the
circumstances of the crime scene, it sounds like they were
confident that the blood trail or the blood that was
left behind, came from the offender, and it's a different
blood type than the fiance, and so they can say, well,
he's not the one that's dripping blood and running off,
(08:21):
so he's likely as not her killer. Now is that
an absolute elimination of his involvement in the case. You'll
probably hit me some detail down in a few minutes.
That probably puts more suspicion on him, But right now
I would say it sounds like he's excluded.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Yeah, I think so, No, no more suspicion. Ferris goes
on to live until eighty four, and as a legend
in defense, they eventually rule out the fiance. The police
began interviewing the people closest to her family and friends,
especially those with fresh injuries. That makes sense, you know,
with the stabbing. So then they go to Nancy's father.
(08:59):
So his name's braun In, and when police interview him,
he has a bandage on his hand that he says
is the result of a workplace accident. But he says,
just so you know, Nancy and I have never had
a great relationship. He was abusive towards Nancy's mother in
the past, but he's also ruled out as a suspect,
and there's just not enough solid evidence tying him to
(09:22):
the daughter's murder. So the wound on the hand, I know,
is valid. And I guess that's just one little thing
that they're going to be looking at and saying, oh,
you've got these, you know, fresh wounds. Let's talk about
it in your past relationship with her?
Speaker 3 (09:34):
No, you know, but this is this is just investigation
one oh one. They are checking the boxes, looking at
family friends, you know, the fiance and when something like
the a fresh wound on dad's hand, you know that's
going to stand out. They're going, oh, you know, that
is consistent with our offender having been cut. But of
course we know, just like what he explained is there's
(09:56):
innocent explanations for that as well.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Mm hmm. Okay, well, let's see, We've got a couple
of other people that I need to run by you.
This might be a dead end, but here it goes.
There's a guy named Barry Segal. He is a name
dropped as a person of interest from a Sacramento Bee article,
which is interesting October twenty ninth, which is just days
after Nancy's murder. So this is one of the early
(10:20):
people on their suspect list. He spent more than eight
years in prison during the nineteen sixties with the second
degree murder of his landlady. When he's in prison, he
befriends a supervising deputy district attorney, Vincent Rigar. I have
no idea why or how, but when the killer is paroled,
(10:42):
the deputy assistant attorney offered him a place to stay.
And almost immediately after Nancy's murder, the sheriff tries to
suggest that Sagall might have been involved with this, and
it sounds like it's just simply because he was a
criminal and had killed a woman and that was basically.
But all of these people are being pulled into this
case because the police are really desperate, obviously to try
(11:04):
to find out who did this.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Yeah, you know, and this is part of just starting
to assess characteristics of your offender and what suspect pool
that offender would be found in. And you know, of course,
with a let's say, sexually motivated homicide, you're looking at
individuals that have a past that includes that type of crime.
(11:26):
And it sounds like this Barry Cigal, it was somebody
that you know, the DA's office was aware of and
had been released. So so Matt, you have to have
to look at him for sure.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
But there are different categories, right, So peeping Tom would
be the beginning of being a sexual predator, right, and
then what are the beginnings of the serial killer aside
from you know, we've talked about hurting animals and having
problems in childhood. I know there are these different tiers,
but they're categories too, yep.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
But it's not it's not hard and fast, you know.
And when you take a look, typically when you start
looking at offenders that are breaking into houses, and this
was a much more common from a from a serial
predator standpoint, much more common back in the seventies than
today because of technology and surveillance and dead bolts and
all that. But usually it's these barriers to a fence.
(12:18):
You mentioned the peeping Tom. Well, I like to, you know,
talk initially to people and say, think about walking in
your neighborhood and you accidentally walk on your neighbor's front lawn,
you get nervous. It's like, oh no, you know, that's
kind of not socially acceptable. And so imagine taking that
to the point where now you're walking up all the
(12:40):
way across the lawn to look into your neighbor's house
through a window. You know you've crossed a certain social
barrier to do that. Now you're breaking into houses when
nobody's home. Then you're breaking into houses when somebody's home.
And it's when you start to see that where now
you have the like the cat burglar spect where they're
(13:00):
going into how occupied houses. That is a predictor of
being a very dangerous offender because they are just one
step away from going hands on with a person. So
that's one kind of prototypical evolution. That's Joseph DiAngelo, that's
the Golden State killer. But they don't necessarily follow that
(13:21):
pattern in the same way. It varies from person to person.
And then you brought up the serial killer triad, the
bed wetting, the animal cruelty, the fire setting, and then
the reality is the only one I put really any
weight on is the animal cruelty, because if you're willing
to inflict violence on a creature, You're one step away
(13:42):
from doing that to a person.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
You know. There is a story that I thought about you,
and I heard there's a story happening not in Austin,
in the Austin area about a high school club where,
you know, I don't know if it was a four
h but students were raising animals and they caught a
young woman, a teenager, poisoning and killing a goat from
(14:04):
her competitor. And I just thought, oh my god, I mean,
that's unbelievable. I don't remember ultimately what happened to her,
if she was eighteen or you know, whatever happened, but
to just brazenly be willing to do that to a goat,
you know, just for a contest. I mean, I'm real.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
Once I trained a couple of the prosecutors in my
former office. You know, they would be presented cases of
you know, your teenage boys doing bad things to cats
and dogs, and so they would bring me the details,
you know, and so I'm assessing, going, yeah, this is
a predictor, this is a person that is likely going
to hurt somebody down the road, and we need to
(14:42):
intercede now to try to prevent that person from that
boy from doing that in the future, and then that's
when it's you know, mandated psychological counseling, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
Now we're going to put a pause in Nancy's case
because we have another case and police are not yet
able to determine whether these cases related, but they seem
very similar. So this is about a woman named Judith
hawk Aary. She's in Sacramento, and she is murdered six
months before Nancy and I have pictures around this too.
Now you know, you can imagine this is a twenty
(15:14):
three year old nurse. She is also engaged. They look
fairly similar. I know you don't put a ton of
weight on that, and I'll show you a picture of
Judy in a second, but they are struck by the similarities. Here,
let me tell you a little bit about Judy and
then we'll look at some photos. So she is, as
I said, twenty three years old, she's engaged, she's in
(15:36):
the workforce. They live within one block of each other,
these two women. So go to your photos. I told
you there are a lot of photos with this one.
This is what happens when we dip into the nineteen seventies.
This photos galore. If you look on your page seven,
there's a picture of Judy sixties hair. We're barely in
the nineteen seventies, so she's got the high hair again.
(15:58):
Love it, you know, if you find it valuable to
compare the way they both look and you know all
of that. But the photo of Nancy's on.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Page one, well, you know Nancy and Judiths. You know,
they do have a somewhat similar look. Both appear to
be brunettes, classic nineteen sixties kind of look about them.
I think it's you know, the fact that you do
have them living so close, and that Judith, you know,
six months prior, had been killed. You have to look
(16:25):
at the possibility that these cases are related. Now, I'd
like to know more details about what happened in Judas case.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Okay, look on the next page, because I just want
you to see the distance with their apartments. I mean,
I told you a block of block's a block. But
if you look on page your page eight, you'll see
Nancy's apartment in judish apartment. Is that a coincidence? I mean,
how is that? I don't know there are such things
as coincidences.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
I guess yes, I mean, it absolutely could be a coincidence. However,
you have to put some weight on that proximity. You know,
these offenders, you know, when they're out prowling, they get
comfortable with a ser in geographic location, you can go
into any neighborhood and find a victim. So it's possible
this could be a watering hole. This is what I were.
(17:08):
A predator is just comfortable in this particular area of
town for one reason or another, and has killed two
women six months apart in that same area. But I've
just seen it enough to where it's also possible these
are two completely separate cases and just coincidentally happened to
be in the same part of the area of town.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Yeah. Absolutely, Okay, here are the circumstances with Judy. So
it is eleven thirty pm on the night of March
nineteen seventy, about six months before Nancy goes missing. Judy
is a nurse. She leaves her shift at the hospital
and she tells Raymond, I'll see you at my apartment
and she starts to head home. So Raymond, her fiance,
(17:51):
his name's Raymond Willis, he was at her apartment waiting
there for her, and he said it. It should have
only taken her ten minutes, so he knew she should
have been home before midnight. She left at eleven thirty,
so she doesn't show up, and when she hasn't come
home by one forty five, he becomes very worried. He
goes outside. He sees Judy's car parked in the apartment
(18:14):
complex's parking lot, but she's not there.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
Okay, so it appears that she drove from the job
the hospital to her apartment complex but never makes it
up to her residence.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Yes, okay, I don't know when he calls the police yet,
but he said that the car's doors were all unlocked,
the keys were on the floorboard, and a few buttons
from the coat that she was wearing seemed to be
yanked off, and they were in the back seat as
if there had been a struggle between Judy and we
presume to be the offender. No blood in the car.
There were strips of towel in the back seat which
(18:51):
didn't belong to Judy, and so you know, obviously none
of this sounds very good, and we have some speculation
coming up.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Well, sounds like, you know, the offender could have been
inside judas vehicle out there at the hospital, and you know,
she gets in and at a certain point the offender
pops up from the rear seat. That's you know, with
the strips of towel, like, you know, binding material that
the offender brought with him. And you know, then if
that's kind of the scenario, and you know, right now,
(19:21):
I'm just kind of doing like a you know, a
little speculation. But if that's the scenario, then Judath isn't
the one that drove the vehicle all the way back
to the you know, the parking lot. The offender likely
did that once he got her under control inside her
own vehicle.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
So interesting, Okay, so here's where we may see the
man we may not. Her co workers. Judy's coworkers later
say that a man with red hair had stopped by
the hospital earlier in the day asking for Judith her
real name. But there are three Judiths at that place
(19:56):
at the time, and so we don't know which Judith
he was looking for, and it doesn't sound like he
connected with any of them, so that sort of went
a little cold. There was witness that reported seeing a
brown car turn into her apartment's parking lot around the
time that Judy would have arrived home. So between eleven
thirty and twelve, another person said they saw a dark
(20:18):
colored car driving so fast and recklessly from the area
that it nearly sideswiped their vehicle, and neither car is
ever identified. So I presume what that means, Paul is
the first witness, if it's connected to this case, is
seeing the guy pull into the parking lot. Because they're
not saying Judy's car is pulling into the parking lot.
(20:40):
They're saying a brown car pulls into the parking lot
around the time she got home, and then there's another
car that leaves very quickly and recklessly.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
And so there's a possibility, taking it to consideration those details,
that Judy could have driven to her parking lot and
is abducted as soon as she opens the door to
her vehicle. Under that circumstance, I would expect that there
would be some ear witnesses, because I don't think Judy
would be very I think should be, you know, pretty loud,
(21:08):
screaming and trying to fight this guy as he's trying
to get her into his vehicle.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
But remember her coat, jacket buttons are in the back seat,
and those strips of towel are in the back seat.
So do you think he tried to get her in
the back seat first and then there was a struggle
and he gagged her with these towel strips. I'm not
saying that's what happened. I'm just saying I wonder if
that could have been a possibility too.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
That's a big chance it is, you know, and that
kind of goes back to my initial speculation that he's
you know, you have an offender lying in wait inside
her own vehicle. This could have been a tandem, you know,
where he gets her under control, and then you have
another offender that's that's driving a vehicle. And now you
(21:52):
have let's say two offenders that are the ones that
are abducting Judith and so at her apartment. You know,
why why let her get all the way to her
apartment if your plan is is to attack her initially
at the hospital?
Speaker 2 (22:05):
Okay, Well, let's keep going. Okay, no solid leads. They
are searching, searching. We still don't know that Nancy is
going to be a victim. That's several months away. But
about a month and a half ish later into April
nineteen seventy two, hikers like always hikers or the bottle
collectors or kids discover Judy's body. It's in a shallow
(22:27):
grave near an abandoned mind shaft series of abandoned mind shafts,
about fifty miles from Sacramento. It's a long way from
her apartment. So that's the next photo. So page nine
is the photo of the shallow grave that looks so
shallow to me. It looks pretty deep.
Speaker 3 (22:43):
It's hard the perspective of this photo. It's a black
and white photo, and it's showing the grave in front,
in the front of the foreground of the photo, and
then you have what appear to be two detectives standing
looking down into it. So obviously Judy's body has been
collected at the point. But the grave itself, that's I mean,
(23:04):
that's down several feet, you know. It's not like a
cemetery grave, you know, but most certainly relative to my
experience with shallow graves usually that's like eighteen inches, you know,
and part of the victim is sticking up out of
the ground. This looks like it's possible that she could
have been completely out of sight because it looks like
it's deep enough.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
I wonder what the mind shafts If this was doug already,
it's just some hole. Maybe machinery had been removed or something,
and this was something I can't see. Sure this guy
digging that? I mean, boy, when I think shallow grave,
I think just enough to cover up a body. Well,
let me tell you what they find. Okay, they find
her body, and here's what the medical examiner says. She
(23:47):
was brutally beaten. She was sexually assaulted, she was bludgeoned.
They don't know with what she was Then she was
also strangled with her own nylon stockings. So he put
her in a large canvas that was buried. Now they say,
here two feet deep. You're right, the perspective is wonky
on this. Then two feet That's not two feet when
(24:08):
I see But anyway, So they also find more of
those towel strips like the ones found in her car,
so they think that he used those to gag Judy.
They also find a gray sweatshirt that they believe belonged
to her killer, probably because it must have been buried
with her, and even trace the canvas bag to a
company that produced them specifically for the San Juan Unified
(24:31):
School District. In Sacramento County, which seems like a specific clue.
So what do you think about that? I mean, does
it sound like somebody who is the same kind of
killer as the person who ends up killing Nancy? Also
totally different.
Speaker 3 (24:46):
It is different in terms of the mo you know,
you've got an abduction sexual assault on the side, and
you know, hiding the body fifty miles away than you
have with Nancy. Of course, you have the offender going
in and having her. You know, there's some planning going
on here with with Judith in terms of the towel strips,
(25:06):
you know, so that's that's kind of interesting from Okay,
the offender is deciding to use the towel strips, you know,
for for binding. Maybe it possibly a ligature or a
gig the canvas bag. Coming back to San Juan School District,
you know, that's where Okay, who all would have access
to these bags? You know? Is this something that you know,
(25:28):
somebody who's not affiliated with the San Juan School District
would be able to just casually grab, you know, while
being on school ground somewhere, or is this something where
it's a specific person, let's say, a maintenance person, a
janitor that would have access to these these bags. But
that's also a little bit of a mess up on
the offender's part to have something that could be traced
(25:51):
back to him. You know, this could also be staged
where it's you know, purposely choosing something that doesn't come
back to the offender. You know. So, but right now,
it's interesting. I mean, there's overlap in terms of the victimology.
There's overlap in terms of sexual assault homicide of a female,
but there are some significant differences. I still would consider
(26:13):
the possibility of the same offender even with those differences.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
It's so interesting because you know, if you were to
tell me about these two cases and the way that
the crimes were structured, in the way they were planned out,
I would have thought it would have been flipped. I
would have thought he would have gone in and realized
this was too quick. With Nancy, I'm probably going to
get caught. They're probably going to be able to trace me.
And then he works harder on the next on Judy
to really he takes her really far out to cover
(26:37):
it up. And this is sort of the opposite so
that when I initially read that, I thought, I don't know,
I mean, don't they usually get a little bit more sophisticated,
not less sophisticated when they do these I guess not right.
Speaker 3 (26:48):
They learn from their experiences, but they also experiment as
they do you know cases. But I open up when
I when I teach the serial Predator course, I bring
up three cases out of the nineteen seventies that you
go this is from three different offenders. And it turns out, no,
it's the same guy. He's doing it differently each time.
(27:10):
So that's part of the linkage. The difficulty of linkage
using behaviors and mo aspects, it is a very difficult
thing unless you have really unique set of circumstances. That's
the beauty of having DNA today because we can really
link cases through DNA showing it's the same offender, even
(27:32):
though the cases on the surface look like completely different
types of cases.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
Well, let me tell you. In Judith's case, who they're
looking at. They looked at Raymond and cleared him. I
told you that the fiance. The news spreads about Judy's murder.
The guy who owns the property these mining shafts, he
comes forward. He says that three men he had never
met before were digging a hole on his property about
a week after Judy was last seen, and the guys
(27:58):
told him they were digging for antique to sell, which
I had not heard of, but sounds interesting. They said
it was a thing that people actually still do at
old mining sites.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
But he was uncomfortable with the encounter and so he
wanted to call the police. These three guys were never
fully identified. You know, there's a vague description of one
of them, slim, six foot tall, has brown hair, but
there just doesn't seem to be any kind of a
strong link between Judy and these men. Another weird thing
about this story is the hiker who found Judy's body
(28:31):
happened to actually live near both of the women in Sacramento.
He's hiking fifty miles outside of Sacramento and he finds
these bodies and he lives, you know, within a couple
of blocks of these women. They look at the guy
and then they rule him out, and there's just never
a clear connection. And there's never, Paul a clear connection
between Judy's case and Nancy's case. And this goes cold.
(28:55):
Both of these cases go cold for a long time.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
Okay, well, but both cases have sets of circumstances in
which modern technology might be able to pay off.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Okay, we're gonna flash forward thirty years. I'm going to
name drop in a second, and you can tell me
if you know this person. So in two thousand and four,
investigators reopen Nancy's case, so the second case, and they
create a DNA profile based on I'm presuming the blood evidence.
It's not the semen. This isn't something that was possible,
of course, you know, after the murder. And so the
(29:28):
DNA profile helps investigators eliminate every single one of their
original suspects. So all of these guys it eliminates, and
they also submit it to FBI's CODIS and there's no match.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
So there's a guy who works in the Sacramento DA's
office during this time period. His name is Scott Triplett.
Have you ever heard that name?
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Yeah, the name is vaguely familiar, but I can't picture him.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
So Scott Triplett says, the staff uploaded the DNA in
Dakotis in two thousand and four, and the DNA profile
was run through the CA California Department of Justice familiar
Search five times between two thousand and nine and twenty
twenty one each with negative results. So explain how that works.
It's different than CODIS, right, So tell me how often
(30:15):
you know they end up running these searches. It has
to be requested, is that right?
Speaker 3 (30:19):
Yes, it has to be requested. There is a formal
process to make a familial search request, and you would
have a group of people at the DOJ level that
would evaluate each request and whether or not it merited
doing this familial search. It's still relying upon CODIS now.
(30:40):
CODIS is actually broken up basically at three tiers. You
have a local CODIS, you have a state level CODIS,
and then of course you have the national CODIS. Most
states in two thousand and four. In fact, many states
today don't allow familial searching to be done on their database.
And so for a familiar search in California, you can
(31:02):
only do that for the DNA profiles that are at
the California level. So even though it's possible that this
guy would have a son that's in CODIS in some
up Midwestern state, they're not legally permitted to search that
data base. So within California, we would just do the
(31:23):
familial request against the California database and we would attempt
to try to do familial requests on other states that
would allow it, but that typically would be rejected.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Well, the detectives in Sacramento keep this case going and
going and going for decades. They of course see what
happens with the Golden State killer, and they're hopeful that
they might be able to crack Nancy's case. Two. I
know that they were trying to make that connection in
nineteen seventy between the two, but it sounds like that
sort of dropped off and they were really trying to
concentrate on Nancy's case because I'm not quite sure what
(31:54):
they collected on Judy's case, and I don't know if
this you know, probably her case would still offficial, be open,
But they were really concentrating on breaking Nancy's.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
Case well, and that's because they were confident that they
had DNA evidence that would link back to the offender
in Nancy's case. In Judy's case, you know, her body's
found a month later. You know it's possible she's so decomposed,
and they just never did get a good DNA profile
in Judy's case, even though you know, investigatively they're going, well,
(32:25):
there's a chance that these cases are related, but their
efforts are going to be going on that DNA evidence
from Nancy's case.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Yeah, absolutely, Okay, So in twenty nineteen, so just six
years ago, they uploaded the Suspected killers DNA profile into
the public genealogical databases. It takes three years and financial
support in the form of a grant from the Bureau
of Justice Assistance. Tell me that, I don't know if
(32:52):
I've heard that before, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
Yeah, you know, this is a federal entity we shortened,
we refer to them as BGA, and so law enforcement
gets a wide variety of different grants out of these
BGA programs, and so there are grants that at the
federal level were coming out, you know, specifically for cold
(33:15):
cases or prosecuting cold cases. And these grants have been
modified over the past few years to permit that funding
to fund the genealogy testing.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
Okay, good well, thank goodness for that Bureau of Justice assistants,
because they helped figure out this killer. So eventually, using
those funds and using genealogy, they land on the name
Richard John Davis. He was twenty seven years old when
he murdered Nancy I can give you details. You can
(33:49):
also see his photo and I don't know if you
just want to compare him to the boy scout looking,
you know, Glenn Campbell. But Davis is on the very
last page, and of course it's photo.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
You know, in some ways he he almost has a
Ted Bundy look to him. Yeah, it's hard to say
if does he match that composite, but most certainly you
could see even at his age, he's got a fairly
full head of hair, so it's possible, you know, maybe
he did match the Glenn Campbell look. But you know,
(34:22):
the composite is on the side. Now, they got DNA right,
and so once they identify him as as a potential
through genealogy, then they would have done a direct sample
from him and compared you know, his DNA profile using
the traditional law enforcement type of DNA the STRs, to
(34:44):
the str profile that had previously been generated from assuming
the bloodstains collected at Nancy's apartment or along that blood trail,
and would be one hundred percent match. So they know
he's the guy.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
Well, let me tell you about Richard John Davis. He
lived in the same apartment complex as Nancy. Okay, that
brings me back to ear witnesses who said, oh, we
heard a car take off out of the parking lot.
We don't know if that was him or not. But
I'll let me tell you a little bit more about
the circumstances. So he has a roommate. Both Richard and
(35:19):
his roommate were interviewed after Nancy's death, and they provided
alibis for each other. You know, certainly, I don't know
what that means. I mean, my goodness, if we were
hanging out at my house, you could slip out for
twenty minutes or go to that state I have to
go to bathroom, Kate and slip out and you know,
come back out. And if you're living right across the way,
I mean, I maybe the roommate isn't making up this alibi.
(35:41):
I don't know, but I could see it being possible
that he slips across the way and doesn't take very
long to do all this. But I don't know.
Speaker 3 (35:48):
Well, like Nancy's case, you know, this is not where
the offender has spent a ton of time. Like I said,
this type of promise I can occur very quickly. Now
if he you know, was in there sexually assaulting her
over the course of hours. That's one thing. But I
mean it appears based on Ferris in his interview, is
(36:09):
that well, when I left Nancy was you know, she's
closed like she would be for bed, which basically was
just in our underwear. So it looks like Richard Davis
breaks in confronts Nancy. She probably puts up much greater
resistance than what he was expecting, and now he kills
her and he runs off. And this is a matter
(36:31):
of a few minutes in which all of that could
have occurred versus that other scenario brought up where he's
spending a lot of time sexually assaulting her. He never
got to the point of sexually assaulting her in all
likelihood under this set of circumstances.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
The police have for fifty years quietly believed that Richard
should be on the radar. And here's one main reason.
They said that his apartment had the perfect vantage point
of her door. Okay, he would be able to see
the fiance going and coming, and all he would have
had to do is walk toward the back to see her,
leaving the door open just a crack to let the
(37:07):
cat in and out. And you know, he lived there
he lived in the apartment complex, so he would have
known very well about her habits, even though I think
she would have had a more predictable schedule I would
guess as a court reporter than somebody like Judy as
a nurse who probably worked all kinds of different shifts.
But you know, he's there, he's able to see everything,
and I think the police just had a bad feeling
(37:28):
about him. They think that the bloody trail that we
were talking about that ends in the parking lot that
someone said, oh yeah, I heard a car take off,
and I think this complex is small enough where people
it would have been unusual for a car to leave
that early in the morning. They think, actually, maybe this
blood trail doesn't actually end in the parking lot. It
could have extended all the way to a staircase where
(37:51):
Richard could have gotten into his place.
Speaker 3 (37:53):
Well, but you also have to you know, this guy's
rapidly getting out of Nancy's apartment, you know, and at
a certain point, once he's you know, separated himself, he's
now looking on I'm bleeding, and now he wraps his
hand in his shirt or something, and so now you're
not getting that consistent trail That's just a normal response
that you see from offenders in flight. You know, once
(38:15):
they get a certain distance away, you know, now they're
kind of assessing what happened and looking at themselves. It's
also entirely possible he got into his vehicle and drove off,
you know, because he's now thinking, oh shit, I need
to get away from here because they're going to, you know,
find out you know, that I tried to attack Nancy
or I killed Nancy.
Speaker 2 (38:34):
Would you expect now, I guess this is what I thought.
I expected that level of violence and sort of planning.
Whether I think the finger protectors you're silly or not,
he's planning stuff. I would have thought this was not
his first encounter, a violent encounter. But would that surprise
you or not surprised you, regardless of whatever his background is.
Would you think that he has done something along these
(38:56):
lines before or no?
Speaker 3 (38:58):
Well, I think that's That's one of the things that
we are finding out with the cases being solved with
genealogy as cases that I normally would evaluate and go,
you know, this looks predatory, Like you mentioned with Nancy's case,
the pre planning, the covering up, the you know, the fingertips.
He's obviously going in there with a knife. He's figured
out that that sliding door would would be available for
(39:18):
him to be able to get into and out of
and nobody would know, and you'd go, yeah, this guy
possibly has others. And he was you said, twenty seven
at the time of her homicide, you know, And generally
this is you know, where you do see offenders have
a few cases at a younger age and in a predatory,
fantasy motivated type of homicide. However, we're seeing those types
(39:40):
of cases where these offenders commit them once and never
do it again. It's what we call the one off offender.
There's likely a lot of fantasy going on in Richard
Davis's head, you know, and he's watching her, he's watching Nancy,
fantasizing about what he wants to do with Nancy, and
then develops a planned and he got scared or you know,
(40:02):
when she fought back and he wasn't expecting it, and
now he's going, oh god, you know, don't I didn't
like that. I'm paranoid. I'm never going to do that again.
And that's just what we're finding. You do have offenders
that commit this horrific type of crime and then never
do it again. That's why they're not being solved in CODIS,
because they COTIS is predicated on the repeat offender versus genealogy.
(40:25):
He may never offend to get his DNA collected from him,
but he can't help his third cousins from doing genealogy research.
And now we can triangulate from the third cousins and
drop down on Richard Davis.
Speaker 2 (40:38):
Well, let me tell you about Richard. He had no
violent record, He had a couple of DUI's, he had
a drinking problem according to people in his life. But
after he was killed, Richard seemed to live a quiet
life with a wife and children. I mean, you know
that we know of of course, I always say that
he wasn't arrested for anything violent. We don't know what happened.
(40:58):
Investigators are incredibly happy about this, as is I'm assuming
Nancy's family. This is solved fifty years later. The really
sad part of this to me is that Richard Davis
died in ninety seven in Sacramento County, Okay.
Speaker 3 (41:14):
So he died before they ever discovered who he was. Yep,
you know I've had that happen.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
He got away with it right.
Speaker 3 (41:21):
But you know, it's still it's an answer. It is,
you know, and Nancy's family. It will never bring Nancy back,
but having an answer at least is something.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
And you know, just talking about the other case that
they were never able to connect, which is Judy huck
Awry's case, it's unsolved. They were never able to move
the needle on that, and you know, it's considered I
believe in an open case at this point, but at
least we're able to talk about it in case people
do know anything that happened. These are relive for us,
(41:51):
relatively recent cases where there could be people out there.
I think through those circumstances, and Richard living in that
complex makes sense as the offender. You know, he's able
to see her pattern in everything. I'm not sure Richard
with Judy makes sense. It's not his apartment complex. I
guess he could be stalking her, but she has an
(42:11):
unpredictable schedule. I guess it could be a crime of opportunity.
But if he was interested in that, he had one already,
you know, there in the apartment complex. I mean, I
guess you never know, but I was just thinking, to me,
this feels like two different offenders, but I don't know,
we don't know.
Speaker 3 (42:25):
It would not surprise me, you know. With with Judith,
you know that Richard is prowling a different apartment complex
than his own right, and for that first case, maybe
he does do surveillance on Judy, finds the life pattern
the offender. In Judas case, I mean the torn towelstrips
(42:46):
that shows pre planning, if the offender is at her
place of work and is maybe hiding in her car.
You know, he's definitely showing that there's been some thought
put into attacking Judith and then figuring out how I'm
going to dispose of her body. That very well could
be Richard Davis, yeah, you know, and he can't help
(43:09):
himself when he's seeing Nancy day in and day out
in his own apartment complex. You know. I think with
Judas case, it sounds like enough. Of course, I don't
know to what extent that they've gone after the evidence,
you know, and it's a much more difficult case from
a DNA standpoint, But I those torn towel strips, I
think the technology today, the sensitivity of the DNA testing
(43:31):
today could potentially find offender DNA, you know, So I'm
hoping that they've at least pursued that and maybe they
struck out, But if they haven't, that would be one
of the things I would I would recommend you never know,
this guy could have put the towel in his mouth
while he's tearing it, and you actually have a saliva
stain with a whole bunch of DNA on it, and
(43:52):
you just need to have the right DNA analyst who's
very thorough to find something like that.
Speaker 2 (43:56):
Okay, one thing that I think you'll find interesting. There
was a lot of chatter online on Reddit and other
message boards and blogs that the belief that Nancy might
have been a victim of the Zodiac killer. I didn't
explore it because, of course, now we know this was
a lot of this predates, of course, the DNA evidence.
I don't sure why that would have been an option
(44:18):
for folks on Reddit to think that she would have
been Do you have any ideas about this?
Speaker 3 (44:23):
Oh? Yeah, no, for sure. This is I You know,
I kind of got into the Zodiac world because I
was working that and you know, my lab had actually
done work on the Zodiac case, so I had access
to some materials, and you know, once my name kind
of got associated with work in the Zodiac. Then of
course I've got all the various online people you know,
(44:43):
hitting me up, and with Zodiac, there's a thought that
Zodiac has many, many more cases than the actual you know,
four attacks that we know he did, even some of
my unsolved cases out of Contacosta County, these Zodiac slews
are saying, well, it's got to be Zodiac, he must
(45:04):
have done all of this. And then as we solve
cases like, no, it's not. You know, we have a
lot of these predators out there, particularly back in the
nineteen seventies, so it's not surprising to me, you know,
like with Nancy's case, that somebody would go, well, that's
got to be Zodiac, you know, because he had one
point he sent like a card in it was like
me thirty eight you know, SFPD zero or something. You know.
(45:25):
So they're thinking, well, he's now admitting that he's done
thirty eight cases, and so they're trying to scoop all
these unsolved cases as being Zodiac and that's just not
the case.
Speaker 2 (45:34):
Well, I hope somebody is involved still with Judy Hakari's case,
because you know, she deserves justice too, And I don't
know what the reaction was of Nancy's family about at
least having some answers here. I'm sure there's some sort
of sense of relief, not closure, but just some sort
of knowing, you know that that this is this is
(45:55):
a person who, though he died without facing justice, there
still is you know that being able to put that
part of it to rest. That's a hard case. I mean,
talking about young women dying in their twenties in such
a horrible way and with such promise, not even the
I'm going to get married part, but that just these
you know, they seem like effervescent, well liked people, and
(46:18):
it's just so awful to kind of go through that.
But I also I like this case, these two cases,
because the juxtaposition of them, to me, really kind of
shows how unpredictable a killer could be, because you and
I are both kind of going it could be and
they might be connected and they might not. What you
can't do is rely on a profile or what we've
(46:39):
heard on TV to say this was overkill. It had
to have been the fiance or somebody knew her, or
somebody who was in love with her, when that was
clearly not the case. But a lot of people would
say something like that. So that's why I bring these
kind of cases to you.
Speaker 3 (46:50):
No, well, I think you know, and like you when
you say a profile, you know, the sort of that
behavioral analysis there. I do believe that there is there
is value to having you know, that somebody who has
expertise in that, but it's also recognized the limitations of that,
you know, and it's it's really where, you know, if
(47:10):
there is something that the offender has done that is
just so unique that behavioral profiler possibly can spot that
where the average detective won't because the average detective doesn't
work these types of cases day in and day out
and hasn't seen stuff. So there is value, but sometimes
people way overreach and you know, and it's not necessarily
(47:32):
appreciating that. You can have, you know, what appear to
be the same types of cases happening at the same
time in the same neighborhood and it's all by different offenders,
that's a reality, or you can have cases that don't
look related at all, like Judith and Nancy. He's outside
of the geographic connection and it could be the same offender,
he's just doing different things.
Speaker 2 (47:53):
Well, next week will probably not be diving into DNA,
much to your chagrin, will probably be stomping around on
a farmhouse in the eighteen hundreds trying to figure out
what somebody would do with like a pickaxe or something.
But they're all valuable. These are all the same people
every I mean, I just don't you see that that pattern.
(48:15):
It's just people are people, and that's it. It doesn't
matter if it's from the seventeen hundreds or twenty twenty five.
They all kind of react exactly the same to things.
They cover stuff up, and you know, we might have
more resources now, but it doesn't mean you're going to
get caught. They got caught in the eighteen hundreds. You'll
get caught now.
Speaker 3 (48:31):
Nope, for sure. Well I'm looking forward to it.
Speaker 2 (48:33):
All right, I will see you next week.
Speaker 3 (48:35):
Sounds good, Kate.
Speaker 1 (48:40):
This has been an exactly right production.
Speaker 3 (48:43):
For our sources and show notes go to exactly rightmedia
dot com slash Buried Bones sources.
Speaker 1 (48:48):
Our senior producer is Alexis Emirosi.
Speaker 3 (48:51):
Research by Maren mcclashan, Ali Elkin, and Kate Winkler Dawson.
Speaker 2 (48:56):
Our mixing engineer is Ben Tolliday.
Speaker 3 (48:58):
Our theme song is by Brivogel.
Speaker 1 (49:01):
Our artwork is by Vanessa Lilac.
Speaker 3 (49:03):
Executive produced by Karen Kilgaroff, Georgia hard Stark, and Daniel Kramer.
Speaker 2 (49:07):
You can follow Buried Bones on Instagram and Facebook at
buried Bones pod.
Speaker 3 (49:13):
Kate's most recent book, All That Is Wicked, a Gilded
Age story of murder and the race to decode the
criminal mind, is available now.
Speaker 2 (49:19):
And Paul's best selling memoir Unmasked, My life solving America's
cold Cases, is also available now.
Speaker 3 (49:26):
Listen to Buried Bones on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you get your podcasts
I'm Kate Winkler Dawson.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm a journalist who's spent the last twenty five years
writing about true crime.
Speaker 3 (00:09):
And I'm Paul Hols, a retired cold case investigator who's
worked some of America's most complicated cases and solve them.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Each week, I present Paul with one of history's most
compelling true crimes.
Speaker 3 (00:21):
And I weigh in using modern forensic techniques to bring
new insights to old mysteries.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Together, using our individual expertise, we're examining historical true crime
cases through a twenty first century lens.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
Some are solved and some are cold, very cold.
Speaker 4 (00:38):
This is buried Bones.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Hey Paul, Hey Kate, you know you've got this case.
I'm really interested to hear this other case. It might
or might not be related.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
We'll wrap up some stuff with Nancy first and I'll
give you a recap, and then we'll get into the
other case and we'll see where we go here. So,
just to recap for the last episode, we are in
nineteen seventy Sacramento and twenty eight year old Nancy beIN
Alac was murdered and sexually assaulted in her apartment. The
(01:32):
front door was locked. There doesn't seem to be any theft,
any disturbance in anywhere in the apartment except for in
the bedroom. Nancy is face down, thirty stab wounds, very
very violent. They collect evidence, including these weird finger coverings
that the offender apparently made. Now they're going to start
really trying to get the timeline down. We have some
(01:54):
ear witnesses who say somewhere in the one am to
two am range they heard different kinds of noises. We
have no idea if any of it has to do
with Nancy, and so now you know, we're at a
little bit of a loss. As they moved forward, Did
I miss anything? Is there anything that I didn't include? Paul?
Speaker 3 (02:10):
You know, the one thing that I think stands out
is the prowler that had been seen. So they have
the composite of that prowler, but that may or may
not be the person responsible for Nancy's homicide.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
Exactly right, So let's continue. They talk to a lot
of people, including of course her fiance, Ferris, who is
the chief public defender. And I read an obituary of
him and he just seems like this legend in that area,
so that was really interesting. He tells police that he
last saw Nancy Sunday night, so presumably not long before
(02:42):
she was killed. So aside from the offender, if he
is not the offender. Aside from the offender, it seems
like her fiance is the last one to have seen
her so earlier in the day. They went from Nancy's hometown,
Grass Valley, which is about an hour outside of Sacramento,
where they hung out with her mom, and they went
back to Sacramento. They got dinner, Ferris brought Nancy to
(03:04):
her apartment. They spent some time together, which could have
meant sex. I don't have a lot of details here,
but he did not stay the night. He left around
one thirty and then he went back home. So he
says when he left Nancy's apartment, she was asleep in
bed and wearing just her underwear, which would have been
(03:25):
you know, her way. He said that her sliding glass
door is where he was sure the entry was made.
And I'll tell you why in a minute. Looking for patterns.
But what do you think so far? You know, I mean,
the fiance nobody saw him coming or going. He was
around all the time, you know, I don't know if
police buy his story or not. It seems feasible for
(03:46):
a Sunday.
Speaker 3 (03:47):
Well, yeah, I think you know, of course, he has
to be looked at pretty hard because he's putting himself
in her apartment almost in the middle of what the
ear witnesses are saying when they hear, you know, the
baby cry, hurried footsteps, somebody driving out of the parking
lot at a I'm assuming a high rate of speed,
you know. So it's like, okay, so what is going
(04:09):
on here with him? We see this all the time.
It's entirely possible. He's telling absolute truth, you know. It
just so happens that once he left, the offender came
in and then is, for whatever reason, attacking Nancy.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
The interesting part of the entry is when we talk
about Nancy's sliding glass door. You know, the droplets were there,
there was a trail of blood that dropped down to
the first floor, the ground floor, the boat shoe that
was there, the print, and then the trail off to
the parking lot. So he said that nancy sliding glass
(04:43):
door when he left was slightly open, okay, And the
reason was she had a cat and that way the
cat could go in and out of the apartment. So
the police find this out from Ferris, and of course
they're not crossing him off the list just yet. But
when we're talking about access, they're saying, okay, well that
that seems to make sense. But they now feel pretty certain.
(05:04):
And this is what I want to know from you too,
that whomever killed Nancy knew this, knew her habit, knew
that this would be accessible at some point, and was
potentially watching.
Speaker 3 (05:15):
You know, my question would be, well, what's the visibility
of that sliding door, Let's say, from somebody who is
just kind of wandering the grounds. You know, at least
with the photo of the apartment complex, I could kind
of see that the top of like I'm assuming windows
or sliding doors, So it's possible you have a prowler
who happens to notice, oh there's an there's an opening.
(05:36):
How does the prowler get up to the second floor.
Is there something that this this person could climb up
to get onto the balcony to walk through this open
sliding door. That's one thing I'd be taking a look at.
And this is where it's just trying to trying to determine,
like you had brought up all this, did the offender
have pre existing knowledge of Nancy's habit and knew that
(05:57):
sliding door would be unlocked and open. And is this
something that's because the offender has, you know, a personal
connection to Nancy or is this a stranger who is
doing surveillance ahead of time and happens to notice this.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
Yeah? Absolutely, I think And I had forgotten to mention
this in my recap. Investigators think that the offender climbed
up that fence. So if you look at that photo again,
there's a fence, and that once he got on the fence,
he was able to sort of pull himself over the
railing onto her balcony. The question would be would he
be able to see whether or not she was leaving
this door open and letting the cat in and out.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
I think he could, you know, based on what I'm
seeing from this this photo of the apartment complex. Now, Yeah,
to climb up that fence and to get up over
that balcony, I mean there's some physical agility here. Yeah,
you know, so that's that would be something you know,
as I'm eballing, you know, suspects, you know, does this
guy look like he's physically capable of getting up into
(06:56):
Nancy's apartment as well? As being able to jump down
and run away. You know, I know I might be
able to do that today, but I would probably struggle
at my age, right. So that's just an interesting observation,
is that the physicality he's demonstrating to get in and
out of her apartment.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
Yes, Glenn Campbell, as in our sketch, the prowler would
have been able to do something like that. We'll see
how it goes. Okay, so faris the fiance doesn't have
an alibi for that evening. She says alibi basically. Then
she goes home. He goes home, and that's it. He's
very cooperative with the police. He says, come search my house,
(07:37):
take all my clothing, look for anything you want. He
takes that light detector. He even says, take some of
my blood. You know. They compare it against the blood
they found at the scene, and he's ultimately ruled out
as a suspect. I don't know what that means. I
don't know if they look at the blood and he's
got an obvious different blood type and that is ruling
him out, and that's it. Is that going to be enough,
(07:57):
I guess in the nineteen seventies to rule somebody out right.
Speaker 3 (08:00):
Well, that's you know, that really was the power of
the ABO testing was to exclude. And so under the
circumstances of the crime scene, it sounds like they were
confident that the blood trail or the blood that was
left behind, came from the offender, and it's a different
blood type than the fiance, and so they can say, well,
he's not the one that's dripping blood and running off,
(08:21):
so he's likely as not her killer. Now is that
an absolute elimination of his involvement in the case. You'll
probably hit me some detail down in a few minutes.
That probably puts more suspicion on him, But right now
I would say it sounds like he's excluded.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Yeah, I think so, No, no more suspicion. Ferris goes
on to live until eighty four, and as a legend
in defense, they eventually rule out the fiance. The police
began interviewing the people closest to her family and friends,
especially those with fresh injuries. That makes sense, you know,
with the stabbing. So then they go to Nancy's father.
(08:59):
So his name's braun In, and when police interview him,
he has a bandage on his hand that he says
is the result of a workplace accident. But he says,
just so you know, Nancy and I have never had
a great relationship. He was abusive towards Nancy's mother in
the past, but he's also ruled out as a suspect,
and there's just not enough solid evidence tying him to
(09:22):
the daughter's murder. So the wound on the hand, I know,
is valid. And I guess that's just one little thing
that they're going to be looking at and saying, oh,
you've got these, you know, fresh wounds. Let's talk about
it in your past relationship with her?
Speaker 3 (09:34):
No, you know, but this is this is just investigation
one oh one. They are checking the boxes, looking at
family friends, you know, the fiance and when something like
the a fresh wound on dad's hand, you know that's
going to stand out. They're going, oh, you know, that
is consistent with our offender having been cut. But of
course we know, just like what he explained is there's
(09:56):
innocent explanations for that as well.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Mm hmm. Okay, well, let's see, We've got a couple
of other people that I need to run by you.
This might be a dead end, but here it goes.
There's a guy named Barry Segal. He is a name
dropped as a person of interest from a Sacramento Bee article,
which is interesting October twenty ninth, which is just days
after Nancy's murder. So this is one of the early
(10:20):
people on their suspect list. He spent more than eight
years in prison during the nineteen sixties with the second
degree murder of his landlady. When he's in prison, he
befriends a supervising deputy district attorney, Vincent Rigar. I have
no idea why or how, but when the killer is paroled,
(10:42):
the deputy assistant attorney offered him a place to stay.
And almost immediately after Nancy's murder, the sheriff tries to
suggest that Sagall might have been involved with this, and
it sounds like it's just simply because he was a
criminal and had killed a woman and that was basically.
But all of these people are being pulled into this
case because the police are really desperate, obviously to try
(11:04):
to find out who did this.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Yeah, you know, and this is part of just starting
to assess characteristics of your offender and what suspect pool
that offender would be found in. And you know, of course,
with a let's say, sexually motivated homicide, you're looking at
individuals that have a past that includes that type of crime.
(11:26):
And it sounds like this Barry Cigal, it was somebody
that you know, the DA's office was aware of and
had been released. So so Matt, you have to have
to look at him for sure.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
But there are different categories, right, So peeping Tom would
be the beginning of being a sexual predator, right, and
then what are the beginnings of the serial killer aside
from you know, we've talked about hurting animals and having
problems in childhood. I know there are these different tiers,
but they're categories too, yep.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
But it's not it's not hard and fast, you know.
And when you take a look, typically when you start
looking at offenders that are breaking into houses, and this
was a much more common from a from a serial
predator standpoint, much more common back in the seventies than
today because of technology and surveillance and dead bolts and
all that. But usually it's these barriers to a fence.
(12:18):
You mentioned the peeping Tom. Well, I like to, you know,
talk initially to people and say, think about walking in
your neighborhood and you accidentally walk on your neighbor's front lawn,
you get nervous. It's like, oh no, you know, that's
kind of not socially acceptable. And so imagine taking that
to the point where now you're walking up all the
(12:40):
way across the lawn to look into your neighbor's house
through a window. You know you've crossed a certain social
barrier to do that. Now you're breaking into houses when
nobody's home. Then you're breaking into houses when somebody's home.
And it's when you start to see that where now
you have the like the cat burglar spect where they're
(13:00):
going into how occupied houses. That is a predictor of
being a very dangerous offender because they are just one
step away from going hands on with a person. So
that's one kind of prototypical evolution. That's Joseph DiAngelo, that's
the Golden State killer. But they don't necessarily follow that
(13:21):
pattern in the same way. It varies from person to person.
And then you brought up the serial killer triad, the
bed wetting, the animal cruelty, the fire setting, and then
the reality is the only one I put really any
weight on is the animal cruelty, because if you're willing
to inflict violence on a creature, You're one step away
(13:42):
from doing that to a person.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
You know. There is a story that I thought about you,
and I heard there's a story happening not in Austin,
in the Austin area about a high school club where,
you know, I don't know if it was a four
h but students were raising animals and they caught a
young woman, a teenager, poisoning and killing a goat from
(14:04):
her competitor. And I just thought, oh my god, I mean,
that's unbelievable. I don't remember ultimately what happened to her,
if she was eighteen or you know, whatever happened, but
to just brazenly be willing to do that to a goat,
you know, just for a contest. I mean, I'm real.
Speaker 3 (14:20):
Once I trained a couple of the prosecutors in my
former office. You know, they would be presented cases of
you know, your teenage boys doing bad things to cats
and dogs, and so they would bring me the details,
you know, and so I'm assessing, going, yeah, this is
a predictor, this is a person that is likely going
to hurt somebody down the road, and we need to
(14:42):
intercede now to try to prevent that person from that
boy from doing that in the future, and then that's
when it's you know, mandated psychological counseling, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
Now we're going to put a pause in Nancy's case
because we have another case and police are not yet
able to determine whether these cases related, but they seem
very similar. So this is about a woman named Judith
hawk Aary. She's in Sacramento, and she is murdered six
months before Nancy and I have pictures around this too.
Now you know, you can imagine this is a twenty
(15:14):
three year old nurse. She is also engaged. They look
fairly similar. I know you don't put a ton of
weight on that, and I'll show you a picture of
Judy in a second, but they are struck by the similarities. Here,
let me tell you a little bit about Judy and
then we'll look at some photos. So she is, as
I said, twenty three years old, she's engaged, she's in
(15:36):
the workforce. They live within one block of each other,
these two women. So go to your photos. I told
you there are a lot of photos with this one.
This is what happens when we dip into the nineteen seventies.
This photos galore. If you look on your page seven,
there's a picture of Judy sixties hair. We're barely in
the nineteen seventies, so she's got the high hair again.
(15:58):
Love it, you know, if you find it valuable to
compare the way they both look and you know all
of that. But the photo of Nancy's on.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
Page one, well, you know Nancy and Judiths. You know,
they do have a somewhat similar look. Both appear to
be brunettes, classic nineteen sixties kind of look about them.
I think it's you know, the fact that you do
have them living so close, and that Judith, you know,
six months prior, had been killed. You have to look
(16:25):
at the possibility that these cases are related. Now, I'd
like to know more details about what happened in Judas case.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
Okay, look on the next page, because I just want
you to see the distance with their apartments. I mean,
I told you a block of block's a block. But
if you look on page your page eight, you'll see
Nancy's apartment in judish apartment. Is that a coincidence? I mean,
how is that? I don't know there are such things
as coincidences.
Speaker 3 (16:47):
I guess yes, I mean, it absolutely could be a coincidence. However,
you have to put some weight on that proximity. You know,
these offenders, you know, when they're out prowling, they get
comfortable with a ser in geographic location, you can go
into any neighborhood and find a victim. So it's possible
this could be a watering hole. This is what I were.
(17:08):
A predator is just comfortable in this particular area of
town for one reason or another, and has killed two
women six months apart in that same area. But I've
just seen it enough to where it's also possible these
are two completely separate cases and just coincidentally happened to
be in the same part of the area of town.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Yeah. Absolutely, Okay, here are the circumstances with Judy. So
it is eleven thirty pm on the night of March
nineteen seventy, about six months before Nancy goes missing. Judy
is a nurse. She leaves her shift at the hospital
and she tells Raymond, I'll see you at my apartment
and she starts to head home. So Raymond, her fiance,
(17:51):
his name's Raymond Willis, he was at her apartment waiting
there for her, and he said it. It should have
only taken her ten minutes, so he knew she should
have been home before midnight. She left at eleven thirty,
so she doesn't show up, and when she hasn't come
home by one forty five, he becomes very worried. He
goes outside. He sees Judy's car parked in the apartment
(18:14):
complex's parking lot, but she's not there.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
Okay, so it appears that she drove from the job
the hospital to her apartment complex but never makes it
up to her residence.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Yes, okay, I don't know when he calls the police yet,
but he said that the car's doors were all unlocked,
the keys were on the floorboard, and a few buttons
from the coat that she was wearing seemed to be
yanked off, and they were in the back seat as
if there had been a struggle between Judy and we
presume to be the offender. No blood in the car.
There were strips of towel in the back seat which
(18:51):
didn't belong to Judy, and so you know, obviously none
of this sounds very good, and we have some speculation
coming up.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Well, sounds like, you know, the offender could have been
inside judas vehicle out there at the hospital, and you know,
she gets in and at a certain point the offender
pops up from the rear seat. That's you know, with
the strips of towel, like, you know, binding material that
the offender brought with him. And you know, then if
that's kind of the scenario, and you know, right now,
(19:21):
I'm just kind of doing like a you know, a
little speculation. But if that's the scenario, then Judath isn't
the one that drove the vehicle all the way back
to the you know, the parking lot. The offender likely
did that once he got her under control inside her
own vehicle.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
So interesting, Okay, so here's where we may see the
man we may not. Her co workers. Judy's coworkers later
say that a man with red hair had stopped by
the hospital earlier in the day asking for Judith her
real name. But there are three Judiths at that place
(19:56):
at the time, and so we don't know which Judith
he was looking for, and it doesn't sound like he
connected with any of them, so that sort of went
a little cold. There was witness that reported seeing a
brown car turn into her apartment's parking lot around the
time that Judy would have arrived home. So between eleven
thirty and twelve, another person said they saw a dark
(20:18):
colored car driving so fast and recklessly from the area
that it nearly sideswiped their vehicle, and neither car is
ever identified. So I presume what that means, Paul is
the first witness, if it's connected to this case, is
seeing the guy pull into the parking lot. Because they're
not saying Judy's car is pulling into the parking lot.
(20:40):
They're saying a brown car pulls into the parking lot
around the time she got home, and then there's another
car that leaves very quickly and recklessly.
Speaker 3 (20:48):
And so there's a possibility, taking it to consideration those details,
that Judy could have driven to her parking lot and
is abducted as soon as she opens the door to
her vehicle. Under that circumstance, I would expect that there
would be some ear witnesses, because I don't think Judy
would be very I think should be, you know, pretty loud,
(21:08):
screaming and trying to fight this guy as he's trying
to get her into his vehicle.
Speaker 2 (21:13):
But remember her coat, jacket buttons are in the back seat,
and those strips of towel are in the back seat.
So do you think he tried to get her in
the back seat first and then there was a struggle
and he gagged her with these towel strips. I'm not
saying that's what happened. I'm just saying I wonder if
that could have been a possibility too.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
That's a big chance it is, you know, and that
kind of goes back to my initial speculation that he's
you know, you have an offender lying in wait inside
her own vehicle. This could have been a tandem, you know,
where he gets her under control, and then you have
another offender that's that's driving a vehicle. And now you
(21:52):
have let's say two offenders that are the ones that
are abducting Judith and so at her apartment. You know,
why why let her get all the way to her
apartment if your plan is is to attack her initially
at the hospital?
Speaker 2 (22:05):
Okay, Well, let's keep going. Okay, no solid leads. They
are searching, searching. We still don't know that Nancy is
going to be a victim. That's several months away. But
about a month and a half ish later into April
nineteen seventy two, hikers like always hikers or the bottle
collectors or kids discover Judy's body. It's in a shallow
(22:27):
grave near an abandoned mind shaft series of abandoned mind shafts,
about fifty miles from Sacramento. It's a long way from
her apartment. So that's the next photo. So page nine
is the photo of the shallow grave that looks so
shallow to me. It looks pretty deep.
Speaker 3 (22:43):
It's hard the perspective of this photo. It's a black
and white photo, and it's showing the grave in front,
in the front of the foreground of the photo, and
then you have what appear to be two detectives standing
looking down into it. So obviously Judy's body has been
collected at the point. But the grave itself, that's I mean,
(23:04):
that's down several feet, you know. It's not like a
cemetery grave, you know, but most certainly relative to my
experience with shallow graves usually that's like eighteen inches, you know,
and part of the victim is sticking up out of
the ground. This looks like it's possible that she could
have been completely out of sight because it looks like
it's deep enough.
Speaker 2 (23:25):
I wonder what the mind shafts If this was doug already,
it's just some hole. Maybe machinery had been removed or something,
and this was something I can't see. Sure this guy
digging that? I mean, boy, when I think shallow grave,
I think just enough to cover up a body. Well,
let me tell you what they find. Okay, they find
her body, and here's what the medical examiner says. She
(23:47):
was brutally beaten. She was sexually assaulted, she was bludgeoned.
They don't know with what she was Then she was
also strangled with her own nylon stockings. So he put
her in a large canvas that was buried. Now they say,
here two feet deep. You're right, the perspective is wonky
on this. Then two feet That's not two feet when
(24:08):
I see But anyway, So they also find more of
those towel strips like the ones found in her car,
so they think that he used those to gag Judy.
They also find a gray sweatshirt that they believe belonged
to her killer, probably because it must have been buried
with her, and even trace the canvas bag to a
company that produced them specifically for the San Juan Unified
(24:31):
School District. In Sacramento County, which seems like a specific clue.
So what do you think about that? I mean, does
it sound like somebody who is the same kind of
killer as the person who ends up killing Nancy? Also
totally different.
Speaker 3 (24:46):
It is different in terms of the mo you know,
you've got an abduction sexual assault on the side, and
you know, hiding the body fifty miles away than you
have with Nancy. Of course, you have the offender going
in and having her. You know, there's some planning going
on here with with Judith in terms of the towel strips,
(25:06):
you know, so that's that's kind of interesting from Okay,
the offender is deciding to use the towel strips, you know,
for for binding. Maybe it possibly a ligature or a
gig the canvas bag. Coming back to San Juan School District,
you know, that's where Okay, who all would have access
to these bags? You know? Is this something that you know,
(25:28):
somebody who's not affiliated with the San Juan School District
would be able to just casually grab, you know, while
being on school ground somewhere, or is this something where
it's a specific person, let's say, a maintenance person, a
janitor that would have access to these these bags. But
that's also a little bit of a mess up on
the offender's part to have something that could be traced
(25:51):
back to him. You know, this could also be staged
where it's you know, purposely choosing something that doesn't come
back to the offender. You know. So, but right now,
it's interesting. I mean, there's overlap in terms of the victimology.
There's overlap in terms of sexual assault homicide of a female,
but there are some significant differences. I still would consider
(26:13):
the possibility of the same offender even with those differences.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
It's so interesting because you know, if you were to
tell me about these two cases and the way that
the crimes were structured, in the way they were planned out,
I would have thought it would have been flipped. I
would have thought he would have gone in and realized
this was too quick. With Nancy, I'm probably going to
get caught. They're probably going to be able to trace me.
And then he works harder on the next on Judy
to really he takes her really far out to cover
(26:37):
it up. And this is sort of the opposite so
that when I initially read that, I thought, I don't know,
I mean, don't they usually get a little bit more sophisticated,
not less sophisticated when they do these I guess not right.
Speaker 3 (26:48):
They learn from their experiences, but they also experiment as
they do you know cases. But I open up when
I when I teach the serial Predator course, I bring
up three cases out of the nineteen seventies that you
go this is from three different offenders. And it turns out, no,
it's the same guy. He's doing it differently each time.
(27:10):
So that's part of the linkage. The difficulty of linkage
using behaviors and mo aspects, it is a very difficult
thing unless you have really unique set of circumstances. That's
the beauty of having DNA today because we can really
link cases through DNA showing it's the same offender, even
(27:32):
though the cases on the surface look like completely different
types of cases.
Speaker 2 (27:36):
Well, let me tell you. In Judith's case, who they're
looking at. They looked at Raymond and cleared him. I
told you that the fiance. The news spreads about Judy's murder.
The guy who owns the property these mining shafts, he
comes forward. He says that three men he had never
met before were digging a hole on his property about
a week after Judy was last seen, and the guys
(27:58):
told him they were digging for antique to sell, which
I had not heard of, but sounds interesting. They said
it was a thing that people actually still do at
old mining sites.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (28:07):
But he was uncomfortable with the encounter and so he
wanted to call the police. These three guys were never
fully identified. You know, there's a vague description of one
of them, slim, six foot tall, has brown hair, but
there just doesn't seem to be any kind of a
strong link between Judy and these men. Another weird thing
about this story is the hiker who found Judy's body
(28:31):
happened to actually live near both of the women in Sacramento.
He's hiking fifty miles outside of Sacramento and he finds
these bodies and he lives, you know, within a couple
of blocks of these women. They look at the guy
and then they rule him out, and there's just never
a clear connection. And there's never, Paul a clear connection
between Judy's case and Nancy's case. And this goes cold.
(28:55):
Both of these cases go cold for a long time.
Speaker 3 (28:58):
Okay, well, but both cases have sets of circumstances in
which modern technology might be able to pay off.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Okay, we're gonna flash forward thirty years. I'm going to
name drop in a second, and you can tell me
if you know this person. So in two thousand and four,
investigators reopen Nancy's case, so the second case, and they
create a DNA profile based on I'm presuming the blood evidence.
It's not the semen. This isn't something that was possible,
of course, you know, after the murder. And so the
(29:28):
DNA profile helps investigators eliminate every single one of their
original suspects. So all of these guys it eliminates, and
they also submit it to FBI's CODIS and there's no match.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
So there's a guy who works in the Sacramento DA's
office during this time period. His name is Scott Triplett.
Have you ever heard that name?
Speaker 3 (29:48):
Yeah, the name is vaguely familiar, but I can't picture him.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
So Scott Triplett says, the staff uploaded the DNA in
Dakotis in two thousand and four, and the DNA profile
was run through the CA California Department of Justice familiar
Search five times between two thousand and nine and twenty
twenty one each with negative results. So explain how that works.
It's different than CODIS, right, So tell me how often
(30:15):
you know they end up running these searches. It has
to be requested, is that right?
Speaker 3 (30:19):
Yes, it has to be requested. There is a formal
process to make a familial search request, and you would
have a group of people at the DOJ level that
would evaluate each request and whether or not it merited
doing this familial search. It's still relying upon CODIS now.
(30:40):
CODIS is actually broken up basically at three tiers. You
have a local CODIS, you have a state level CODIS,
and then of course you have the national CODIS. Most
states in two thousand and four. In fact, many states
today don't allow familial searching to be done on their database.
And so for a familiar search in California, you can
(31:02):
only do that for the DNA profiles that are at
the California level. So even though it's possible that this
guy would have a son that's in CODIS in some
up Midwestern state, they're not legally permitted to search that
data base. So within California, we would just do the
(31:23):
familial request against the California database and we would attempt
to try to do familial requests on other states that
would allow it, but that typically would be rejected.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
Well, the detectives in Sacramento keep this case going and
going and going for decades. They of course see what
happens with the Golden State killer, and they're hopeful that
they might be able to crack Nancy's case. Two. I
know that they were trying to make that connection in
nineteen seventy between the two, but it sounds like that
sort of dropped off and they were really trying to
concentrate on Nancy's case because I'm not quite sure what
(31:54):
they collected on Judy's case, and I don't know if
this you know, probably her case would still offficial, be open,
But they were really concentrating on breaking Nancy's.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
Case well, and that's because they were confident that they
had DNA evidence that would link back to the offender
in Nancy's case. In Judy's case, you know, her body's
found a month later. You know it's possible she's so decomposed,
and they just never did get a good DNA profile
in Judy's case, even though you know, investigatively they're going, well,
(32:25):
there's a chance that these cases are related, but their
efforts are going to be going on that DNA evidence
from Nancy's case.
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Yeah, absolutely, Okay, So in twenty nineteen, so just six
years ago, they uploaded the Suspected killers DNA profile into
the public genealogical databases. It takes three years and financial
support in the form of a grant from the Bureau
of Justice Assistance. Tell me that, I don't know if
(32:52):
I've heard that before, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Speaker 3 (32:55):
Yeah, you know, this is a federal entity we shortened,
we refer to them as BGA, and so law enforcement
gets a wide variety of different grants out of these
BGA programs, and so there are grants that at the
federal level were coming out, you know, specifically for cold
(33:15):
cases or prosecuting cold cases. And these grants have been
modified over the past few years to permit that funding
to fund the genealogy testing.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
Okay, good well, thank goodness for that Bureau of Justice assistants,
because they helped figure out this killer. So eventually, using
those funds and using genealogy, they land on the name
Richard John Davis. He was twenty seven years old when
he murdered Nancy I can give you details. You can
(33:49):
also see his photo and I don't know if you
just want to compare him to the boy scout looking,
you know, Glenn Campbell. But Davis is on the very
last page, and of course it's photo.
Speaker 3 (34:01):
You know, in some ways he he almost has a
Ted Bundy look to him. Yeah, it's hard to say
if does he match that composite, but most certainly you
could see even at his age, he's got a fairly
full head of hair, so it's possible, you know, maybe
he did match the Glenn Campbell look. But you know,
(34:22):
the composite is on the side. Now, they got DNA right,
and so once they identify him as as a potential
through genealogy, then they would have done a direct sample
from him and compared you know, his DNA profile using
the traditional law enforcement type of DNA the STRs, to
(34:44):
the str profile that had previously been generated from assuming
the bloodstains collected at Nancy's apartment or along that blood trail,
and would be one hundred percent match. So they know
he's the guy.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
Well, let me tell you about Richard John Davis. He
lived in the same apartment complex as Nancy. Okay, that
brings me back to ear witnesses who said, oh, we
heard a car take off out of the parking lot.
We don't know if that was him or not. But
I'll let me tell you a little bit more about
the circumstances. So he has a roommate. Both Richard and
(35:19):
his roommate were interviewed after Nancy's death, and they provided
alibis for each other. You know, certainly, I don't know
what that means. I mean, my goodness, if we were
hanging out at my house, you could slip out for
twenty minutes or go to that state I have to
go to bathroom, Kate and slip out and you know,
come back out. And if you're living right across the way,
I mean, I maybe the roommate isn't making up this alibi.
(35:41):
I don't know, but I could see it being possible
that he slips across the way and doesn't take very
long to do all this. But I don't know.
Speaker 3 (35:48):
Well, like Nancy's case, you know, this is not where
the offender has spent a ton of time. Like I said,
this type of promise I can occur very quickly. Now
if he you know, was in there sexually assaulting her
over the course of hours. That's one thing. But I
mean it appears based on Ferris in his interview, is
(36:09):
that well, when I left Nancy was you know, she's
closed like she would be for bed, which basically was
just in our underwear. So it looks like Richard Davis
breaks in confronts Nancy. She probably puts up much greater
resistance than what he was expecting, and now he kills
her and he runs off. And this is a matter
(36:31):
of a few minutes in which all of that could
have occurred versus that other scenario brought up where he's
spending a lot of time sexually assaulting her. He never
got to the point of sexually assaulting her in all
likelihood under this set of circumstances.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
The police have for fifty years quietly believed that Richard
should be on the radar. And here's one main reason.
They said that his apartment had the perfect vantage point
of her door. Okay, he would be able to see
the fiance going and coming, and all he would have
had to do is walk toward the back to see her,
leaving the door open just a crack to let the
(37:07):
cat in and out. And you know, he lived there
he lived in the apartment complex, so he would have
known very well about her habits, even though I think
she would have had a more predictable schedule I would
guess as a court reporter than somebody like Judy as
a nurse who probably worked all kinds of different shifts.
But you know, he's there, he's able to see everything,
and I think the police just had a bad feeling
(37:28):
about him. They think that the bloody trail that we
were talking about that ends in the parking lot that
someone said, oh yeah, I heard a car take off,
and I think this complex is small enough where people
it would have been unusual for a car to leave
that early in the morning. They think, actually, maybe this
blood trail doesn't actually end in the parking lot. It
could have extended all the way to a staircase where
(37:51):
Richard could have gotten into his place.
Speaker 3 (37:53):
Well, but you also have to you know, this guy's
rapidly getting out of Nancy's apartment, you know, and at
a certain point, once he's you know, separated himself, he's
now looking on I'm bleeding, and now he wraps his
hand in his shirt or something, and so now you're
not getting that consistent trail That's just a normal response
that you see from offenders in flight. You know, once
(38:15):
they get a certain distance away, you know, now they're
kind of assessing what happened and looking at themselves. It's
also entirely possible he got into his vehicle and drove off,
you know, because he's now thinking, oh shit, I need
to get away from here because they're going to, you know,
find out you know, that I tried to attack Nancy
or I killed Nancy.
Speaker 2 (38:34):
Would you expect now, I guess this is what I thought.
I expected that level of violence and sort of planning.
Whether I think the finger protectors you're silly or not,
he's planning stuff. I would have thought this was not
his first encounter, a violent encounter. But would that surprise
you or not surprised you, regardless of whatever his background is.
Would you think that he has done something along these
(38:56):
lines before or no?
Speaker 3 (38:58):
Well, I think that's That's one of the things that
we are finding out with the cases being solved with
genealogy as cases that I normally would evaluate and go,
you know, this looks predatory, Like you mentioned with Nancy's case,
the pre planning, the covering up, the you know, the fingertips.
He's obviously going in there with a knife. He's figured
out that that sliding door would would be available for
(39:18):
him to be able to get into and out of
and nobody would know, and you'd go, yeah, this guy
possibly has others. And he was you said, twenty seven
at the time of her homicide, you know, And generally
this is you know, where you do see offenders have
a few cases at a younger age and in a predatory,
fantasy motivated type of homicide. However, we're seeing those types
(39:40):
of cases where these offenders commit them once and never
do it again. It's what we call the one off offender.
There's likely a lot of fantasy going on in Richard
Davis's head, you know, and he's watching her, he's watching Nancy,
fantasizing about what he wants to do with Nancy, and
then develops a planned and he got scared or you know,
(40:02):
when she fought back and he wasn't expecting it, and
now he's going, oh god, you know, don't I didn't
like that. I'm paranoid. I'm never going to do that again.
And that's just what we're finding. You do have offenders
that commit this horrific type of crime and then never
do it again. That's why they're not being solved in CODIS,
because they COTIS is predicated on the repeat offender versus genealogy.
(40:25):
He may never offend to get his DNA collected from him,
but he can't help his third cousins from doing genealogy research.
And now we can triangulate from the third cousins and
drop down on Richard Davis.
Speaker 2 (40:38):
Well, let me tell you about Richard. He had no
violent record, He had a couple of DUI's, he had
a drinking problem according to people in his life. But
after he was killed, Richard seemed to live a quiet
life with a wife and children. I mean, you know
that we know of of course, I always say that
he wasn't arrested for anything violent. We don't know what happened.
(40:58):
Investigators are incredibly happy about this, as is I'm assuming
Nancy's family. This is solved fifty years later. The really
sad part of this to me is that Richard Davis
died in ninety seven in Sacramento County, Okay.
Speaker 3 (41:14):
So he died before they ever discovered who he was. Yep,
you know I've had that happen.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
He got away with it right.
Speaker 3 (41:21):
But you know, it's still it's an answer. It is,
you know, and Nancy's family. It will never bring Nancy back,
but having an answer at least is something.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
And you know, just talking about the other case that
they were never able to connect, which is Judy huck
Awry's case, it's unsolved. They were never able to move
the needle on that, and you know, it's considered I
believe in an open case at this point, but at
least we're able to talk about it in case people
do know anything that happened. These are relive for us,
(41:51):
relatively recent cases where there could be people out there.
I think through those circumstances, and Richard living in that
complex makes sense as the offender. You know, he's able
to see her pattern in everything. I'm not sure Richard
with Judy makes sense. It's not his apartment complex. I
guess he could be stalking her, but she has an
(42:11):
unpredictable schedule. I guess it could be a crime of opportunity.
But if he was interested in that, he had one already,
you know, there in the apartment complex. I mean, I
guess you never know, but I was just thinking, to me,
this feels like two different offenders, but I don't know,
we don't know.
Speaker 3 (42:25):
It would not surprise me, you know. With with Judith,
you know that Richard is prowling a different apartment complex
than his own right, and for that first case, maybe
he does do surveillance on Judy, finds the life pattern
the offender. In Judas case, I mean the torn towelstrips
(42:46):
that shows pre planning, if the offender is at her
place of work and is maybe hiding in her car.
You know, he's definitely showing that there's been some thought
put into attacking Judith and then figuring out how I'm
going to dispose of her body. That very well could
be Richard Davis, yeah, you know, and he can't help
(43:09):
himself when he's seeing Nancy day in and day out
in his own apartment complex. You know. I think with
Judas case, it sounds like enough. Of course, I don't
know to what extent that they've gone after the evidence,
you know, and it's a much more difficult case from
a DNA standpoint, But I those torn towel strips, I
think the technology today, the sensitivity of the DNA testing
(43:31):
today could potentially find offender DNA, you know, So I'm
hoping that they've at least pursued that and maybe they
struck out, But if they haven't, that would be one
of the things I would I would recommend you never know,
this guy could have put the towel in his mouth
while he's tearing it, and you actually have a saliva
stain with a whole bunch of DNA on it, and
(43:52):
you just need to have the right DNA analyst who's
very thorough to find something like that.
Speaker 2 (43:56):
Okay, one thing that I think you'll find interesting. There
was a lot of chatter online on Reddit and other
message boards and blogs that the belief that Nancy might
have been a victim of the Zodiac killer. I didn't
explore it because, of course, now we know this was
a lot of this predates, of course, the DNA evidence.
I don't sure why that would have been an option
(44:18):
for folks on Reddit to think that she would have
been Do you have any ideas about this?
Speaker 3 (44:23):
Oh? Yeah, no, for sure. This is I You know,
I kind of got into the Zodiac world because I
was working that and you know, my lab had actually
done work on the Zodiac case, so I had access
to some materials, and you know, once my name kind
of got associated with work in the Zodiac. Then of
course I've got all the various online people you know,
(44:43):
hitting me up, and with Zodiac, there's a thought that
Zodiac has many, many more cases than the actual you know,
four attacks that we know he did, even some of
my unsolved cases out of Contacosta County, these Zodiac slews
are saying, well, it's got to be Zodiac, he must
(45:04):
have done all of this. And then as we solve
cases like, no, it's not. You know, we have a
lot of these predators out there, particularly back in the
nineteen seventies, so it's not surprising to me, you know,
like with Nancy's case, that somebody would go, well, that's
got to be Zodiac, you know, because he had one
point he sent like a card in it was like
me thirty eight you know, SFPD zero or something. You know.
(45:25):
So they're thinking, well, he's now admitting that he's done
thirty eight cases, and so they're trying to scoop all
these unsolved cases as being Zodiac and that's just not
the case.
Speaker 2 (45:34):
Well, I hope somebody is involved still with Judy Hakari's case,
because you know, she deserves justice too, And I don't
know what the reaction was of Nancy's family about at
least having some answers here. I'm sure there's some sort
of sense of relief, not closure, but just some sort
of knowing, you know that that this is this is
(45:55):
a person who, though he died without facing justice, there
still is you know that being able to put that
part of it to rest. That's a hard case. I mean,
talking about young women dying in their twenties in such
a horrible way and with such promise, not even the
I'm going to get married part, but that just these
you know, they seem like effervescent, well liked people, and
(46:18):
it's just so awful to kind of go through that.
But I also I like this case, these two cases,
because the juxtaposition of them, to me, really kind of
shows how unpredictable a killer could be, because you and
I are both kind of going it could be and
they might be connected and they might not. What you
can't do is rely on a profile or what we've
(46:39):
heard on TV to say this was overkill. It had
to have been the fiance or somebody knew her, or
somebody who was in love with her, when that was
clearly not the case. But a lot of people would
say something like that. So that's why I bring these
kind of cases to you.
Speaker 3 (46:50):
No, well, I think you know, and like you when
you say a profile, you know, the sort of that
behavioral analysis there. I do believe that there is there
is value to having you know, that somebody who has
expertise in that, but it's also recognized the limitations of that,
you know, and it's it's really where, you know, if
(47:10):
there is something that the offender has done that is
just so unique that behavioral profiler possibly can spot that
where the average detective won't because the average detective doesn't
work these types of cases day in and day out
and hasn't seen stuff. So there is value, but sometimes
people way overreach and you know, and it's not necessarily
(47:32):
appreciating that. You can have, you know, what appear to
be the same types of cases happening at the same
time in the same neighborhood and it's all by different offenders,
that's a reality, or you can have cases that don't
look related at all, like Judith and Nancy. He's outside
of the geographic connection and it could be the same offender,
he's just doing different things.
Speaker 2 (47:53):
Well, next week will probably not be diving into DNA,
much to your chagrin, will probably be stomping around on
a farmhouse in the eighteen hundreds trying to figure out
what somebody would do with like a pickaxe or something.
But they're all valuable. These are all the same people
every I mean, I just don't you see that that pattern.
(48:15):
It's just people are people, and that's it. It doesn't
matter if it's from the seventeen hundreds or twenty twenty five.
They all kind of react exactly the same to things.
They cover stuff up, and you know, we might have
more resources now, but it doesn't mean you're going to
get caught. They got caught in the eighteen hundreds. You'll
get caught now.
Speaker 3 (48:31):
Nope, for sure. Well I'm looking forward to it.
Speaker 2 (48:33):
All right, I will see you next week.
Speaker 3 (48:35):
Sounds good, Kate.
Speaker 1 (48:40):
This has been an exactly right production.
Speaker 3 (48:43):
For our sources and show notes go to exactly rightmedia
dot com slash Buried Bones sources.
Speaker 1 (48:48):
Our senior producer is Alexis Emirosi.
Speaker 3 (48:51):
Research by Maren mcclashan, Ali Elkin, and Kate Winkler Dawson.
Speaker 2 (48:56):
Our mixing engineer is Ben Tolliday.
Speaker 3 (48:58):
Our theme song is by Brivogel.
Speaker 1 (49:01):
Our artwork is by Vanessa Lilac.
Speaker 3 (49:03):
Executive produced by Karen Kilgaroff, Georgia hard Stark, and Daniel Kramer.
Speaker 2 (49:07):
You can follow Buried Bones on Instagram and Facebook at
buried Bones pod.
Speaker 3 (49:13):
Kate's most recent book, All That Is Wicked, a Gilded
Age story of murder and the race to decode the
criminal mind, is available now.
Speaker 2 (49:19):
And Paul's best selling memoir Unmasked, My life solving America's
cold Cases, is also available now.
Speaker 3 (49:26):
Listen to Buried Bones on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you get your podcasts
Hosts And Creators
Kate Winkler Dawson
Paul Holes
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. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
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!