April 13, 2023 • 46 mins
One night in December of 1986, Cara Knott disappeared while driving home. She and her car were found the next day off the side of a highway. That same day, a local police officer known for pulling over women late at night was seen with scratches on his face. But did he actually kill Cara Knott? We talk with Jim Trainum, retired MPD homicide detective and investigative consultant.
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):
You're listening to Facing Evil, a production of iHeartRadio and
Tenderfoot TV. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast
are solely those of the individuals participating in the show
and do not represent those of iHeartRadio or Tenderfoot TV.
This podcast contains subject matter which may not be suitable
for everyone. Listener discretion is advised.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Hello, everyone, welcome back to Facing Evil. I'm Rossia Faccerrero.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
And I'm Evet gente Lay. This week we are talking
about the murder of Karen Not and this case is
it's a very surreal and creepy one because it's one
of those where you say, this could totally happen to
any one of us. It's when the person you trust
in to protect you ends up being the person you
(00:55):
should be the most afraid of.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Yeah, sadly, you're so, writ Evet. And of course, for
those of you who have been with us from episode
number one, this case, at least for Yvetni, reminds us
of our very first case from our hometown and Honolulu, Javaii,
the cold case of Lisa Ao. And it's sad this
(01:18):
was only four years later after the case of Lisa
Ao happened Lisa Ao is still a cold case. She
was murdered on the side of the road in nineteen
eighty two and this happened in nineteen eighty six. But
there's differences in this one. And we get to talk
to an amazing expert who's going to walk us through
the entire case. And his name is Jim Treinam. He
(01:42):
is an expert in forensic evidence and criminal procedure and
he's going to talk to us about everything, and so
thankful he's such an open book and an open heart.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Yes, and it's going to be an amazing conversation. But
now our Trevor is going to walk us through today's case.
A twenty year old San Diego State student was murdered
by an on duty CHP officer in the North County.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
The main unanswered question is is how she was able
to be either duped or or con in. Who's stopping
and we don't know why. It was two and a
half weeks after the murder that homicide detectives went to
pyrs Powway home and led him away in handcuffs. Every
day of the trial has been like attending Kara's funeral,
(02:31):
over and over and over again.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Karen Nott was a twenty year old woman who was
mysteriously found dead in nineteen eighty six in a ravine
near San Diego, California. Nott was a student at San
Diego State University. She had plans to get her doctorate
and become a teacher. On the night of December twenty seventh,
nineteen eighty six, she was visiting her boyfriend in Escondido
(02:57):
who was sick with the flu. Who knew Kara said
she was very considerate and often overly cautious. For example,
she always locked her doors and never picked up hitchhikers.
Just before eight pm that night, she called her parents,
who lived forty five minutes away, to let them know
she was coming home, but she never arrived. Kara Nott's
(03:20):
family set out to find her that very night. Around
five point thirty in the morning, they found her car
parked off of the Mercy Road off ramp. Three hours later,
police found her body strangled and thrown from a bridge,
but there was no sign of sexual assault or robbery.
The passenger door was locked, but the driver's side window
(03:41):
was partially rolled down. Earlier that night, a witness saw
a police officer pull over a car at the Mercy
Road off ramp. They described it as a VW light blue.
Kara drove a white VW and just before ten pm
that night, two women said they saw a police officer
named Craig Pyre at a nearby gas station. He had
(04:03):
blood and scratches all over his face, and according to them,
he was acting incredibly nervous. When he returned to the
police station a half hour later, his co workers say
he was quote bloody and disheveled. He told them he
had slipped and fallen into a chain link fence while
getting gas. Pyre had been with the California Highway Patrol
(04:23):
for thirteen years, and by all accounts, his career was
the most important thing to him. Pyre's fellow officers called
him quote hot pencil. This was because he gave out
more traffic tickets than anyone else, about two hundred fifty
per month. He would often rant to his colleagues about
highway safety and keeping the public safe. Soon, though, it
(04:44):
was revealed that there were two sides to Officer Pyre.
There was devoted police officer and something else, something more nefarious.
The California Highway Patrol was getting reports from young women
that he pulled over, saying he was engaging in off
putting behavior. After pulling them over, he would sometimes order
them to his favorite spot off the I fifteen Freeway.
(05:07):
At that point he would ask them about their love lives,
or sometimes get into their cars and take them on
rides deeper down a vacant lane called Mercy Road. Two
days after her murder, Officer Pyre appeared on a TV
news special giving tips on how to stay safe as
a driver at night. Scratches were still visible on his
face as he talked, and on January fifteenth, nineteen eighty seven,
(05:31):
Craig Pyre was charged and arrested for Karenat's murder. After
two trials, he was convicted and sentenced to twenty five
years to life. But to this day, Pyre, his family,
and his friends all claim he would never commit such
a violent act. However, others claim differently. And so what
happened to Karen Not? Was Officer Craig Pyre actually guilty?
(05:55):
And what does the debate surrounding his guilt tell us
about the reliability of evidence versus witness testimony?
Speaker 2 (06:06):
So the murder of Karen Not brings up a ton
of questions, questions about procedure, evidence. The list goes on
and on, and today we have an expert with us
on all of these things. His name is Jim Trainham
and he's a retired homicide detective for Washington, d C's
Metropolitan Police Department. But his resume goes far beyond that.
(06:31):
He's written a book called How the Police Generate False
Confessions and he is a recipient of the Ethics and
Law Enforcement Award. Jim A. Komo may are welcome to
Facing Evil.
Speaker 4 (06:43):
Well, thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
So I just told our listeners just a tiny bit
about you, but I am hoping that you can tell
us a little bit more about your career and how
you got started and how you got into doing all
of this today.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Well, I spent over half of my twenty seven years
with PC as a police department in the homicide branch,
and what happened early in my homicide career actually shaped
the rest of my life, really and that was in
a very high profile case, one of the first cases
I had, I obtained a false confession from a totally
(07:22):
innocent person, and I did so using the standard interrogation
techniques that we were taught, and that would pass muster
in any courtroom in this country. And I wanted to
find out not only how did I convince this person
to confess to a crime that they didn't commit, but
(07:43):
also how did they know all the details about the
crime that, as we love to say, only the true
perpetrator would have known. And so that kind of started
me into looking into how things like confirmation bias and
other factors can adversely influence the way that we do investigations.
(08:05):
And so I began teaching other law enforcement officers how
to avoid the same mistakes that I made, and I
began working on other alleged wrongful conviction cases doing case
reviews in general, and yeah, I was just finding out
there is so much that when it comes to how
(08:25):
we analyze evidence, so oftentimes we make mistakes and the
way because of the way that we think and the
way that we process, and and also other pressures like
the pressure to close the case quickly and things along
that line. So since I retired in twenty ten, I
(08:47):
began to use what I learned in reviewing cases not
only active murder cases cold cases, but also cases that
were alleged wrongful convictions. Testified in several of those cases.
That's all around the country, and I continue to teach
and learn as well. I'm still taking classes. In fact,
(09:09):
I'm taking more coming up very soon from the UK
on basically how to think like a detective.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Something we wow even though it's something you already know,
but you can always evolve and already learn.
Speaker 4 (09:22):
Right, there's so much out there that, like I said,
we're basically taught the mechanics of how to do our job,
but there's so much lacking in how to think about
how to do our job. And that's one thing that
they excel in and over there, and so I'm hoping
to use that in order to help create more training
(09:43):
programs and help improve long coork practices here in the US.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
Beautiful. I love that, Jim. That's so powerful that you
said that, because you know you're retired, but yet you're
still evolving and still learning. And I just do have
one question. When you were talking about the technique. I
was listening to you on a podcast and it was
called the Trust and Justice podcast, and you were talking
about that particular technique, which was the read technique, And
(10:12):
is that what you were taught early on? You know,
in the very beginning when you got that false confession.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
Yes, I was taught not only the read technique. But
you know, the thing is, there's a lot of different
interrogation schools out there, but the majority of them teach
a variation of it, and it's an accusatory approach, and unfortunately,
the way that it's designed, they promote it as a
way of getting to the truth, but unfortunately, the way
(10:40):
it's set up, you're trying to get to the truth
that you believed it to be, and so what you're
looking for so much is not information but confirmation. And
if you happen to have the wrong person to begin with,
then you know, that just sends you further down the
wrong path.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
Right.
Speaker 4 (10:59):
There's been this movement within the criminal justice system that
they're trying to set up what they call the sentinel
event reviews. It's like, if there is a failure of
some sort, either maybe a case goes unsolved or a
wrongful conviction, rather than look at the individual causes like
(11:20):
we're so good at and blaming individual people, we're trying
to look at the big picture because let's say, like
in my case, you know, yes I got a false confession,
but you know, let's also look at all the other
things that influenced my decision. At the time, there was
some faulty forensics or supervision pressure to close the case.
(11:41):
It is a high profile case, things along that line.
And so when you look at the big picture and
understand all the contributing factors and you're transparent about it,
then not only can you work to correct all of
those things that contribute it to the problem, but you
also gain more trust from the pals the cards. You're
willing to admit that, yes, we made a mistake, here's
(12:04):
a mistake, and this is what we're going to do
to fix it. I believe that's the way in the
future to go towards helping to resolve the trust issue
that we have.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Absolutely, so let's just jump right into it. Let's talk
(12:37):
about Karen Not How familiar were you with this case?
You know, for us, like when we first started researching
this case, immediately you think the CHP officer he had
to have done it. Was that your first reaction as well?
Speaker 4 (12:54):
Well, it's never my first reaction. I reviewed all of
the public information that's out there as much as possible.
I've dug into it as much as I can, and
so I haven't been privy to a lot of the
internal reports and things like that that oftentimes offer really
important nuggets. But when I start looking at a case,
I don't really have any preconceived notions as to whether
(13:17):
or not it's him. I'm going to look at the
evidence and see, first off, the evidence, was it obtained
reliably and was it analyzed properly because that's where you
tend to have your failures, and so going into it, Yes,
he was convicted and all of that, But I've worked
a lot of cases where it looks like a slam
dunk at the beginning, but once you get into the
(13:40):
nitty gritty of it, the evidence kind of starts to
not be as clear as people try to make it
out to be.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
So Jim, with all of that being said, full transparency,
I am married to a retired police officer. You know,
She's asked me not to say what cities she worked for,
but she did work in the state of California. But
I was talking to her about this case and I
told her we were interviewing you, and I was like, Babe, like,
(14:09):
what do you think, Like do you think like one?
Like why would the DCHP officer you know, pull Kara
not over and like, why would he be driven to
do this and then go if he did do it right,
and then go right back to the rest of his shift.
And she told me, she said, you know, I feel
like it's more common than we'd like to think because
(14:32):
it's about power. And I was like, really, like it
just for me, my mind doesn't think that way. So
do you think that it is about power?
Speaker 4 (14:44):
Looking at it at first, I try not to go
in there with that perception. That doesn't mean that I
haven't formed.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
An opinion, right, you're a human, yes.
Speaker 4 (14:52):
And the sports actually you know, have convicted him. Now,
this is a very circumstantial case. I mean, this is
old school they saw at the old school way. They
didn't have cell phone tracking stuff. You don't have surveillance videos,
you don't have you know, the DNA, all the stuff
that we rely on so heavily dissolved cases today, And
(15:13):
it is very circumstantial. However, it is a very strong
circumstantial case. Even if you want to discredit some of
the evidence that would no longer even be considered in
a court today, such as the evidence about the rope.
Forensic Dennis said that he was able to match the
(15:36):
rope that was found in the car to the marks
on her neck, and there were identical links and things
like that. All that stuff has pretty much been discredited.
I see, it's not you know, accepted as you know,
scientific evidence anymore. Fiber evidence is highly questionable, and there's
(15:58):
been a lot of abuse of finding about fiber evidence
in the pasting court. But even taking all that away,
my first thought is that, you know, this is probably
the first time he ever killed anybody. This is you know,
but we know, based on the evidence that he did
lure or did take several women down there, And if
(16:23):
I was a betting person, I would bet that at
some point in his career, you know, before all of this,
he actually engaged in sexual encounters down there, that this
was something that I mean, why would you keep doing it? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (16:39):
Right, Yeah, that's the point.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
If you failed, you know, each and every time, why
would you keep trying this? And in this case, something
just went wrong. Even though he was a patrol officer,
you know, he probably didn't have any comprehension about how
homicides are investigated about you know, what kind of clues
(17:02):
he could have left behind because he wasn't trained, He
didn't have any experience in that, and so I mean
he just panicked and he did his best to cover up.
But he didn't have any other option but go back
to work.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Right, to continue on like normal.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
But the fact is, though there were witnesses that actually
saw him. You know, there were people at the convenience
store of the gas station that saw him in there,
and they visibly saw scratches on his face. And there
was another witness that saw him take her down, you
know that Mercy Road or saw the car there. I mean,
(17:41):
doesn't that say like a whole lot right there? You know,
And then he goes on television and you know, gives
this statement with the scratches on his face. After he's
done this.
Speaker 4 (17:55):
He probably didn't have much of an option. I mean,
the scratches are there, and so he had explain them somehow.
I mean, he can't avoid that whatsoever. I mean, he
tried to cover his tracks. He tried to modify his
logs and things along that line in order to make
it look like he was somewhere else. He did what
he could. He did what he could to let's create
(18:17):
an alibi. However, some things he just could not hide. Yeah,
But like the TV thing. I mean, that was the
area that he patrolled. And so I suspect that his
supervisors just put him up and say, look, we want
you to do this. It's not like he volunteered for it,
and so he just had to put on a brave
face and go about it. And if he had refused
(18:39):
to do it, I think that would have caused more
immediate suspicion at the time.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Right. For sure. I do want to ask you, Jim,
and I know you were telling us about you know,
the fibers. Not that forensic evidence not necessarily holding up
in court today, but the other thing that I'm curious about,
so like would it be considered part of again, like
is this circumstantial evidence or is this actual forensic evidence?
(19:07):
The fact that Pire's blood type is a rare blood
type and is type AB and that was on Karra,
that's not just a coincidence.
Speaker 4 (19:18):
Right, Well, there's also circumstantial evidence, because it's not like
DNA today where you can say, like the odds of
it being anybody else is one in however many trillion
quad grillion or whatever along that line. You know that
blood type is about eighteen percent of the population. Uh,
And so that's that's a lot of people that it
(19:40):
could be. However, the defense attorney fallacy they call it,
is when you look at an isolated piece of evidence
and you try to discredit it, like they did by saying, look,
I s eighteen percent of the population. There could have
been thousands of people who could have left, or millions
of people who could have left that. But yeah, but
there weren't millions of people who were taking women down
(20:03):
into that area, who were acting inappropriately with them, who
were there that night, who did a B and C.
So all of that combined makes a very tight case, like.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
The perfect storm. As one of our former guests told us, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
It's so interesting to me. You know, I just want
to talk about the fibers, like, because you know, we
do know that from his little badge, you know, on
his uniform, that yellow fiber was actually found on karra.
Why can't they use fibers?
Speaker 4 (20:36):
Like?
Speaker 3 (20:36):
What is the argument against it? I guess I should say.
Speaker 4 (20:39):
The main argument is that one, it's kind of subjective,
it's based on a visual examination. That material could potentially
come from thousands of different sources and all of that.
But the problem has been is that examiners have overstepped
their bounds when they're testifying. Now, in this case, from
what I read, its pairs like, they didn't do that.
(21:01):
They said that they were visually similar. However, in the past,
other examiners have said, no, it's an exact match, or
I've never seen anything you know like this, right, and
so that's why, you know, fiber evidence what has led
to exonerations of the past, primarily because the examiners have
overstepped their balance, got it. However, in this case, from
(21:25):
my understanding, there was also the addition of the dye
in the fiber itself. The color die after matched up
right there. So not knowing anything about the die part,
you know, I would say that that that's a very
interesting piece of evidence right there, and so I'm not
(21:46):
really sure how admissible that would be today. But even
without that evidence, take the fiber evidence, throw it away,
you still have a yes, yes, I mean, I think
the behavioral evidence is one of the the strongest pieces
of circumstantial evidence. I mean, in looking at a diagram
of how the road was laid out and all of that,
(22:08):
him going down there on a regular basis, and really
there was no need for him to do that. I
would find fault with the supervisor at that point if
they had complaints, which they did, women down to that
isolated area. Well, first off, I mean for officers safety,
I don't know whether their policy is you're during that
(22:31):
time period. I was working as a uniform patrol officer
during that time period. If you had a traffic stop,
you called it in.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
Right, That's what my wife was saying, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (22:42):
You call it in because you want backup. Is for
your safety so that if something happens, they know who
you're stopping and where you are.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
And he didn't do that in this case, if I recall, right, I.
Speaker 4 (22:57):
Don't think he did it in a lot of the cases. Yeah,
because you're not going to spend you know, thirty minutes
talking to somebody like you did with a lot of
these women and all of that, because your supervisor is
going to call you out. So that should have been
a red flag if he got complaints from at least
two women that I know of, that he was taking
(23:18):
them down to that. Look, Plus, you don't want to
get yourself in an isolated spot, you know, where it's dark.
That just increases the danger to you. Right outside of
everything else, that should have been a huge red flag
for them to go, wait a minute, you know, why
are you doing.
Speaker 3 (23:35):
This doing our research? There was even like a you know,
a joke with other officers, you know, other CHP officers that, oh,
you know, how many people did you pull over today?
Speaker 2 (23:46):
He had a high rate, didn'ty.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
Yeah, he was known for pulling over and especially women.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
Well, that was also a different time.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Back then, true, it was the eighties.
Speaker 4 (23:56):
Yeah, I mean people would make jokes. Remember during that
time period or maybe maybe before, there was a dj
in DC that would do these a skit where it
would involve officers actually know, in certain terms, committing rape
during traffic stops. Yeah, they were making jokes about it, right,
(24:18):
And so I mean, as horrible as that was, that
that was kind of like, you know, something that people
really didn't take seriously. They make kind of made fun
of it, right, and that kind of makes like I said,
it makes me believe that he was at least successful
in having some kind of sexual conquest in the past,
(24:41):
and that's why he continued to follow this pattern. Right,
So it was basically a shotgun effect, you know, he
would just try it and it worked at work.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
So Jim, you know, one of our first episodes that
we did was a case in Hawaii about a young
woman by the name of Lisa Ao. And this was
in eighty two, and this is still an open case.
It had to do with supposedly a police officer or
somebody impersonating a police officer, where this young woman got
killed and she was left in the hills of Tantalus
(25:13):
and she was there for approximately about ten days. But
this goes to the question of forensics, right, there are
so many things that they did wrong in that case,
and now we're in eighty six with the Karenat case.
Right in that timeframe, would the forensics like had it
(25:35):
advanced at all in those four years, not all that much.
Speaker 4 (25:41):
I think the disadvantage that you had in eighty two
was the fact that the body wasn't found for quite
some time.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
Right, Yeah, ten days is a long time.
Speaker 3 (25:50):
And it was in the rain, and yes.
Speaker 4 (25:52):
Yes, but you also had that gap between you know,
when she went missing and when she was found. And
here you didn't have much of a.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Gap at all, No, because her family went out searching
for her asaph.
Speaker 4 (26:07):
And they had a lot of good luck. Yes, the
fact that she stopped at the gas station so they
were able to put up a timeline. But yeah, I
mean we were still I mean, stuff really had advanced
all that much during that time period. And also remember
different agencies had different provincic capabilities.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Yeah, that's JUNO, LUPD or CHP very different.
Speaker 4 (26:31):
I'd say, Yeah, we really don't have any kind of
standards across the country in law enforcement.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
Is it still that way now, Jim?
Speaker 4 (26:40):
It is still that way now. I mean it's not
like the UK, where they can come up with a
single set of operating procedures and best practices in all
of that. Here you've had eighteen thousand different kingdoms across
the country with different levels of capabilities, training and everything else,
(27:02):
and so sometimes it's just a look of a draw.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Yeah, it's so true. Though you have to think about that,
like they did have so much luck. I mean, of
course you don't want to think about it's lucky to find,
you know, a beautiful young human dead. But at least
they were able to find Kara and seemingly get closure
because you know, Officer Pyre was convicted. But all of
(27:30):
that put aside, I am curious, Jim. I mean, you've
alluded to the fact of course we think that, you know,
Pire may have sexually assaulted other people, but for all
intents and purposes, he wasn't convicted of anything prior to this.
What do we think would make a seemingly I know,
there's no such thing as normal, but a seemingly normal
(27:51):
CHP officer be capable of this.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
That's a hard question.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
It's not really a hard question. You know. Uh, one
is power. Yeah, power, It's possible. Like one of the
first encounters was one that was consensual, and I mean
that is possible. And so he just got this idea
in his mind that you know, hey, there are women
(28:20):
out there who are turned on by this, by coops
and all that sort of stuff, and there are women
who are attracted to male police officers and also vice versa.
But so yeah, I mean they're attracted to the power
thing and all of that. But for him to have
killed her, like I said, I think that something just
went totally wrong. He had no plans. Yeah, there's no
(28:43):
indication that he got any plans to do this whatsoever,
or that he would have done have done this again
in the future unless he got kind of caught up
in this situation. I just think whatever happened. He panicked
and he did what he did, and he just did
not know how to cope with it afterwards. You can
(29:04):
really get away with murder, I mean if you really
think about it. I mean, a stranger on stranger cases,
no connection with them, make sure nobody finds the body,
you know, that sort of stuff. But he didn't have
time to do all that now, so he had to
do something because he was also an nerve conference raint.
(29:43):
You know.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
Another thing that is really interesting is his family. You know,
his family really believed that he was innocent because they
truly believed that the evidence wasn't strong enough. What do
you think. I mean, I think we are all in
unison and of what we believe. But his family still
believes that he didn't do it because again, like you
(30:07):
said earlier, right, it was all circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 4 (30:11):
Before I went to homicide, I work burglary cases, and
I loved working burglary cases because there are a lot
like serial killers, oh, because there's no witnesses. You know,
because a burglary makes it's careful. They don't have to
commit the burglary, and so they do it in such
a way that if there's a witness there go back
off or whatever. And so typically what you do is
(30:33):
you rely on forensics, and you rely on patterns and
things along that line, circumstantial evidence if you tie them
to the stolen property because they sold it, stuff along
that line. And so people think circumstantial evidence is a
dirty word. It really isn't. You don't need to have
an eyewitness. You don't have an eyewitness, and a lot
(30:54):
of murder cases true, true, So that's the best you
can do. But of course you know they believe them,
just like the confirmation. But the confirmation bias just just
a clarifying case that people don't understand. What it is
is when you get a belief and then you begin
to search for evidence that confirms that belief rather than
(31:15):
search for evidence that you know impartially and so you're
very selective. And so a lot of times you'll see
family members on both sides whatever they will kind of
cherry pick, you know, what they.
Speaker 3 (31:31):
Want to hear and what they don't want.
Speaker 4 (31:33):
To cherry pick, you know, or kind of well she
said this this time and this that time. Well it
might not be relevant, it might not make any difference.
But because they come up with a little indistress, a
little discrepancy. They think that wipes away, you know, all
of the evidence right there.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
Yeah, which of course it does not does not.
Speaker 4 (31:55):
But I feel for them. I understand you know, uh,
what they're saying. And so they're victims too well of.
Speaker 2 (32:01):
Course, of course, of course, yes, I couldn't agree more.
With all the cases that we cover on facing evil,
we know that there's not only one victim. Ever, it
always affects all of the families involved, whether guilty or not.
And yeah, it can be heartbreaking at times, it absolutely is.
Speaker 3 (32:19):
It is because it changes lives on both.
Speaker 4 (32:22):
Ends, everybody's. But like in wrawful conviction cases and exonerations,
a lot of times you have the family members who
are just devastating. Yeah, because they have put so much
faith in the prosecution and in the police officers and justice.
The potential for exonerations first comes up. That's who they
(32:44):
turned to. And so a lot of times the cops
in a prosecutor wo say no, this is BS, it
is trying to pull some shady stuff. There's actually organizations
out there now that work with family members who are
going through this just to kind of help them through
the process, which is a good thing because that's isolated,
(33:04):
and everybody was concentrating on the person getting exonerated, but
nobody was thinking about the victim and the victims.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
Stanley, Yes, that's beautiful. I love the more support there
is out there for people going through anything. This especially,
I think is beautiful. Jim, I would like to ask,
with all of your expertise, can you tell us did
you agree with the final verdict.
Speaker 4 (33:29):
Based on the evidence that I've seen. I do agree
with the verdict that you know there is that beyond
a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Certainly.
Speaker 3 (33:40):
That's such an interesting question that Rasha ask And then
when you put that in there, because the fact is
that the jurors weren't they like seven to five the
first go around with him.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
So funny because I've actually had cases where it was
eleven to one jury for a conviction and then the
second time around it was a straight up acquittal. Really wow,
I think is a lot of times people will ask
me during a trial, what is the jury thinking? What
do you think about? I have no clue.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
If you can understand every single human on the face
of the planet, then maybe you'll have a clue.
Speaker 4 (34:13):
Yeah, probably not even then, but so much of it
depends on their own personal experiences. You know, their own
you know, biases and things along that line, you know,
their own life stuff. But also oftentimes, and I hate
to say it, you know, the way the evidence is presented.
(34:35):
I know that they switched attorneys, and so all of
that comes into play. That's why the system is so imperfect.
It's also one of the reasons why you know, I'm
not a believer in the death penalty, because there's so
many variable that go into a jury's verdict. As much
as they're told you're only supposed to consider the evidence,
(34:58):
each person considers differently, you know, based off their life.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
Yeah, right, their own experiences.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
We know that pire. He's been up for parole a
few times, right, and he's been given an opportunity to
present DNA to the Innocence Project. And I'll let you
speak to that, because I know you said you you've
worked with this particular nonprofit. But he has denied to
(35:29):
take it. Doesn't that say that I'm guilty?
Speaker 4 (35:32):
Well, not only has he he refused to take it,
but he also refuses to give an explanation as to why,
Oh he hasn't said why it's a clarifisse. I think
there's not just one innocence project. There are multiple ones
around the country, you.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
Know, Okay, okay, And I can.
Speaker 4 (35:49):
See why, like, on the surface, they may want to
look at this case, especially when they start seeing things
like you know, the evidence about the marks on the
neck in the fiber stuff, they might want to consider it.
But when it comes to DNA stuff, I mean, that's
the low hanging fruit for them. And you wouldn't believe
(36:10):
the number of cases that I've worked where there is
DNA evidence that could be tested, but the prosecutor fought
it too thin nail, mainly because we have this belief
in this country that verdicts should be final, that the
family shouldn't have to go through this stuff once it's
done gone. So that's something that you always have to
fight against. So if he's being offered a chance to
(36:34):
do something that could really potentially clear him one hundred
percent and he's refusing, I think that's good circumstantial evidence
in and of itself, But like I said, he's not
giving a reason. And you know, the other thing going
against him is all of these people who have been exonerated,
who've been up for multiple parole hearings. One of the
(36:54):
reasons that they oftentimes were refused parole was that they
kept saying, no, but I didn't do it. They want
them to accept the responsibility, but they won't do it.
In his case, he still says that he won't do it,
but he doesn't take the chance that's offered to him.
Speaker 2 (37:12):
To exonerate himself or to explain.
Speaker 4 (37:15):
I say that, but it might come back inclusive just
because of the way the evidence was kept, or all
kinds of things that might not allow testing of the evidence.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
You know, we always like to look for the light,
of course, on facing evil, and there have been a
few positive developments that came out of Kara's case. So
Sam Not, who was Kara's father, he lobbied to pass
a bill which at the time would have allowed women
motorists to stop at places that they felt more comfortable
(37:46):
or more safe being pulled over. Now, sadly, although it
didn't pass, I think it started the conversation. At least,
what do you think.
Speaker 4 (37:54):
I know that a lot of places, if you're pulled
over by an unmarked unit, that you're able to go
to a place that's well lit, that's safe. You know
that sort of thing, just because in the past they've
had people posing as police officers yep, who have the
lights and all that kind of stuff. Now, yeah, the car,
(38:14):
but the car isn't visibly marked. The problem is is
that you have a rogue coppier. So typically if you
have a unit that is highly marked as you know,
as a police officer, that sort of thing. But even
these days, you have the extra advantage of if you
are pulled over, you can get on your cell phone.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
We did not have that in nineteen eighty six.
Speaker 4 (38:36):
You did not have that. See one of the things
you can do. Okay, you're pulled over by the California
Highway Patrol, you can down nine one one saying I'm
being pulled over? Is this is this legit?
Speaker 2 (38:49):
I love that.
Speaker 3 (38:50):
I believe we can absolutely and you correct me if
I'm wrong. Give credit to Kara's father, Sam not again,
because he he fought for this. You know this eighty
three million dollar communication system that enforcement agencies now have
and emergency agencies have to help coordinate where you know
(39:13):
something may be going wrong. Unfortunately, you know, Karen didn't
have that back then.
Speaker 4 (39:19):
I would not have been aware of any kind of
system like that that existed. So you know, once you
have a problem like this, and once you identify, just
like I talked about before, you can then come up
with solutions to the problem. And oftentimes, you know, law
enforcement unfortunately is very slow to responding. You know, they
kind of dig their heels in. They're going to blame
(39:40):
it on the one individual rather than realize that this
could be part of a larger problem, or if we
did have the system in place, then this one individual
couldn't have done this anyway. And so a lot of
times it does take pressure from family members, from the media,
from politicians, and all of them. Law enforcement. They hate
(40:04):
two things basically the way things are and change is.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
That an oxymoron?
Speaker 4 (40:09):
Absolutely, So they're going to be you know, we don't
have a problem because we fired them. Well, yeah you do,
because anybody else could you know, do this similar you know,
falling into this pattern of inappropriately pulling over women and
engaging in inappropriate conversations with them. So there's a system
(40:30):
to that not only protects the driver, but also protects
the officer as well.
Speaker 2 (40:35):
I would love to know, because I see that that
glimmer and hope in your eyes. I would love to
know what light in the darkness of Care's story that
you can take away or give to our listeners.
Speaker 4 (40:55):
Well, you know, one of the things that you had
mentioned earlier is to mention that the family got closure. Yeah,
and unfortunately. I mean I work with a lot of families,
especially in these unsolved bases and all that, and I
would meet with them on a regular basis and talk
to them. And one of the things I kind of
cautioned them about is, you know, you're looking for closure,
(41:17):
but it's not going to come because you know you're
going to get a conviction. You know they're going to
go to jail, and your loved when it is still dead. Still. However,
I encourage them, just like with her father, to try to,
you know, do something meaningful. Now. It doesn't have to
(41:37):
be as big an event as what he did. But
it's just like there's organizations out there to support organizations
for other you know, crime victims and you know family
members of homicide victims and things like that, and they
can help you with your pain. But you can also
(41:58):
turn around and share your experience with other people who
are also in that similar situation, and you can turn
this around and actually, you know, help somebody else and
do good and make that part of your loved one's memory.
I don't care what they were doing when they died.
I don't care you know about any of that stuff.
It's still a tragedy. And you can still improve somebody's
(42:21):
life or improve the system. Yes, still going that extra mile.
Body together and working as a group.
Speaker 3 (42:28):
So beautifully said, paying it forward and working together. Jim,
It's been a true honor to have you on this show.
Thank you for being here with us today.
Speaker 4 (42:39):
Well my pleasure and I hope that I did add
something to this case and kind of explained a few things,
and thank you for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (42:54):
Today's EMA is dedicated to Kara's parents, Sam and Joyce,
and the entire no Ohanna. After her death, Kara's father,
Sam Knott, successfully lobbied for a bill that allowed women
to stop at places they felt most comfortable when being
pulled over. Instead, the state Senate voted in a bill
that further punished drivers for not pulling over us directed sadly.
Speaker 3 (43:19):
But Sam Knott he persisted, and he convinced several local
law enforcement agencies to change the way they handled nighttime
stops for women.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
And because of Sam Knot's work, San Diego County now
has an eighty three million dollar communication system that allows
law enforcement to communicate with emergency services in a way
that wasn't possible on the night.
Speaker 3 (43:43):
That Kara was killed. And the memorial nature preserve where
he planted and raised oak trees from acorns is still there.
It is called the Kara Nut and San Diego Crime
Victim's Oak Garden.
Speaker 2 (43:58):
Today's final message of hope, and he goes out to
the memory of Sam Knot as well as to Joyce
Nott and the rest of the family who, in the
aftermath of the worst tragedy of their lives, persisted for justice,
persisted for hope, and persisted for humanity. Onward and upward. Emua, Emua. Well,
(44:29):
that's our show for today. We'd love to hear what
you thought about today's discussion and if there's a case
you'd like for us to.
Speaker 3 (44:36):
Cover, find us on social media or email us at
Facingevil pod at Tenderfoot dot tv.
Speaker 2 (44:42):
And one small request if you haven't already, please find
us on iTunes and give us a good rating and
a good review.
Speaker 3 (44:49):
If you like what we do.
Speaker 2 (44:50):
Your support is always cherished.
Speaker 3 (44:53):
Until next time Aloha.
Speaker 1 (45:12):
Facing Evil is a production of iHeartRadio and tenderfoot TV.
The show is hosted by Russia Peccuerero and Avet Gentile.
Matt Frederick and Alex Williams our executive producers on behalf
of iHeartRadio, with producers Trevor Young and Jesse Funk, Donald
albright In Payne Lindsay our executive producers on behalf of
(45:32):
Tenderfoot TV, alongside producer Tracy Kaplan. Our researcher is Carolyn Talmadge.
Original music by Makeup and Vanity Set. Find us on
social media or email us at facingevilpod at tenderfoot dot tv.
For more podcasts from iHeartRadio or Tenderfoot TV, visit the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
(45:56):
favorite shows,
You're listening to Facing Evil, a production of iHeartRadio and
Tenderfoot TV. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast
are solely those of the individuals participating in the show
and do not represent those of iHeartRadio or Tenderfoot TV.
This podcast contains subject matter which may not be suitable
for everyone. Listener discretion is advised.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Hello, everyone, welcome back to Facing Evil. I'm Rossia Faccerrero.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
And I'm Evet gente Lay. This week we are talking
about the murder of Karen Not and this case is
it's a very surreal and creepy one because it's one
of those where you say, this could totally happen to
any one of us. It's when the person you trust
in to protect you ends up being the person you
(00:55):
should be the most afraid of.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
Yeah, sadly, you're so, writ Evet. And of course, for
those of you who have been with us from episode
number one, this case, at least for Yvetni, reminds us
of our very first case from our hometown and Honolulu, Javaii,
the cold case of Lisa Ao. And it's sad this
(01:18):
was only four years later after the case of Lisa
Ao happened Lisa Ao is still a cold case. She
was murdered on the side of the road in nineteen
eighty two and this happened in nineteen eighty six. But
there's differences in this one. And we get to talk
to an amazing expert who's going to walk us through
the entire case. And his name is Jim Treinam. He
(01:42):
is an expert in forensic evidence and criminal procedure and
he's going to talk to us about everything, and so
thankful he's such an open book and an open heart.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Yes, and it's going to be an amazing conversation. But
now our Trevor is going to walk us through today's case.
A twenty year old San Diego State student was murdered
by an on duty CHP officer in the North County.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
The main unanswered question is is how she was able
to be either duped or or con in. Who's stopping
and we don't know why. It was two and a
half weeks after the murder that homicide detectives went to
pyrs Powway home and led him away in handcuffs. Every
day of the trial has been like attending Kara's funeral,
(02:31):
over and over and over again.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Karen Nott was a twenty year old woman who was
mysteriously found dead in nineteen eighty six in a ravine
near San Diego, California. Nott was a student at San
Diego State University. She had plans to get her doctorate
and become a teacher. On the night of December twenty seventh,
nineteen eighty six, she was visiting her boyfriend in Escondido
(02:57):
who was sick with the flu. Who knew Kara said
she was very considerate and often overly cautious. For example,
she always locked her doors and never picked up hitchhikers.
Just before eight pm that night, she called her parents,
who lived forty five minutes away, to let them know
she was coming home, but she never arrived. Kara Nott's
(03:20):
family set out to find her that very night. Around
five point thirty in the morning, they found her car
parked off of the Mercy Road off ramp. Three hours later,
police found her body strangled and thrown from a bridge,
but there was no sign of sexual assault or robbery.
The passenger door was locked, but the driver's side window
(03:41):
was partially rolled down. Earlier that night, a witness saw
a police officer pull over a car at the Mercy
Road off ramp. They described it as a VW light blue.
Kara drove a white VW and just before ten pm
that night, two women said they saw a police officer
named Craig Pyre at a nearby gas station. He had
(04:03):
blood and scratches all over his face, and according to them,
he was acting incredibly nervous. When he returned to the
police station a half hour later, his co workers say
he was quote bloody and disheveled. He told them he
had slipped and fallen into a chain link fence while
getting gas. Pyre had been with the California Highway Patrol
(04:23):
for thirteen years, and by all accounts, his career was
the most important thing to him. Pyre's fellow officers called
him quote hot pencil. This was because he gave out
more traffic tickets than anyone else, about two hundred fifty
per month. He would often rant to his colleagues about
highway safety and keeping the public safe. Soon, though, it
(04:44):
was revealed that there were two sides to Officer Pyre.
There was devoted police officer and something else, something more nefarious.
The California Highway Patrol was getting reports from young women
that he pulled over, saying he was engaging in off
putting behavior. After pulling them over, he would sometimes order
them to his favorite spot off the I fifteen Freeway.
(05:07):
At that point he would ask them about their love lives,
or sometimes get into their cars and take them on
rides deeper down a vacant lane called Mercy Road. Two
days after her murder, Officer Pyre appeared on a TV
news special giving tips on how to stay safe as
a driver at night. Scratches were still visible on his
face as he talked, and on January fifteenth, nineteen eighty seven,
(05:31):
Craig Pyre was charged and arrested for Karenat's murder. After
two trials, he was convicted and sentenced to twenty five
years to life. But to this day, Pyre, his family,
and his friends all claim he would never commit such
a violent act. However, others claim differently. And so what
happened to Karen Not? Was Officer Craig Pyre actually guilty?
(05:55):
And what does the debate surrounding his guilt tell us
about the reliability of evidence versus witness testimony?
Speaker 2 (06:06):
So the murder of Karen Not brings up a ton
of questions, questions about procedure, evidence. The list goes on
and on, and today we have an expert with us
on all of these things. His name is Jim Trainham
and he's a retired homicide detective for Washington, d C's
Metropolitan Police Department. But his resume goes far beyond that.
(06:31):
He's written a book called How the Police Generate False
Confessions and he is a recipient of the Ethics and
Law Enforcement Award. Jim A. Komo may are welcome to
Facing Evil.
Speaker 4 (06:43):
Well, thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (06:45):
So I just told our listeners just a tiny bit
about you, but I am hoping that you can tell
us a little bit more about your career and how
you got started and how you got into doing all
of this today.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Well, I spent over half of my twenty seven years
with PC as a police department in the homicide branch,
and what happened early in my homicide career actually shaped
the rest of my life, really and that was in
a very high profile case, one of the first cases
I had, I obtained a false confession from a totally
(07:22):
innocent person, and I did so using the standard interrogation
techniques that we were taught, and that would pass muster
in any courtroom in this country. And I wanted to
find out not only how did I convince this person
to confess to a crime that they didn't commit, but
(07:43):
also how did they know all the details about the
crime that, as we love to say, only the true
perpetrator would have known. And so that kind of started
me into looking into how things like confirmation bias and
other factors can adversely influence the way that we do investigations.
(08:05):
And so I began teaching other law enforcement officers how
to avoid the same mistakes that I made, and I
began working on other alleged wrongful conviction cases doing case
reviews in general, and yeah, I was just finding out
there is so much that when it comes to how
(08:25):
we analyze evidence, so oftentimes we make mistakes and the
way because of the way that we think and the
way that we process, and and also other pressures like
the pressure to close the case quickly and things along
that line. So since I retired in twenty ten, I
(08:47):
began to use what I learned in reviewing cases not
only active murder cases cold cases, but also cases that
were alleged wrongful convictions. Testified in several of those cases.
That's all around the country, and I continue to teach
and learn as well. I'm still taking classes. In fact,
(09:09):
I'm taking more coming up very soon from the UK
on basically how to think like a detective.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
Something we wow even though it's something you already know,
but you can always evolve and already learn.
Speaker 4 (09:22):
Right, there's so much out there that, like I said,
we're basically taught the mechanics of how to do our job,
but there's so much lacking in how to think about
how to do our job. And that's one thing that
they excel in and over there, and so I'm hoping
to use that in order to help create more training
(09:43):
programs and help improve long coork practices here in the US.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
Beautiful. I love that, Jim. That's so powerful that you
said that, because you know you're retired, but yet you're
still evolving and still learning. And I just do have
one question. When you were talking about the technique. I
was listening to you on a podcast and it was
called the Trust and Justice podcast, and you were talking
about that particular technique, which was the read technique, And
(10:12):
is that what you were taught early on? You know,
in the very beginning when you got that false confession.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
Yes, I was taught not only the read technique. But
you know, the thing is, there's a lot of different
interrogation schools out there, but the majority of them teach
a variation of it, and it's an accusatory approach, and unfortunately,
the way that it's designed, they promote it as a
way of getting to the truth, but unfortunately, the way
(10:40):
it's set up, you're trying to get to the truth
that you believed it to be, and so what you're
looking for so much is not information but confirmation. And
if you happen to have the wrong person to begin with,
then you know, that just sends you further down the
wrong path.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
Right.
Speaker 4 (10:59):
There's been this movement within the criminal justice system that
they're trying to set up what they call the sentinel
event reviews. It's like, if there is a failure of
some sort, either maybe a case goes unsolved or a
wrongful conviction, rather than look at the individual causes like
(11:20):
we're so good at and blaming individual people, we're trying
to look at the big picture because let's say, like
in my case, you know, yes I got a false confession,
but you know, let's also look at all the other
things that influenced my decision. At the time, there was
some faulty forensics or supervision pressure to close the case.
(11:41):
It is a high profile case, things along that line.
And so when you look at the big picture and
understand all the contributing factors and you're transparent about it,
then not only can you work to correct all of
those things that contribute it to the problem, but you
also gain more trust from the pals the cards. You're
willing to admit that, yes, we made a mistake, here's
(12:04):
a mistake, and this is what we're going to do
to fix it. I believe that's the way in the
future to go towards helping to resolve the trust issue
that we have.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Absolutely, so let's just jump right into it. Let's talk
(12:37):
about Karen Not How familiar were you with this case?
You know, for us, like when we first started researching
this case, immediately you think the CHP officer he had
to have done it. Was that your first reaction as well?
Speaker 4 (12:54):
Well, it's never my first reaction. I reviewed all of
the public information that's out there as much as possible.
I've dug into it as much as I can, and
so I haven't been privy to a lot of the
internal reports and things like that that oftentimes offer really
important nuggets. But when I start looking at a case,
I don't really have any preconceived notions as to whether
(13:17):
or not it's him. I'm going to look at the
evidence and see, first off, the evidence, was it obtained
reliably and was it analyzed properly because that's where you
tend to have your failures, and so going into it, Yes,
he was convicted and all of that, But I've worked
a lot of cases where it looks like a slam
dunk at the beginning, but once you get into the
(13:40):
nitty gritty of it, the evidence kind of starts to
not be as clear as people try to make it
out to be.
Speaker 2 (13:49):
So Jim, with all of that being said, full transparency,
I am married to a retired police officer. You know,
She's asked me not to say what cities she worked for,
but she did work in the state of California. But
I was talking to her about this case and I
told her we were interviewing you, and I was like, Babe, like,
(14:09):
what do you think, Like do you think like one?
Like why would the DCHP officer you know, pull Kara
not over and like, why would he be driven to
do this and then go if he did do it right,
and then go right back to the rest of his shift.
And she told me, she said, you know, I feel
like it's more common than we'd like to think because
(14:32):
it's about power. And I was like, really, like it
just for me, my mind doesn't think that way. So
do you think that it is about power?
Speaker 4 (14:44):
Looking at it at first, I try not to go
in there with that perception. That doesn't mean that I
haven't formed.
Speaker 2 (14:49):
An opinion, right, you're a human, yes.
Speaker 4 (14:52):
And the sports actually you know, have convicted him. Now,
this is a very circumstantial case. I mean, this is
old school they saw at the old school way. They
didn't have cell phone tracking stuff. You don't have surveillance videos,
you don't have you know, the DNA, all the stuff
that we rely on so heavily dissolved cases today, And
(15:13):
it is very circumstantial. However, it is a very strong
circumstantial case. Even if you want to discredit some of
the evidence that would no longer even be considered in
a court today, such as the evidence about the rope.
Forensic Dennis said that he was able to match the
(15:36):
rope that was found in the car to the marks
on her neck, and there were identical links and things
like that. All that stuff has pretty much been discredited.
I see, it's not you know, accepted as you know,
scientific evidence anymore. Fiber evidence is highly questionable, and there's
(15:58):
been a lot of abuse of finding about fiber evidence
in the pasting court. But even taking all that away,
my first thought is that, you know, this is probably
the first time he ever killed anybody. This is you know,
but we know, based on the evidence that he did
lure or did take several women down there, And if
(16:23):
I was a betting person, I would bet that at
some point in his career, you know, before all of this,
he actually engaged in sexual encounters down there, that this
was something that I mean, why would you keep doing it? Yeah?
Speaker 2 (16:39):
Right, Yeah, that's the point.
Speaker 4 (16:40):
If you failed, you know, each and every time, why
would you keep trying this? And in this case, something
just went wrong. Even though he was a patrol officer,
you know, he probably didn't have any comprehension about how
homicides are investigated about you know, what kind of clues
(17:02):
he could have left behind because he wasn't trained, He
didn't have any experience in that, and so I mean
he just panicked and he did his best to cover up.
But he didn't have any other option but go back
to work.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Right, to continue on like normal.
Speaker 3 (17:19):
But the fact is, though there were witnesses that actually
saw him. You know, there were people at the convenience
store of the gas station that saw him in there,
and they visibly saw scratches on his face. And there
was another witness that saw him take her down, you
know that Mercy Road or saw the car there. I mean,
(17:41):
doesn't that say like a whole lot right there? You know,
And then he goes on television and you know, gives
this statement with the scratches on his face. After he's
done this.
Speaker 4 (17:55):
He probably didn't have much of an option. I mean,
the scratches are there, and so he had explain them somehow.
I mean, he can't avoid that whatsoever. I mean, he
tried to cover his tracks. He tried to modify his
logs and things along that line in order to make
it look like he was somewhere else. He did what
he could. He did what he could to let's create
(18:17):
an alibi. However, some things he just could not hide. Yeah,
But like the TV thing. I mean, that was the
area that he patrolled. And so I suspect that his
supervisors just put him up and say, look, we want
you to do this. It's not like he volunteered for it,
and so he just had to put on a brave
face and go about it. And if he had refused
(18:39):
to do it, I think that would have caused more
immediate suspicion at the time.
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Right. For sure. I do want to ask you, Jim,
and I know you were telling us about you know,
the fibers. Not that forensic evidence not necessarily holding up
in court today, but the other thing that I'm curious about,
so like would it be considered part of again, like
is this circumstantial evidence or is this actual forensic evidence?
(19:07):
The fact that Pire's blood type is a rare blood
type and is type AB and that was on Karra,
that's not just a coincidence.
Speaker 4 (19:18):
Right, Well, there's also circumstantial evidence, because it's not like
DNA today where you can say, like the odds of
it being anybody else is one in however many trillion
quad grillion or whatever along that line. You know that
blood type is about eighteen percent of the population. Uh,
And so that's that's a lot of people that it
(19:40):
could be. However, the defense attorney fallacy they call it,
is when you look at an isolated piece of evidence
and you try to discredit it, like they did by saying, look,
I s eighteen percent of the population. There could have
been thousands of people who could have left, or millions
of people who could have left that. But yeah, but
there weren't millions of people who were taking women down
(20:03):
into that area, who were acting inappropriately with them, who
were there that night, who did a B and C.
So all of that combined makes a very tight case, like.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
The perfect storm. As one of our former guests told us, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:19):
It's so interesting to me. You know, I just want
to talk about the fibers, like, because you know, we
do know that from his little badge, you know, on
his uniform, that yellow fiber was actually found on karra.
Why can't they use fibers?
Speaker 4 (20:36):
Like?
Speaker 3 (20:36):
What is the argument against it? I guess I should say.
Speaker 4 (20:39):
The main argument is that one, it's kind of subjective,
it's based on a visual examination. That material could potentially
come from thousands of different sources and all of that.
But the problem has been is that examiners have overstepped
their bounds when they're testifying. Now, in this case, from
what I read, its pairs like, they didn't do that.
(21:01):
They said that they were visually similar. However, in the past,
other examiners have said, no, it's an exact match, or
I've never seen anything you know like this, right, and
so that's why, you know, fiber evidence what has led
to exonerations of the past, primarily because the examiners have
overstepped their balance, got it. However, in this case, from
(21:25):
my understanding, there was also the addition of the dye
in the fiber itself. The color die after matched up
right there. So not knowing anything about the die part,
you know, I would say that that that's a very
interesting piece of evidence right there, and so I'm not
(21:46):
really sure how admissible that would be today. But even
without that evidence, take the fiber evidence, throw it away,
you still have a yes, yes, I mean, I think
the behavioral evidence is one of the the strongest pieces
of circumstantial evidence. I mean, in looking at a diagram
of how the road was laid out and all of that,
(22:08):
him going down there on a regular basis, and really
there was no need for him to do that. I
would find fault with the supervisor at that point if
they had complaints, which they did, women down to that
isolated area. Well, first off, I mean for officers safety,
I don't know whether their policy is you're during that
(22:31):
time period. I was working as a uniform patrol officer
during that time period. If you had a traffic stop,
you called it in.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
Right, That's what my wife was saying, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (22:42):
You call it in because you want backup. Is for
your safety so that if something happens, they know who
you're stopping and where you are.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
And he didn't do that in this case, if I recall, right, I.
Speaker 4 (22:57):
Don't think he did it in a lot of the cases. Yeah,
because you're not going to spend you know, thirty minutes
talking to somebody like you did with a lot of
these women and all of that, because your supervisor is
going to call you out. So that should have been
a red flag if he got complaints from at least
two women that I know of, that he was taking
(23:18):
them down to that. Look, Plus, you don't want to
get yourself in an isolated spot, you know, where it's dark.
That just increases the danger to you. Right outside of
everything else, that should have been a huge red flag
for them to go, wait a minute, you know, why
are you doing.
Speaker 3 (23:35):
This doing our research? There was even like a you know,
a joke with other officers, you know, other CHP officers that, oh,
you know, how many people did you pull over today?
Speaker 2 (23:46):
He had a high rate, didn'ty.
Speaker 3 (23:47):
Yeah, he was known for pulling over and especially women.
Speaker 4 (23:52):
Well, that was also a different time.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
Back then, true, it was the eighties.
Speaker 4 (23:56):
Yeah, I mean people would make jokes. Remember during that
time period or maybe maybe before, there was a dj
in DC that would do these a skit where it
would involve officers actually know, in certain terms, committing rape
during traffic stops. Yeah, they were making jokes about it, right,
(24:18):
And so I mean, as horrible as that was, that
that was kind of like, you know, something that people
really didn't take seriously. They make kind of made fun
of it, right, and that kind of makes like I said,
it makes me believe that he was at least successful
in having some kind of sexual conquest in the past,
(24:41):
and that's why he continued to follow this pattern. Right,
So it was basically a shotgun effect, you know, he
would just try it and it worked at work.
Speaker 3 (24:50):
So Jim, you know, one of our first episodes that
we did was a case in Hawaii about a young
woman by the name of Lisa Ao. And this was
in eighty two, and this is still an open case.
It had to do with supposedly a police officer or
somebody impersonating a police officer, where this young woman got
killed and she was left in the hills of Tantalus
(25:13):
and she was there for approximately about ten days. But
this goes to the question of forensics, right, there are
so many things that they did wrong in that case,
and now we're in eighty six with the Karenat case.
Right in that timeframe, would the forensics like had it
(25:35):
advanced at all in those four years, not all that much.
Speaker 4 (25:41):
I think the disadvantage that you had in eighty two
was the fact that the body wasn't found for quite
some time.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
Right, Yeah, ten days is a long time.
Speaker 3 (25:50):
And it was in the rain, and yes.
Speaker 4 (25:52):
Yes, but you also had that gap between you know,
when she went missing and when she was found. And
here you didn't have much of a.
Speaker 3 (26:02):
Gap at all, No, because her family went out searching
for her asaph.
Speaker 4 (26:07):
And they had a lot of good luck. Yes, the
fact that she stopped at the gas station so they
were able to put up a timeline. But yeah, I
mean we were still I mean, stuff really had advanced
all that much during that time period. And also remember
different agencies had different provincic capabilities.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
Yeah, that's JUNO, LUPD or CHP very different.
Speaker 4 (26:31):
I'd say, Yeah, we really don't have any kind of
standards across the country in law enforcement.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:38):
Is it still that way now, Jim?
Speaker 4 (26:40):
It is still that way now. I mean it's not
like the UK, where they can come up with a
single set of operating procedures and best practices in all
of that. Here you've had eighteen thousand different kingdoms across
the country with different levels of capabilities, training and everything else,
(27:02):
and so sometimes it's just a look of a draw.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Yeah, it's so true. Though you have to think about that,
like they did have so much luck. I mean, of
course you don't want to think about it's lucky to find,
you know, a beautiful young human dead. But at least
they were able to find Kara and seemingly get closure
because you know, Officer Pyre was convicted. But all of
(27:30):
that put aside, I am curious, Jim. I mean, you've
alluded to the fact of course we think that, you know,
Pire may have sexually assaulted other people, but for all
intents and purposes, he wasn't convicted of anything prior to this.
What do we think would make a seemingly I know,
there's no such thing as normal, but a seemingly normal
(27:51):
CHP officer be capable of this.
Speaker 3 (27:55):
That's a hard question.
Speaker 4 (27:57):
It's not really a hard question. You know. Uh, one
is power. Yeah, power, It's possible. Like one of the
first encounters was one that was consensual, and I mean
that is possible. And so he just got this idea
in his mind that you know, hey, there are women
(28:20):
out there who are turned on by this, by coops
and all that sort of stuff, and there are women
who are attracted to male police officers and also vice versa.
But so yeah, I mean they're attracted to the power
thing and all of that. But for him to have
killed her, like I said, I think that something just
went totally wrong. He had no plans. Yeah, there's no
(28:43):
indication that he got any plans to do this whatsoever,
or that he would have done have done this again
in the future unless he got kind of caught up
in this situation. I just think whatever happened. He panicked
and he did what he did, and he just did
not know how to cope with it afterwards. You can
(29:04):
really get away with murder, I mean if you really
think about it. I mean, a stranger on stranger cases,
no connection with them, make sure nobody finds the body,
you know, that sort of stuff. But he didn't have
time to do all that now, so he had to
do something because he was also an nerve conference raint.
(29:43):
You know.
Speaker 3 (29:44):
Another thing that is really interesting is his family. You know,
his family really believed that he was innocent because they
truly believed that the evidence wasn't strong enough. What do
you think. I mean, I think we are all in
unison and of what we believe. But his family still
believes that he didn't do it because again, like you
(30:07):
said earlier, right, it was all circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 4 (30:11):
Before I went to homicide, I work burglary cases, and
I loved working burglary cases because there are a lot
like serial killers, oh, because there's no witnesses. You know,
because a burglary makes it's careful. They don't have to
commit the burglary, and so they do it in such
a way that if there's a witness there go back
off or whatever. And so typically what you do is
(30:33):
you rely on forensics, and you rely on patterns and
things along that line, circumstantial evidence if you tie them
to the stolen property because they sold it, stuff along
that line. And so people think circumstantial evidence is a
dirty word. It really isn't. You don't need to have
an eyewitness. You don't have an eyewitness, and a lot
(30:54):
of murder cases true, true, So that's the best you
can do. But of course you know they believe them,
just like the confirmation. But the confirmation bias just just
a clarifying case that people don't understand. What it is
is when you get a belief and then you begin
to search for evidence that confirms that belief rather than
(31:15):
search for evidence that you know impartially and so you're
very selective. And so a lot of times you'll see
family members on both sides whatever they will kind of
cherry pick, you know, what they.
Speaker 3 (31:31):
Want to hear and what they don't want.
Speaker 4 (31:33):
To cherry pick, you know, or kind of well she
said this this time and this that time. Well it
might not be relevant, it might not make any difference.
But because they come up with a little indistress, a
little discrepancy. They think that wipes away, you know, all
of the evidence right there.
Speaker 2 (31:52):
Yeah, which of course it does not does not.
Speaker 4 (31:55):
But I feel for them. I understand you know, uh,
what they're saying. And so they're victims too well of.
Speaker 2 (32:01):
Course, of course, of course, yes, I couldn't agree more.
With all the cases that we cover on facing evil,
we know that there's not only one victim. Ever, it
always affects all of the families involved, whether guilty or not.
And yeah, it can be heartbreaking at times, it absolutely is.
Speaker 3 (32:19):
It is because it changes lives on both.
Speaker 4 (32:22):
Ends, everybody's. But like in wrawful conviction cases and exonerations,
a lot of times you have the family members who
are just devastating. Yeah, because they have put so much
faith in the prosecution and in the police officers and justice.
The potential for exonerations first comes up. That's who they
(32:44):
turned to. And so a lot of times the cops
in a prosecutor wo say no, this is BS, it
is trying to pull some shady stuff. There's actually organizations
out there now that work with family members who are
going through this just to kind of help them through
the process, which is a good thing because that's isolated,
(33:04):
and everybody was concentrating on the person getting exonerated, but
nobody was thinking about the victim and the victims.
Speaker 2 (33:11):
Stanley, Yes, that's beautiful. I love the more support there
is out there for people going through anything. This especially,
I think is beautiful. Jim, I would like to ask,
with all of your expertise, can you tell us did
you agree with the final verdict.
Speaker 4 (33:29):
Based on the evidence that I've seen. I do agree
with the verdict that you know there is that beyond
a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Certainly.
Speaker 3 (33:40):
That's such an interesting question that Rasha ask And then
when you put that in there, because the fact is
that the jurors weren't they like seven to five the
first go around with him.
Speaker 4 (33:51):
So funny because I've actually had cases where it was
eleven to one jury for a conviction and then the
second time around it was a straight up acquittal. Really wow,
I think is a lot of times people will ask
me during a trial, what is the jury thinking? What
do you think about? I have no clue.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
If you can understand every single human on the face
of the planet, then maybe you'll have a clue.
Speaker 4 (34:13):
Yeah, probably not even then, but so much of it
depends on their own personal experiences. You know, their own
you know, biases and things along that line, you know,
their own life stuff. But also oftentimes, and I hate
to say it, you know, the way the evidence is presented.
(34:35):
I know that they switched attorneys, and so all of
that comes into play. That's why the system is so imperfect.
It's also one of the reasons why you know, I'm
not a believer in the death penalty, because there's so
many variable that go into a jury's verdict. As much
as they're told you're only supposed to consider the evidence,
(34:58):
each person considers differently, you know, based off their life.
Speaker 2 (35:03):
Yeah, right, their own experiences.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
We know that pire. He's been up for parole a
few times, right, and he's been given an opportunity to
present DNA to the Innocence Project. And I'll let you
speak to that, because I know you said you you've
worked with this particular nonprofit. But he has denied to
(35:29):
take it. Doesn't that say that I'm guilty?
Speaker 4 (35:32):
Well, not only has he he refused to take it,
but he also refuses to give an explanation as to why,
Oh he hasn't said why it's a clarifisse. I think
there's not just one innocence project. There are multiple ones
around the country, you.
Speaker 3 (35:47):
Know, Okay, okay, And I can.
Speaker 4 (35:49):
See why, like, on the surface, they may want to
look at this case, especially when they start seeing things
like you know, the evidence about the marks on the
neck in the fiber stuff, they might want to consider it.
But when it comes to DNA stuff, I mean, that's
the low hanging fruit for them. And you wouldn't believe
(36:10):
the number of cases that I've worked where there is
DNA evidence that could be tested, but the prosecutor fought
it too thin nail, mainly because we have this belief
in this country that verdicts should be final, that the
family shouldn't have to go through this stuff once it's
done gone. So that's something that you always have to
fight against. So if he's being offered a chance to
(36:34):
do something that could really potentially clear him one hundred
percent and he's refusing, I think that's good circumstantial evidence
in and of itself, But like I said, he's not
giving a reason. And you know, the other thing going
against him is all of these people who have been exonerated,
who've been up for multiple parole hearings. One of the
(36:54):
reasons that they oftentimes were refused parole was that they
kept saying, no, but I didn't do it. They want
them to accept the responsibility, but they won't do it.
In his case, he still says that he won't do it,
but he doesn't take the chance that's offered to him.
Speaker 2 (37:12):
To exonerate himself or to explain.
Speaker 4 (37:15):
I say that, but it might come back inclusive just
because of the way the evidence was kept, or all
kinds of things that might not allow testing of the evidence.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
You know, we always like to look for the light,
of course, on facing evil, and there have been a
few positive developments that came out of Kara's case. So
Sam Not, who was Kara's father, he lobbied to pass
a bill which at the time would have allowed women
motorists to stop at places that they felt more comfortable
(37:46):
or more safe being pulled over. Now, sadly, although it
didn't pass, I think it started the conversation. At least,
what do you think.
Speaker 4 (37:54):
I know that a lot of places, if you're pulled
over by an unmarked unit, that you're able to go
to a place that's well lit, that's safe. You know
that sort of thing, just because in the past they've
had people posing as police officers yep, who have the
lights and all that kind of stuff. Now, yeah, the car,
(38:14):
but the car isn't visibly marked. The problem is is
that you have a rogue coppier. So typically if you
have a unit that is highly marked as you know,
as a police officer, that sort of thing. But even
these days, you have the extra advantage of if you
are pulled over, you can get on your cell phone.
Speaker 2 (38:35):
We did not have that in nineteen eighty six.
Speaker 4 (38:36):
You did not have that. See one of the things
you can do. Okay, you're pulled over by the California
Highway Patrol, you can down nine one one saying I'm
being pulled over? Is this is this legit?
Speaker 2 (38:49):
I love that.
Speaker 3 (38:50):
I believe we can absolutely and you correct me if
I'm wrong. Give credit to Kara's father, Sam not again,
because he he fought for this. You know this eighty
three million dollar communication system that enforcement agencies now have
and emergency agencies have to help coordinate where you know
(39:13):
something may be going wrong. Unfortunately, you know, Karen didn't
have that back then.
Speaker 4 (39:19):
I would not have been aware of any kind of
system like that that existed. So you know, once you
have a problem like this, and once you identify, just
like I talked about before, you can then come up
with solutions to the problem. And oftentimes, you know, law
enforcement unfortunately is very slow to responding. You know, they
kind of dig their heels in. They're going to blame
(39:40):
it on the one individual rather than realize that this
could be part of a larger problem, or if we
did have the system in place, then this one individual
couldn't have done this anyway. And so a lot of
times it does take pressure from family members, from the media,
from politicians, and all of them. Law enforcement. They hate
(40:04):
two things basically the way things are and change is.
Speaker 2 (40:07):
That an oxymoron?
Speaker 4 (40:09):
Absolutely, So they're going to be you know, we don't
have a problem because we fired them. Well, yeah you do,
because anybody else could you know, do this similar you know,
falling into this pattern of inappropriately pulling over women and
engaging in inappropriate conversations with them. So there's a system
(40:30):
to that not only protects the driver, but also protects
the officer as well.
Speaker 2 (40:35):
I would love to know, because I see that that
glimmer and hope in your eyes. I would love to
know what light in the darkness of Care's story that
you can take away or give to our listeners.
Speaker 4 (40:55):
Well, you know, one of the things that you had
mentioned earlier is to mention that the family got closure. Yeah,
and unfortunately. I mean I work with a lot of families,
especially in these unsolved bases and all that, and I
would meet with them on a regular basis and talk
to them. And one of the things I kind of
cautioned them about is, you know, you're looking for closure,
(41:17):
but it's not going to come because you know you're
going to get a conviction. You know they're going to
go to jail, and your loved when it is still dead. Still. However,
I encourage them, just like with her father, to try to,
you know, do something meaningful. Now. It doesn't have to
(41:37):
be as big an event as what he did. But
it's just like there's organizations out there to support organizations
for other you know, crime victims and you know family
members of homicide victims and things like that, and they
can help you with your pain. But you can also
(41:58):
turn around and share your experience with other people who
are also in that similar situation, and you can turn
this around and actually, you know, help somebody else and
do good and make that part of your loved one's memory.
I don't care what they were doing when they died.
I don't care you know about any of that stuff.
It's still a tragedy. And you can still improve somebody's
(42:21):
life or improve the system. Yes, still going that extra mile.
Body together and working as a group.
Speaker 3 (42:28):
So beautifully said, paying it forward and working together. Jim,
It's been a true honor to have you on this show.
Thank you for being here with us today.
Speaker 4 (42:39):
Well my pleasure and I hope that I did add
something to this case and kind of explained a few things,
and thank you for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (42:54):
Today's EMA is dedicated to Kara's parents, Sam and Joyce,
and the entire no Ohanna. After her death, Kara's father,
Sam Knott, successfully lobbied for a bill that allowed women
to stop at places they felt most comfortable when being
pulled over. Instead, the state Senate voted in a bill
that further punished drivers for not pulling over us directed sadly.
Speaker 3 (43:19):
But Sam Knott he persisted, and he convinced several local
law enforcement agencies to change the way they handled nighttime
stops for women.
Speaker 2 (43:30):
And because of Sam Knot's work, San Diego County now
has an eighty three million dollar communication system that allows
law enforcement to communicate with emergency services in a way
that wasn't possible on the night.
Speaker 3 (43:43):
That Kara was killed. And the memorial nature preserve where
he planted and raised oak trees from acorns is still there.
It is called the Kara Nut and San Diego Crime
Victim's Oak Garden.
Speaker 2 (43:58):
Today's final message of hope, and he goes out to
the memory of Sam Knot as well as to Joyce
Nott and the rest of the family who, in the
aftermath of the worst tragedy of their lives, persisted for justice,
persisted for hope, and persisted for humanity. Onward and upward. Emua, Emua. Well,
(44:29):
that's our show for today. We'd love to hear what
you thought about today's discussion and if there's a case
you'd like for us to.
Speaker 3 (44:36):
Cover, find us on social media or email us at
Facingevil pod at Tenderfoot dot tv.
Speaker 2 (44:42):
And one small request if you haven't already, please find
us on iTunes and give us a good rating and
a good review.
Speaker 3 (44:49):
If you like what we do.
Speaker 2 (44:50):
Your support is always cherished.
Speaker 3 (44:53):
Until next time Aloha.
Speaker 1 (45:12):
Facing Evil is a production of iHeartRadio and tenderfoot TV.
The show is hosted by Russia Peccuerero and Avet Gentile.
Matt Frederick and Alex Williams our executive producers on behalf
of iHeartRadio, with producers Trevor Young and Jesse Funk, Donald
albright In Payne Lindsay our executive producers on behalf of
(45:32):
Tenderfoot TV, alongside producer Tracy Kaplan. Our researcher is Carolyn Talmadge.
Original music by Makeup and Vanity Set. Find us on
social media or email us at facingevilpod at tenderfoot dot tv.
For more podcasts from iHeartRadio or Tenderfoot TV, visit the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
(45:56):
favorite shows,
Popular Podcasts
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!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.