122 - Surprise! It’s Paul Holes

This week, crime journalist Billy Jensen joins Georgia and Karen for a Golden State Killer case update AND THEN PAUL HOLES SHOWS UP!!!

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:15):
Okay, okay, Well then then maybe we should start this
very special episode.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
This is the most special episode. Welcome to my.

Speaker 1 (00:24):
Favorite Murder the podcast where we.

Speaker 2 (00:28):
Go to a studio that we never go to and
record there where it feels really weird to professional.

Speaker 1 (00:34):
There's no cats, We're.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Wearing headphones, which is odd.

Speaker 1 (00:38):
Yeah, well here we are.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
But we have special guests. Yeah, we have special guests.

Speaker 1 (00:44):
Today, sir. When if we had guests, not a lot.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
I think Guy Brandon's been a guest.

Speaker 1 (00:50):
Huh.

Speaker 2 (00:50):
And that's it.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
And that's and our guest today has been a guest.

Speaker 2 (00:54):
Which is about to happen now now it is, Ladies
and gentlemen, please welcome mister Billy Johnson.

Speaker 3 (00:59):
Hello, ladies, how you doing? Hello, all your Murderino's out there.

Speaker 1 (01:02):
Hi, thanks for being here. This is a special episode.

Speaker 3 (01:06):
This is a special episode, and you guys are definitely
still jet lets.

Speaker 2 (01:11):
It's special because it's the first one we're recording back
from our European twenty eighteen European tour. That's right, which
was very exciting. Oh, the choir's here.

Speaker 1 (01:22):
Hold on a second, heng on close that door.

Speaker 2 (01:26):
Than we left the back door open. That's how much
we're not used to recording in the studio. Doors are open.

Speaker 1 (01:32):
Thanks, okay, thanks.

Speaker 2 (01:34):
So we're back from Europe.

Speaker 1 (01:35):
Back from Europe. We have jet lag, jet lag.

Speaker 2 (01:39):
Georgia has a cold cold.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
I'm gonna repeat everything you say.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
But but the fun part is this is we finally
get to do the episode where we like recap and
go back over the Golden State killer case arrest and
and then we have a very special call in guest. Yeah, surprise, right, Yeah,
we keep in a surprise.

Speaker 1 (02:02):
It's a surprise.

Speaker 3 (02:02):
Yeah, it's a surprise. We'll keep a surprise. Oh, I might,
I might when we introduce him all Oh, I already
said it was a hymn.

Speaker 2 (02:11):
Now that all know it's Paul Oh, I wanted it
to be Carol Daily. God, damn it.

Speaker 3 (02:17):
Where's Erica Hutcha?

Speaker 2 (02:21):
Well, well, Billy, what uh? Since this is your show?
What would you what is the foremost kind of update
piece of information of this case, since I guess since
the press conference is when we last talked.

Speaker 3 (02:36):
To you, there's not one thing is that this guy
really didn't have a lot of friends. He was not
you know. And what I did is it was so
strange when as soon as it happened, and you guys
are some of the first that I was talking to
when it was happening. When I found out at one
o'clock in the morning in the bed in Chicago, a
flip switched in my head and it was all about, Okay,

(02:57):
everything went away. Everything about the homework evidence and the
you know, his shoe patterns and all that, that all
went away, and it was all about build a timeline,
and it was all about what other crimes has he done?
So I've been reaching out and trying to find anybody
that might know this guy to build a timeline of
where he's been and then also what other crimes that
he's been that he could be involved with. And you know,

(03:18):
there's not a lot of people that were friendly with him.
We already we know from the people in Exeter that
he was kind of he very much kept himself on
the police force. Everybody would joke around pala a round
and he was kind of like very serious, very serious.
And you know, we're trying to track down his navy people.
I just you know, Ken and all the people in

(03:38):
the in the Sack police department, they're trying to track
down all these people. One of the things that I've
been doing just via Twitter and via a couple of
Facebook pages that I had launched when the book started.
Is having anybody reach out to me before it happened,
before he was caught. I had two people reach out
to me and say that they were actually they encountered

(04:00):
him at one point, and one woman said that he
broke into our house. It was right around the same
time period. He saw that she was there and heard
that there was somebody else in there, and he decided
not to do anything because it sounded like he didn't
realize somebody was in the house, and he just said
to her, you really need to fix your screen door.

Speaker 4 (04:18):
And then wow, WHOA.

Speaker 3 (04:20):
So I had that information. I said, well, can I
give that to the police, because did you file a
police report? She said, yes, I did it. I was like, well,
there might be something in that police report because we
had none of it. Me and Paul Haynes looked in
in Michelle's hard drive that we had none of that.
So we said, well, maybe they don't know about it either.
Maybe it just slid under the radar. Maybe there might
be something in there that oh, a neighbor saw this

(04:40):
kind of car and then it could lead to something.
So that was like three weeks before he was caught,
and it had nothing to do with it, because we
all know what happened. But since I've gotten a couple
of tweets at me, and I've talked to people and
interviewed them and realized that this guy very well might
have attacked people before he started.

Speaker 1 (05:02):
Everyone is kind of like, there's no way he started
at at thirty years old, right, yeah.

Speaker 3 (05:07):
And he you know, it's a very easy narrative, and
it's a very convenient narrative to say, Okay, he started
as the ransacker. He probably started as a peeper. Then
he started going into people's houses in a ransacking. Then
he decided to go on and rape people inside the
houses and then rape a person with a couple and
then ended up killing that. That makes sense to people

(05:30):
because there's that escalation. But what if he was attacking
people before that. A guy texted me and we've got
into this conversation. I talked to him every day now,
and his mother was attacked on the street. She was hitchhiking.
Her mother was attacked on the street, and he showed her,
you know, she was raped, and it was a possible murder.

(05:52):
It was an attempted murder. He actually drove over her.

Speaker 2 (05:54):
With his own Well wait, sorry, was this in Visalia?

Speaker 3 (05:57):
No, this wasn't in Visalia, but this was in I
don't want to I want to exactly say where it was,
but it was in town that he's been in and
it was before everything had happened that we knew about.
But it was around the time of the ransackers. Actually
it's I could be right before it and she had
never seen They never solved it, they never had any

(06:18):
you know, only had one suspect. But he didn't pan
out her. She's had tons of surgeries, you know, it's
really affected her. And she he showed her the picture
and she started to shake. She really thinks that she
had one hundred percent ida on this guy. Now, that
could be it. I don't want to mention a names

(06:39):
or names or anything like that. So, you know, I
hooked him up with the DA. I want to whether
it was him or not, I just want I want
to get this guy justice because it was a horrible
story and I'm going to get it out there. And
if it wasn't him, it was obviously somebody else. And
we're going to try and work on that. Whether they
kept the rape kit is the question, because we know

(06:59):
that Sacramento threw away the rape kits. Thank God for
Paul and Contra Costa that they kept.

Speaker 4 (07:03):
Those rape kits.

Speaker 3 (07:04):
Yeah, because they used to just throw stuff away because
the Statute of limitations was up.

Speaker 1 (07:09):
So I've been thinking a lot about the Statute of
limitations from this case, these all these cases and the
and them throwing the rape kits away because of the
Statute of limitations, And how now we're all testing these
old backlog rape kits, and you know, everyone wants to
fucking strangle the statute limitations. I wonder if there's someone
out there there's some way we can make it so

(07:29):
that if you hadn't tested it before the statute limitations
was up, you know, it can be extended somehow, because
it's not on you that the fucking rape kit wasn't
tested and run through the system.

Speaker 2 (07:41):
Yeah, the like the normal rules shouldn't apply, right because
the normal rules didn't apply.

Speaker 1 (07:47):
Right because the due diligence wasn't done.

Speaker 2 (07:50):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (07:50):
Yeah, I mean the fact that we now know that
now that the floodgates are open, and we've been screaming
for the rooftops that we should be doing familial DNA
and doing it this way for a while, which we'll
get into it, but the fact that that there's still
rape kits that haven't been tested, and now that they've
been tested and they profiles have been made, but are
what are they doing with those profiles and where are
they put it in? And it's such It's the biggest

(08:12):
travesty for me in American justice system is that, you know,
the trauma that somebody goes through from a sexual assault,
and then the trauma that you have to go through
for actually telling somebody, and then on top of that,
going through the exam and then having somebody just put
it in a locker for years and years. Yeah, not
only that and that person's justice, but it's the next
person's justice. It's the next woman or the next man's justice.

(08:34):
So you know, every one of those rape kits should
be running through familiar right now in my opinion.

Speaker 2 (08:39):
And also for the other reason we actually just talked
about this in some city we were in on the tour,
because it also is keeping free somebody who should not
be free. That's it's the the justice should be executed
on that rapist because that's that idea that this, well,
this happened, but you know it's not a priority or
it doesn't matter much. Where it's like it absolutely should

(09:02):
be just as much of a priority as murder. Right,
I mean the idea that that that has somehow you
know that the way people look at it is like
it's lesser crime, or that it's less than anything. That's
kind of the cool part about this story really coming
to the fore so much is like people hearing fifty

(09:22):
rapes in the seventies, and I think it's that, you know,
it's like it was a time where it was Okay,
it's calmed down, it's not that big an idea all
in your life.

Speaker 3 (09:31):
Yeah, and think about how many we still hear so
much about how many sexual assaults are not reported, about
how many sexual reports were not reported back then.

Speaker 5 (09:39):
Yeah, and the.

Speaker 3 (09:42):
Police officers, and we've talked about this, certain police officers
that don't you know, are not good with sexual sexual assaults,
especially back then when they were being reported.

Speaker 2 (09:50):
Yeah, and there's no training. There was no the idea
of sensitivity training was a joke.

Speaker 1 (09:54):
Right, And yes, rights advocates no such fucking thing.

Speaker 2 (09:57):
Yeah. Also, that makes me think of the fact that
it's you know, the bone chilling reveal that he was
a policeman in Auburn. Then you think, what if that
fucking guy was the guy that came to your house
after you were attacked. I mean, like it opens that door.
It's just like horror after horror with this with this case.

(10:19):
But like the idea that he was a person that
that had that much authority and power as an Auburn
policeman and that he was living this double life is
once again, this whole case is so cinematically dramatic and insane.

Speaker 1 (10:34):
It's almost two over the top.

Speaker 2 (10:35):
It's over the top.

Speaker 1 (10:36):
Do you is the strange wife coming forward at all?
Or she not speaking?

Speaker 3 (10:43):
She's not speaking now, neither is Bonnie.

Speaker 1 (10:47):
To the cops.

Speaker 3 (10:47):
I don't know if she's the cops or not. Yea,
we can we can talk.

Speaker 1 (10:51):
About that when she share our surprise guest, right that
you know?

Speaker 3 (10:56):
So yeah, no, well yeah, we might as well call
him now. But you know, so I had the opportunity
he was going to come to crime con anyway we
were doing. You know, crime con is like comic con
for crime. It was in Nashville. We were we had
two you know, presentations about the Golden State Killer, which
we had to completely tear up. We do, and I

(11:18):
really wanted to, you know, and we moved. The first
one was going to be just a deep dive into
the evidence and me and Paul Haynes were going to
go through and we're going to do this and that,
and we're going to say, like, you know what about
this piece of evidence. Now that's junk and this looks
like the best sketch and everything. So obviously that went
to hell. But it was going to be in a
small room. They said, now we got to move you
into the bigger room.

Speaker 2 (11:35):
Yeah, so we go in.

Speaker 3 (11:36):
We look out, there's like twenty five hundred people in
this room. And I wanted to give Paul his due,
you know, because Paul didn't get to speak at the
press conference, and it was just sort of leaking out
that he was the guy that really solved this thing.
And Paul was you know Paul very much, you know,
because we were already talking about the book, and we
were there because it was for Michelle's book. You know,
Paul would say that he felt that Michelle was his partner,

(11:59):
so you know, it made sense for him to come out.
So we brought him out and it was like Beatlemania.
It was it was like nothing you've ever seen. He
gets a standing ovation and then after everybody is trying
to take selfies with him and he can't. He can't
walk five feet without somebody grabbing him. And you know,

(12:19):
it made me smile just because And the reason why
I was very upset that they didn't put him or
put anybody else of the real investigators that were in
the trenches at that press conference they wouldn't put him
on the screen, is that what I want to see
is in true crime. When you work in true crime
for so long, the biggest thing that comes to is
that there's so many super villains. We're surrounded by supervillains. Manson, Bundy, Gacy, Dahmer,

(12:41):
name the superheroes, and you can't, you know, you might
say John Wall, Sure, you might say you know this
person or that person, or maybe like a local policeman,
but we don't put them out there. And you know,
I was thinking about Paul. It's like, if we're going
to get a superhero out of any of this, it's
going to be Paul. And Paul is going to be
somebody that listen if he's going to have the hot

(13:03):
for holes hashtag and he's going to be this, and
he's going to be not start now, I think I
started it, but if you you know, if he's going
to be a hard throat, then so be it. Because
what I want is I want a little kid to
be watching the screen the way that they did back
in the day, when they would see Jack Webb or
FBI guys up on the screen and say, I want

(13:24):
to be like that guy. Yes, Or a little girl
seeing you know, Erica Hodgecraft or Carol Daley and be like,
I want to be like her. And those are the
heroes that we need to be pushing in front of
the camera, just because you know, we have such this
imbalance in this explosion that we've seen with true.

Speaker 1 (13:38):
Crime, and you know that the kind of people that
will take this you know, ridiculous, funny hashtag power and
use it for good.

Speaker 3 (13:44):
Yes exactly, and if it puts it out there and
then you know, this case and the legacy of this
case is all about not only solving this case, but
solving so many other cases. And we've already seen it.
The floodgates are open, We've already seen cases are going down,
and there's so many cases now that we can solve
based on this one. And thank god it was a
big one. Yea, if it was if it was a

(14:04):
smaller one, or if it was a sort of nebulous one,
you might get people saying, oh, you know when we
had that a little bit where people were saying, there's
privacy laws, there's this or that. Yeah, but you know,
nobody is really defending this guy and defending you know,
someone that had at least fifty rapes and twelve murders.

Speaker 1 (14:20):
I want to talk about this. Should we bring out our.

Speaker 3 (14:22):
Yes, yes, surprise and that you know what, Well, here's
what I was thinking. You know, he he needs he
he is the superhero of this story, and we were
going to have him on the phone.

Speaker 1 (14:35):
But no, no, so bad.

Speaker 2 (14:44):
That door is open.

Speaker 5 (14:46):
Oh no, Billy just went somewhere. Billy stuffed out, Oh no,
me Hi.

Speaker 1 (15:05):
In the building, everyone in the building.

Speaker 2 (15:11):
I thought Billy just walked off the podcast. I thought
he got pissed and was gone, Oh my god, ladies
and gentlemen, it's Paul Holes. Hi. Hi, Paul Hi, Paul
Holes Paul Hols.

Speaker 1 (15:25):
Billy, thanks for for You're welcome.

Speaker 3 (15:28):
Driving up the Sacramento, hitting him on his head, putting
him in my truck. It was a long night.

Speaker 1 (15:36):
Oh my god, this is a surprise to Karen. I
knew it was happening, but I'm still you knew it
was happening.

Speaker 4 (15:41):
Oh yeah, I read it through, I said.

Speaker 3 (15:45):
I texted her. I said, did she look surprised me?

Speaker 1 (15:48):
And I was like, no, I hate surprises.

Speaker 2 (15:52):
Okay, can I just say this in my own defense
Paul Holes. First of all, I don't know if you
heard that, but I did not start the hot for
Holes hash tag.

Speaker 1 (15:59):
That was not me.

Speaker 2 (16:00):
It's not my style. No, But as we were just saying,
I think that a lot of this excitement, and we
were just talking about like crime con and stuff, I
think a lot of this excitement is kind of like
an overly simplistic way of kind of giving you like
a tick or tape parade in a way that you
can't do anymore. It's like we're doing its social media style,

(16:21):
We're doing it Murderino style. But like, you know, you
were the lighthouse keeper for decades on a case that
should have or you know what, for whatever reason, ended
up not getting solved for so long and was so
horrible and like we've talked about it, like watching you
talk about it on that ID special where you know

(16:42):
every single fact, you know every single.

Speaker 1 (16:46):
Path, like you're you seem as passionate as us, you're
not detached from it, and you give, like Michelle, who
is you know, one of us, so much credit which
means so much to us.

Speaker 2 (16:56):
Well, and like when the cameras weren't on when she
first came to you, you well, con turn with open arms.
I mean, you just could not have done it better.
So I think there's a lot of this is stupid,
Like it's very stupid and my embarrassing honey and silly
and fun way just saying it's just a humongous thank you.

Speaker 1 (17:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (17:14):
Oh well, you know it's been it's been just a
surreal experience.

Speaker 2 (17:19):
Yeah, tell us about this experience.

Speaker 4 (17:21):
Like, well, after the press conference when d'angela was announced,
you know, I had with Jane Carson and Debbie Domingo.
They had convinced me to go to Crime Con about
a month prior, and so as we're marching down with
the angel I didn't think there's any way I'd be
able to make it out to Nashville. I had no
idea what I was walking and it was great. But

(17:43):
my first I guess experience was I was walking in
the hallway and it was late at night on a
Thursday evening, and this mother and daughter passed me by.
Didn't pay any attention to them, and all of a sudden,
I hear this Paul, and I look around and they're
looking at me. And that's the first time I ever
been recognized by somebody. I have no idea. And then

(18:05):
for the course of the next two days, it was
amazing in terms of all these murderyo's coming up to
me and getting pictures. I didn't have a Twitter account,
but my friend, you know, my wife's friends were all
of a sudden saying, hey, Paul's getting pictures of all
these women. Where is he at? What is going on?

Speaker 2 (18:22):
Can we talk about that for one second, because, first
of all, the sincerest of apologies to missus holes. All
of this is so out of control. Is she does
she like it? Is she pissed?

Speaker 1 (18:35):
Like?

Speaker 2 (18:35):
Is it?

Speaker 4 (18:35):
No? She's been a great sport about it. Okay, you
know she's the one that's actually watching and letting me
know because I'm so afraid to go on and google
myself because I don't want to see what exactly is
out there. But she's she's been great about it, take
it from us. But you know, at the same time,
she didn't know what was going on at a crime
con either. And then so I get the phone call

(18:56):
and she's going, what is going on?

Speaker 1 (19:00):
Girls?

Speaker 2 (19:00):
So many Well it's so many guys. Yeah, but it's
like ninety percent women and and also women who have
been watching you be a talking head on these shows
for years.

Speaker 1 (19:11):
Yeah, you know, we've seen the screen grabs from ten
years ago.

Speaker 4 (19:17):
I know I'm learning that what gets out there on
the Internet stays out there forever.

Speaker 2 (19:21):
It's forever. It's forever.

Speaker 4 (19:22):
It is. Since I've gotten a Twitter account, it's been
one of those things where I've probably posted a couple
of things going, oh, what did I do? That's just
it so wait.

Speaker 2 (19:36):
And then at crime Con, because we had a couple
of friends who were there, that was the most exciting thing.
I was like, my friend Katie Rife, was a reporter
for the Avy Club, was there and I was like,
you need to tell me every single thing that happens
because she was in the room too, and she was
just like, the whole room just went insane, and then
I got the report from Billy also when it was over,
but it was like it was because I was I

(19:58):
just wanted it to be what we thought it did.

Speaker 1 (20:01):
And what we wanted to see at the news conference
what's it called press conference we wanted to see, which
is like you guys, yeah, which I know isn't professional,
but in the background seeing you, they're being like you
should just get up there.

Speaker 4 (20:14):
And well, you know at Crime Con when when Billy
pulled me out onto the stage, that was such a
humbling experience. And yes, in many ways I've been the
face of the investigation, but really I think everybody was
applauding everybody that's been involved in the investigation. So that's
that's the thing that needs to get out there, is

(20:34):
that there's there's you know, men and women that are
still actively investigating the case. They have been on this
case for in some instances decades, and they aren't they
don't have the opportunity I have in order to be
able to come out and be a public figure at
this point. So you know, I think that applause, I mean,
it was it's sent like just chills my line when

(20:58):
I got it, because I never thought i'd be, you know,
in front of that many people in a standing ovation.
But again, I think that was an ovation for the team.

Speaker 3 (21:06):
I'm going to say this right now because I'm sitting
right next to him. Paul has goosebumps right now.

Speaker 1 (21:12):
It's so excited.

Speaker 2 (21:14):
Well because because as you both know this and as
they said in that press conference or whatever, but this
doesn't happen that often. So the idea that it has happened.

Speaker 1 (21:23):
We get to applaud the solving of a case, the trajectory,
all of it took. It was just like, can you
tell us, like the phone call that you got that
the DNA was a match? Can you? I bet that
was insane?

Speaker 4 (21:36):
So that was it was. I was out of state,
you know, shopping for a house because I'm in the
process of moving out of California, and at a restaurant
at PF Chain's.

Speaker 1 (21:45):
Oh plug, that was a plug.

Speaker 2 (21:48):
We'll make a lot of money off that, Thank you chicken.

Speaker 4 (21:52):
So had just finished eating and I get a call
from Lieutenant Kirk Campbell, who's one of the messigators from
Sacramento DA's office, and I see that he's calling, and
we had had D'Angelo under surveillance, so I knew, okay,
this call is an important phone call. So I go
out and Kirk says, okay, you can't tell.

Speaker 1 (22:15):
Anybody except for Karen, and.

Speaker 4 (22:20):
Uh, he said, the initial DNA results because we had
gotten a serreptitious sample sacs. So I had gotten a
surreptitious sample from D'Angelo came back and though it's a
it's a low level profile, which means it was not
a complete DNA profile. But the lab is really excited
with what they see. And you know, I, with my background,
I was saying, what exactly do they have? And once

(22:41):
he told me, I knew it was a guy. And
then I walk back in and we're getting our fortune cookies.
Oh my god, my wife is opening up her fortune
cookie and all excited about what it says. You know,
I could care less about what the fortune cookie said.

Speaker 2 (22:54):
And you literally and truly can't tell your wife, like
you that's a secret.

Speaker 1 (22:58):
Wait, you can't tell your Come on, I told her, but.

Speaker 4 (23:02):
She read it on my face. Yeah, And I wasn't
going to tell her in the restaurant because I knew
what the reaction would be, and so I'm trying to
not tell her and she knew who had called, and
next thing you know, she's like pushing me out the restaurant.
I wanted to know what's going on.

Speaker 2 (23:17):
And you still owe that PF Chang sixty two dollars.

Speaker 4 (23:20):
We got them.

Speaker 2 (23:21):
There also the surprise guest, the manager from that PF
Chang Maybe I love it? Do you still sorry? Do
you talk to Carol daily?

Speaker 4 (23:30):
Or do you like Carol daily? And I communicate it,
but believe it or not, we had not met or
even communicated up until about a couple of months ago.

Speaker 2 (23:40):
Wow.

Speaker 4 (23:40):
So that was one of those things in this case
where I mean, she is somebody that deserves so much
credit for the work she did with the victims up
in Sacramento. And if you ever got to see her reports,
it was cutting edge in terms of recording all the victimology,
not only the circumstances of what happened, and you know

(24:00):
what the offender did, what he said, which gave us
insight into who this guy was, but also who the
victims were, and that's very important when you're dealing with
a fantasy motivated type of crime. So she did an
amazing job and I always was like, wow, this is
this is an amazing woman in terms of what she
was doing back in the nineteen seventies. And then I

(24:20):
finally got to talk to her on the phone once
you know, some of the media attention was coming out
before we had even you know, identified DeAngelo as being
a person. And then afterwards I got to meet her
in person for the first time. That was a great experience.

Speaker 2 (24:34):
Yeah, she seems amazing, amazing. I just rewatched the ID
special to do the before the arrest, after the arrest.

Speaker 1 (24:42):
What was it called there's still more to we don't
know who?

Speaker 4 (24:45):
What is it?

Speaker 1 (24:46):
It's unanswered question.

Speaker 2 (24:48):
Yeah, it's called Unanswered Questions, the Golden State Killer, There's
more to come. But I mean it's really fascinating the
like you're saying a comprehensive job that she did, but
also just like she's just so on point eat to
this day and then back then when you see those
pictures and you see.

Speaker 1 (25:06):
The video of her and like, don't be polite her.

Speaker 2 (25:10):
Don't be polite speech and all that stuff where you're
just like this, she must have been one of a
handful of women in that Sacramento count victim for advocation,
not only that.

Speaker 3 (25:19):
Just across the country and think about how many sexual
assaults that had happened that didn't have a Carol Daily
there that way, what she was doing, like you said,
was so groundbreaking.

Speaker 4 (25:28):
Well, and I believe she was the first female assigned
to investigations for sax Sheriff's office, So you know that
she was cutting edge. She blazed a trail.

Speaker 1 (25:36):
Yeah, the seventies sacked.

Speaker 2 (25:38):
It's very cool though, like that she is kind of
like that one of those lights that comes up in
this story too. And you know, I don't know she
should we should hear from her more.

Speaker 1 (25:47):
I think that that makes me. Can I ask a
couple of specific questions that you probably can't answer, mister
Paul Hall's, but you probably can about the speaking of
her speaking at the town halls? Was he there at
any of them?

Speaker 2 (26:01):
Do we know?

Speaker 1 (26:04):
You know?

Speaker 4 (26:05):
The That is something that I think we're still trying
to figure out. You know, Carol has a memory of
one of the victims standing up and speaking in front
of the town hall, and he does him and his
wife do become victims later on. Now her memory has

(26:25):
somewhat changed over time what you would expect after forty years,
So that is going to be one of those questions
as to was he in the audience saw this man
and decided, I will show you who I am. How
dare you speak against what I am doing, which I
believe absolutely this offender would do. He's very vindictive. I

(26:48):
believe some of the cases that involved males were selected
based on who the males were and what they had
done to him, either directly or indirectly. Which ones of
those victims At this point, I don't know, and he
very well could be in other town hall meetings, but
right now it's speculation, but it does make sense with
who he is.

Speaker 1 (27:09):
Do you think so does that mean that he might
have actually known some of the victims? As far as
I know, you can't answer any of them.

Speaker 4 (27:17):
Well, the reality is is I don't know. And that's
one of the big questions that I have, is, you know,
I always marching down and investigating this case. I truly
felt that the victim selection he was multi modal. There
are victims that he absolutely just followed home. There are
victims that while he's out prowling a neighborhood he stumbled across.

Speaker 1 (27:37):
He likes a certain neighborhood, and absolutely.

Speaker 4 (27:39):
It's a neighborhood that is conducive to him.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
Yeah, and he had a lot of potential spots.

Speaker 4 (27:45):
You can choose any neighborhood and find a victim, and
so in many ways he may have employed that strategy
where he goes, I know how to get in, I
know how to get out of this neighborhood. There are
all single story houses. I don't have to worry about
witnesses in the second, you know, floor seeing me hopping fences.
So it's very possible he could have just chosen a

(28:05):
neighborhood and then found somebody that met his criteria and
the opportunity presented itself. But I do think it is
possible that he has had interaction with some of these
victims ahead of time, both females and males. And that
was one of the things I was trying to do,
in particular, try to identify the males to see if
there was maybe a business setting or some other type

(28:27):
of sporting activity that they could have interfaced with at
some point. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (28:33):
I mean, even Jane says the story about how during
the attack he said, you looked really good at the
O club and he didn't use the term officers club,
he said, oh club, and you had to be she
thought he was definitely in the military, because whether he
had seen her at the office's club or not, but
the fact that he used the term o club meant
that he was in the military. So she wondered if

(28:53):
he may have seen her at some point.

Speaker 4 (28:55):
Yeah, and we did see. You know, this offender was
very much into trying to put the victims on edge,
and he would look at the victims' lifestyles and make
comments to try to make them think that he had
seen them or they knew him. In the San Ramon attack,

(29:17):
he tells that victim I've seen you at the lake. Well,
on her driveway was a boat. So it's sort of
one of those things he's spreaded enough to go, Okay,
she's probably been to the lake at some point, and
so I'm going to use that against her just to
kind of you get her on edge.

Speaker 2 (29:32):
Well, and I was talking to my sister about it,
because my sister can't deal with any true crime anything.
But she was asking me questions and I'm like, okay,
but I'll answer this for you, but then you're going
to know. But she was saying, it doesn't make sense
why the victims didn't call the police. And I'm like, Okay,
I'm about to tell you something you're not going to like,
and it's which you pick you up. The way he

(29:52):
would wait there and it would be dead silence. They
would think he was gone, they would move, and then
he would threaten them again that idea. So then they
would end up just laying there like stock still till
the morning came.

Speaker 1 (30:05):
Because he was still there, so that he'd have hours
of getaways.

Speaker 2 (30:09):
It's so like deviously brilliant in that way of keeping
that time frame so that he has so much time
to get as far away as he can.

Speaker 4 (30:18):
Absolutely and in fact, an attack number thirteen up in Sacramento,
you have a mother and daughter laying side by side
in the bed, and he was somebody that was able
to move through the house silently. That's one of the
things that the victims were commenting on. And at a
certain point it's been quiet for a long time, and
so the mother asks the daughter, are you okay? And

(30:40):
the daughter responds, bammy, And all of a sudden, he
pushes down on the bed right next to the mother's head.

Speaker 1 (30:46):
That's what's so. I think that that is what is
so that draws us in about this case is what
a it wasn't just about rape for him, it was
a murder. It's so much more like of a head five,
absolutely and conniving and cunning, and.

Speaker 4 (31:05):
He's a psychological sadist. So his big thing was the
fear he was instilling in the victims. So when you
read the actual sexual assaults, and they did vary, you know,
some of the sexual assaults were almost styled like a
consensual type of interaction where he had obviously been fantasizing
about that female. Then you have some of the sexual

(31:28):
assaults were much more violent, but many of the victims
were commenting in terms, especially later on in the East
Area rapist phase, he did not seem to be getting
what he wanted from the sex, and that's when you
start to see this, you know, uh oh, he's feeling
internally he needs more. And then down in the first

(31:49):
attack in Galita Santa Barbara, when he's got them separated
and bound to the male and female victims, he's pacing
back and forth saying, I'm gonna kill him. I'm gonna
kill him. This time, I'm gonna kill him. He obviously
realized he had to take the next step to satisfy
that inner.

Speaker 1 (32:03):
Compulsion and then in all the Galita attacks, he fails
because the victims fight.

Speaker 4 (32:08):
Back, right, So it is interesting in that, Yes, you
can make that argument, most certainly in the first two,
which were within a few months of each other, right
at the end of nineteen seventy nine.

Speaker 2 (32:21):
With.

Speaker 4 (32:23):
What could have been a double homicide, and the victims
end up, you know, running away from him, and then
he has to bail and then gets you know, FBI
agent chases him. Two months later with doctor Offerman doctor Manning.
Doctor Offerman slips his bindings and gets up and charges
him and gets shot. He's killed, and he goes over
and shoots doctor Manning. And then a year and a

(32:43):
half later, he's back in basically the same area with
Serry Domingo Gregory Sanchez, and he gets into a physical
fight with Gregory Sanchez. It doesn't go the way he wants,
but he does leave DNA evidence in that scene, so
he at least got to the point where he's leaving
DNA evidence.

Speaker 2 (33:03):
And was the Manjory double shooting before.

Speaker 4 (33:06):
All of those murders that was in February seventy eight, Yes,
it was.

Speaker 2 (33:10):
Do you think it could have been? Because there is
the talk that that could have been a thing where
maybe the guy recognized him, or there was some reason
why he had to shoot that couple that maybe it
was accidental being forced to murder, and then suddenly he's
got a taste for murder in a way that he
hasn't before.

Speaker 4 (33:30):
Well, I think when you look at the entirety of
the series, because right now it really is looking like
di'angelo is also the y Salia rans and you do
have the homicide Claude Snelling, so he has a taste
of murder at that point of the Maggiori case. The
predominant theory right now with Maggiori is Brian and Katie

(33:51):
were out walking their dog, Brian being a military police
officer known to have an aggressive personality. They stumbled across
a guy that's out prow and Brian puts his cop
hat on, confronts the guy, possibly chases the guy until
the guy decides he's going to catch me and pulls
a gun.

Speaker 1 (34:09):
Which he's done twice before. Besides the Snelling, didn't he shoot?

Speaker 4 (34:14):
They have the Rodney Miller case.

Speaker 1 (34:15):
Right and the kid who chased him and then the cop.

Speaker 2 (34:18):
And then I know a lot we're about specifics on
the show.

Speaker 4 (34:23):
Okay, yeah, so you know, in that particular instance it
may have been even though it's most likely a defensive
type shooting, you know, he has power and control over
those victims. He took their lives. He made that decision,
and that's what this guy is all about.

Speaker 3 (34:41):
And I think also, and we know that he changed
tactics again when somebody, you know, even though he didn't,
you know, he knew, he almost got caught, and then
he moved. He moved areas, he didn't attack in that area. Again,
he was very almost One of his signatures was his
not only his ability to escape really and his ability
to I know, all the different escape routes, which leads

(35:02):
you to believe that maybe one of those escape roots
when he was walking around, when he was prowling, was
whipping out his badge when he did have the badge,
whether he kept the badge and saying, oh no, I'm
just you know, I'm a police officer and using the
police vernacular. You know, he knew all of these different ways.
The reason why he chose that neighborhood is because he
grew up not necessarily in that exact neighborhood, but he
grew up near that neighborhood in Branch of Cordova, and

(35:24):
he knew that all of those escape roots, you know,
and I think that's very much. And when something went
south for him, he would say, I've got to go
someplace else. And one of the things that we were talking.
I was talking about this with another investigator involved in
the case, who we both know. But what I won't
mention his name is he doesn't like the spotlight. But
he was saying, how, you know, I was talking before

(35:45):
about this other case that somebody had told me about.
The son had told me about this his mom, and
his mom very well might have been one of his victims.
But it was early on in the case. And the
investigator told me, you know, we've seen this guy at
his best. We saw him when he got away with
fifty rapes and twelve murders. We didn't see him in
the minor leagues. We didn't see him when he was

(36:07):
coming up and he was making mistakes. Really, we don't
really have that. And you know, what he was doing
or potentially doing before that, when he was even a teenager,
what he was doing, you know, And that's one of
the things that I'm trying to do is create that
timeline to figure out, all, right, did he ever go
to summer camp? Did he ever go on a work
trip or whatever in Korea when he was visiting his dad.

(36:28):
Did he ever go off and say, you know, any
furloughs that he might have had in the navy, any
of those those deals, you know what he might have done,
you know, gone on vacation and said I'm going.

Speaker 4 (36:38):
For a walk.

Speaker 3 (36:38):
And then what did he do?

Speaker 4 (36:39):
Then?

Speaker 3 (36:39):
Yeah, there's so much that's out there, and we really
didn't know what he was doing before he really got
it because he became an expert at doing what.

Speaker 4 (36:47):
He was doing. He did though I would say Visalia,
he was in the minor leagues. Vicelia Ransacker was not
a very good burglar, struggled to get inside houses. Even
though he did get him many many houses. He was
constantly being seen by neighbors, by victims. And when you

(37:10):
look at after that series stopped six months later, now
you have somebody who all of a sudden has more
advanced skill sets of being able to break inside houses.
Nobody sees the Easteria rapist, and the Easter ai A
rapist is now doing everything he can from getting from
being seen even by the victims by wearing a mask,

(37:31):
shining flashlights in their eyes. Even with those precautions, he's
telling the victims, don't look at me, or I'll kill you.
He recognized in Visalia he made a mistake, he left
a trail, and he changed, he learned, and that's the
evolution of DiAngelo.

Speaker 3 (37:47):
And he also changed so much that he was a
cop in Exeter and he sees that, you know, I
probably need to leave Exeter because someone might recognize me.
And then he goes up maybe he saw that, you know,
when we were doing the newspaper archive searches, see the
ad for hey Aubert's looking for police police officers, he
sees that, he goes up there and he decides, I'm
going to go back to my hometown and do it.

Speaker 2 (38:08):
And was he when he was a cop and Exitter?
Was he heavy like the Visilia ransacker was like that.
That was one thing that we talked about when we
talked we were had the book episode and we were
this was all pre uh pre arrest. But it truly
looks like two different people.

Speaker 1 (38:24):
The descriptions are completely different. Yeah, And I know there
was a lot of active rapists at that time.

Speaker 2 (38:30):
Unfortunately there so but there, but it's almost like he
did a kind of like a p X ninety thing,
like he did a makeover and like a workout thing
where suddenly he's super agile and.

Speaker 1 (38:42):
He's saying, I lented.

Speaker 2 (38:45):
It's like, look at that guy before we go any further.

Speaker 3 (38:49):
I mean, if you take a look and I've actually
got out there, you know how heavy his face was.
And that was always the stumbling block that Paul hadn't
I had, and Michelle had and and Paul Haynes had
was whether this guy who was being described as being
kind of stocky with these heavy, heavy legs and this
face that was like a baby's face, whether he could

(39:10):
have been this kind of swimmer's body spider man that's
jumping over all this stuff and made that switch, you know,
just you know, a couple of years later, and it
turns out that he did.

Speaker 4 (39:20):
And I think he probably purposely altered his physique because
there was a composite of him in Ysalia that was
very good which looking on. So he had to change
but in order to continue doing what he wanted to do,
did we So.

Speaker 1 (39:37):
The homework evidence was that red Herring, I don't.

Speaker 4 (39:40):
Know, right now, you know, I had high confidence that
that was you.

Speaker 3 (39:44):
You were really into that.

Speaker 4 (39:45):
I was really into that homework evidence. And at this
point in time my confidence has been shaken. However, based
on what I saw inside DiAngelo's house.

Speaker 1 (39:54):
Oh my god, he went in there, Oh my god.

Speaker 4 (39:57):
Yeah, yeah, I do think that there is still the possibility.
The writing is very consistent with who this offender is.
You know that scrawled punished.

Speaker 1 (40:08):
You know everyone writes that on there.

Speaker 4 (40:09):
Oh yeah, you know the mad is the word essay
that psychologically is so much with who it fits with
who this offender is. I do believe, and had said
that I believed it was an old spiral that he
had because I'm fully confident the angel is a guy
that was out there taking notes as he's prowling. We
have two pens that were dropped up in Sacramento, So

(40:33):
I do think he had an old spiral with him.
Where I'm a little bit stumped right now is the diagram,
because you know, I did a lot of work on
that diagram. I had people saying, this is a guy
that is familiar with the development industry, looks like he's
a practitioner, using industry specific symbols and right now with
the Angelo.

Speaker 6 (40:52):
He's a cop, yeah, you know, and then some kind
of just yeah, I'm with you, Paul Holes on the
that whole thing, because when you first the night of
the arrest, when you sent us that old article that
you'd found where it said in high school he'd worked
for a Winch and.

Speaker 2 (41:10):
Company, And in my mind, I was like, he was
the guy that went out there and pulled the trees
out before they lived, before they paved out all of
these housing complexes, like it made perfect.

Speaker 1 (41:20):
Sense communities and it's still a planned community drawing.

Speaker 4 (41:24):
It is, I do believe when you look at in
the military where he did receive carpentry training, so he
understands how to frame houses once. I don't know what
kinds of classes he took at Sierra College or Sack State,
but it's going to be more than just criminal justice,
because you do take additional courses, and they have courses

(41:46):
of drafting, landscape architecture. So maybe this was just an
exercise that he did. However, it's also possible that I
had a guy online who's been forty five years in
law enforcement. He said, you know, back in the day,
we weren't paid very good we often took second jobs,
and often those second jobs were security guards on job sites.

(42:07):
And that resonates with me based on the pattern that
I saw with at one within Sacramento a little bit.
Once he moves outside of Sacramento, you see a prevalence
of attacks occurring either in or immediately adjacent to active construction.
So I could see where maybe that's what he's doing,
and that's what's pulling him out all over northern California

(42:29):
because he's making he's moonlighting, and while he's out in
San Jose, he's taken the opportunity to attack.

Speaker 1 (42:35):
Well in Dana Point too, he got into a gated community.

Speaker 4 (42:39):
Getting into that community wouldn't have been very hard, but
you look at that community, they had, you know, security
guards at the gates, they had roving security guards. So
it's a higher risk attack. So he is choosing to
go there versus maybe going to where someplace it's not
so high risk. So that's something that I look at
going you know, maybe there's a reason he's drawing to

(43:01):
Harrington more so because he could have chosen a different neighborhood.

Speaker 1 (43:05):
Totally. Uh, was there anything when you were I can't
believe you were in that house, what I would fucking pay.
It just doesn't stay sale fanatic alone.

Speaker 2 (43:15):
And also just little things like the fact that he
took so many trophies and that they were, you know,
just anything with initials on it. It's just like all
that stuff that it's just so weird to be on
this side of this part of the story where for
so long, like Michelle and those cufflings, for so long,
people have been taking these tiny things and just trying

(43:36):
to do whatever they can with tiny bits of information.
And now there's house folds of information and.

Speaker 1 (43:42):
Is there anything in the house And I know you
can't give a specifics that made you kind of do
a happy dance or gave you chills, or gave you
any kind of feeling.

Speaker 4 (43:52):
Yeah, I think the most the thing that I observed
that was that left the biggest impression on me. And
this probably isn't very well known in the series, but
one of the aspects that the s Dairy rapist would
do is when he would take the female out and

(44:13):
typically was the family room, to separate her from the
husband and lay her down and she's bound. He would
turn the TV on and he'd keep the sound off
and then put a towel over the TV so he'd
have this glow so he could see her right. Walk
into DiAngelo's room and he has a computer there and
he's got a towel over the monitor and I'm looking

(44:35):
at that going is not just a dust cover? Or
is he reminiscing? Does he wants a glow?

Speaker 2 (44:42):
You know?

Speaker 4 (44:43):
It's is he pulling out any of those souvenirs and
replicating the glowing environment? Oh my god from back in
the nineteen seventies. So that's that was something that struck me.
And then he likes peanut butter. He's eating peanut butter
off a spoon, and that's what I do.

Speaker 2 (45:01):
He's still a human. He's still a human. Do you
think he's going to talk or explain any of this?

Speaker 4 (45:08):
I really don't think. So. You know, before he was identified,
I judged this offender as being all about self preservation.
He didn't want to get caught. He has never demonstrated
the zodiac or BTK ego of wanting to say, hey,
look at me, and so I felt that if he
was caught, he's not going to sit there and self incriminate.

(45:32):
After seeing how he responded during the first you know,
I watched seven hours worth of the interviews and I
just don't see him talking. But you never know. He
may have a change of heart at some point.

Speaker 1 (45:46):
Is he speaking to his family, his daughters?

Speaker 4 (45:49):
I can't comment on that.

Speaker 1 (45:51):
Are they okay? Those poor girls?

Speaker 4 (45:53):
Horrible that they I mean, it tore my heart seeing
the two youngest daughters there, And I said this at
crime con. In my opinion, those two, actually all three
of the daughters are really his last victims. They're suffering
now from what he did.

Speaker 3 (46:08):
Absolutely one of the things that that and this is
a story that I don't know if you told it
at crime com, but you told it to me, was
the I think it was maybe the night or a
couple of nights before you retired, when you were outside
of his house, right and you were thinking about getting
the swab. Can you can you walk us through that?

Speaker 2 (46:30):
This is one more movie like aspect of this story.

Speaker 1 (46:32):
Though. You're retiring in a couple of yeah.

Speaker 3 (46:34):
Exactly, Yeah, Well that's the thing. It's you're retiring a
couple of days. You know, your partner, Michelle, you know,
died initi leaps tragically two years ago, and you're retiring
a couple of days and you've got one last suspect
to check out, and you're right outside of his house
and you're wondering, you know what I'd really like to
just go in and get a swab, And what was
going through your mind?

Speaker 2 (46:53):
And at any point did you say I'm too old
for this shit? The most cinematic thing your partner be
a dog, a laugh that a child.

Speaker 4 (47:04):
Yeah, now you know that in leading up we had
kind of we had about it. I would say four
to five males from the genealogy search that caught our
interest because they had California connections, and then two that
had Sacramento connections, one through extended family, and then DiAngelo

(47:27):
after we were able to eliminate the one, and it
was marching down on DiAngelo saying, well, let's what's what's
about this guy? You know on paper, you start finding out,
you know, his connection to Sacramento was, you know, he
had some family attending school in Rancho Cordova. He was
a wholesome high school student in the sixties, Auburn p d.

(47:49):
You know, I I kind of did not like that
I was going up in Auburn and how's he doing
all these attacks? But it wasn't until I spoke with
his the boss that fired him from the chief, and
the chief is relaying some of the behaviors that he
experienced and observed. And of course we've got the engagement
to Bonnie in nineteen seventy and we have our offender

(48:12):
making the statement I hate you Bonnie. I hate you
Bonnie in one of the Davis attacks. There was enough
churn that it was I need to see where this
guy lives.

Speaker 3 (48:20):
Had you seen the story about the shoplifting.

Speaker 4 (48:24):
Yes he did, Yes, So this the timing of me
driving up to his house was my last day before
I literally turned in my badge and guns ridiculous. And
I was sitting there, going, well, I need to go see.
That's what I always do, is now once I've identified somebody,
I just need to start looking at them. And so

(48:45):
I drive up from Martinez, which is in the Bay Area,
up to Citrus Heights and that's about an hour and
a half drive. I get up there and I just
park in front of his house. And you have to understand,
at this point, it wasn't this is the guy. He
was just starting to get in and I'm sitting there
and I'm looking and there's a car parked in the
driveway and I'm looking to see if there's any activity

(49:06):
in the house. I don't see any activity, but I
was pretty confident that he was there. And in my position,
it was just like, you know, this is my last day.
What's the chance is that this is actually the guy?
You know? I should just go knock on the door,
introduce myself like I've done time and time again, and

(49:26):
just say, hey, I'm looking into an old case. Can
we chat a little bit and eventually establish a rapport
and then ultimately ask you do you mind giving a
DNA sample? And I thought about it, and with what
I had heard from the chief and the Bonnie and
you know, some of the other aspects about him, I
just don't know enough about him to do that yet.
And that's when I decided to drive away. And this

(49:49):
story initially got out when a local Bay area news
person was kind of asked me. I said, well, I
really really was gunning to solve this case before I retired,
and I didn' you know, but at least I can
take solace in that I was within fifty feet of
the guy I've been looking for for twenty four years,
you know. And that was that was it, and all
of a sudden, it's this you know, this big Oh

(50:10):
my god, he was right there right before. And I
wasn't feeling that type of you know thing at all.
In fact, the local magazine writer that wrote an article
on me, you know, he emailed me after that story
got out. It was like, oh, that's like Jody Foster
going into Buffalo Bill's house in silences. I was like, no,
I wasn't feeling that at all. I was just coming off.

(50:31):
I guess I better drive off now. You know.

Speaker 3 (50:33):
When I told that story to Pete Headley, who we've
we've both talked to and who I'm working with on
that Allenstown four case and chasing another serial killer, that
I'm that I'm putting a Rasmus in this other serial killer,
if I'm putting another timeline for and figure out where
he's been, he said, that makes me so happy that
he didn't go in. Oh yeah, he just said, I'm
so happy he didn't go in that house.

Speaker 4 (50:54):
You know, in retrospect, when when you learn about who
DeAngelo is, you know, during surveillance, he was the guy's
watching him or saying, this guy is not moving around
like a seventy two year old man. He's like a
fifty year old man like me. You know, he's moving around,
he's on his motorcycle. He's gone high rates of speed

(51:15):
on his motorcycle on the freeway. The way he drives,
he even stops signs are optional. Puttering around the house
in the yard. He's basically just showing that he's a
physically capable individual. And we knew that he had lots
of guns registered to him, and of course he had
both the military and law enforcement training when it comes
to firearms. The front of his house, that front door

(51:37):
is in a it's a funnel of death. It really
is a kind of enclosed area that you have to
walk through in order to get that front door. So
in retrospect, me knocking there and I'd been on TV enough,
we could have looked through a people or a window
and see, I know who that is, and he could
have gotten a gun and things could have been very bad.

Speaker 1 (51:55):
Do you think that he watched and he kept up
on the news of his own I absolutely think that,
you know, And also I think what I've been so
disappointing if he let's say, he hadn't killed you, but
he'd killed himself it would have, you know, to that
last the last couple of days. So being so close
and he's onto it and kills himself.

Speaker 4 (52:16):
And that's that was part of the concern, is you know,
I could have contacted him. It could have been suicide.
It could have been violence between him and me. It
could have been he flees, you know, or he takes hostages.
You know, lots of things could have gone bad. So
whatever made me drive away, you know, that instinct, that intuition,
you know, Thank god I followed that.

Speaker 2 (52:38):
It's because your poles. That's why.

Speaker 1 (52:43):
So speaking of DNA.

Speaker 2 (52:46):
Part, you already did it. It's too late, you're on
the record.

Speaker 1 (52:51):
Can we talk about so now everyone? Can you tell
us everyone's talking about the DNA aspect of it and
how it's unfair and all this bullshit and unconstitutional. How
close of a match can you find based off of
someone else's DNA that they turn into a website?

Speaker 4 (53:10):
I mean here from the genealogy side, well, when you
do that kind of search, of course, you're hoping to
find somebody as close as possible, right, and that makes
things easy. If you find a sibling or a first cousin,
it's very very easy to identify, you know, the offender
from from that, when you start getting out to the
second cousin, it's a very doable thing, but it takes

(53:32):
a little bit more effort. Third cousin. It's doable like
what we had, but it's four months worth a very
very hard work.

Speaker 1 (53:39):
That's what it ended up being. As third cousin, we.

Speaker 4 (53:42):
Were dealing predominantly with third cousins. We ended up getting
somebody who was on the order of a second cousin
at one point, and that was one of the you know,
the turning points in terms of getting us into the
right branch. But the thing that I keep telling people is,
of course there's a stigma law enforcement is got our
DNA or accessing our DNA. I can't see that person

(54:08):
up in the genealogy websites, those people's DNA profile. I
can't download those profiles, you know, for me to see
their genetic information, I have to be able to do that.
The websites don't allow that, and I don't care about that.
All I'm looking for is how much DNA these people
share with my offender's DNA. And then those people I
know aren't my person of interest, right, they don't even

(54:31):
know who this guy is. I mean, do you know
who your second cousins are? Do you know who your
third cousins?

Speaker 2 (54:36):
And they're kind of pushy, but you.

Speaker 4 (54:39):
Know, it's it's you know, you're starting to get too
far away in the family for people to really know
who they are. But they're a starting data point. And
when you have multiple starting data points that you can
track back in time and find a commonality, then you
have something to work with. So your offender is likely
a descendant from there.

Speaker 1 (54:57):
This might sound stupid, but then do you reach out
to those secon and their cousins and kind of get
of no reason, Emily, you don't even need.

Speaker 4 (55:03):
That no reason to It's traditional genealogy work that you
do online. It's very easy, and there's there's other things.
But when you start getting down into people that are
alive today, you know, the genealogy websites anonymize that automatically,
but us in law enforcement, that's what we excel at
is identifying those people. And so when we get down
into the people that are born that are still alive,

(55:24):
then we resort to traditional law enforcement investigations, accessing the
databases that we can access to identify who they are
and start evaluating them. Are they people that we should consider?
And then eventually at some point you start going, well,
maybe this person I need to get some DNA from
just to help see it. Am I close enough or

(55:45):
have I stepped further away?

Speaker 2 (55:47):
Yeah, because I think there's a lot of people who
are trying to frame it. And I think they were
probably trying to do that too, because it's a story.
It's just another angle on it's a story on the story.
But like when you were on the Daily, that New
York Times podcast and that guy was kind of true.
He was kind of seemed like he was trying to
hammer you on that or whatever, and then you were like, yeah,
but also your aunt could call you in just directly
to the police department and say, take a look at

(56:09):
my nephew. He seems suspicious. And then we're onto you
that way, like you're just picking and choosing why you
don't like the way we find the.

Speaker 4 (56:16):
Person in many ways, and people are concerned. You know,
I've heard the term, well, you know, an extended family
member is basically being used as a genetic witness against me.
I have no control over that person putting their DNA
up in the system. And I have a common shared
DNA with him, and I can kind of understand that,
But you have to understand what really happens in all
these investigations. As you said, we get tips typically from xives,

(56:41):
ex girlfriends are going, I didn't like him. I think
he's a golden state killer. Sometimes they really believe it,
and sometimes they just want to throw their X under
the bus and be, oh, you know, let's have law
enforcement rain down on his head. In many ways, I've
likened this to a form of swatting, you know that
thing where they call up and say there's osage at
this house and actually know you have a what team
going in? People do do that, So it at least

(57:06):
with the DNA, there is there's a it's a precision
tool and by we contacted once we started this particular
aspect of the genealogy using the autosomal DNA and the
JED match. We contacted one person and got DNA from
that person and she was very very helpful. That saved

(57:27):
hundreds of people who the public had called in from
us going and knocking on the doors and having that
fear of all of a sudden law enforcement is investigating
them and then asking them for their DNA sample. So
in many ways it was better for those people's privacy
because they weren't being invaded.

Speaker 2 (57:48):
In their plot stashes.

Speaker 1 (57:50):
Not to mention the flushing down the toilet, the tax
dolelders that are being wasted by the time that would
have been spent getting those hundreds.

Speaker 4 (57:57):
Well, and I've pointed this out, you know, for forty
four years, with more resources than any other law enforcement
investigation that I can think of, we were we did
not solve this case. Once we started this process with
five people plus two outside experts, took us four months.

(58:18):
So it really shows the power of the technology. And
then since that we've seen a double homicide up in
Washington be solved. Yeah, I fully expect to see additional
cases start to fall.

Speaker 3 (58:30):
The dominoes are all falling. There have so many. I
think this is the biggest single since DNA was actually
used in a criminal case. This is the next biggest
break in terms of solving cold cases is using familial DNA,
and it's going to be a matter of resources. We
were talking about this before that there's you know, all

(58:51):
of the rape kits that are out there, and how
many of those people did evolve into murderers or did
evolve into serial rapists. And it's going to be a
matter of and I've spoken about this on the show
right after the press conference, is that you know, they're
going to need genealogists, They're going to need volunteers, they're
going to need you know, not everybody had the resources
that you had, and you were able to have those resources,

(59:12):
but the small police departments and the thousands of police
departments that we have across the country, and there is
a group of people right now, all of the baby boomers,
who have a ton of experience, and it's the it's
the most educated and most skilled workforce that we've ever
seen retiring. There really is a chance right now to
utilize that those people, as well as the gen xers

(59:34):
and also the millennials who want to do I want
to hobby with purpose and you know, deputize them in
a in a meaningful way using liaisons and stuff. That's
what I've been doing. And actually after my after I
said that on the podcast, I won't mention the state,
but somebody called me from the legislation of a state
and said, I want to do this. Wow, So that
might that might actually happen st.

Speaker 2 (59:56):
Well doesn't It does seem like and you know and
more credits Paul Hooles, but like it is that thing
of the police that open their arms to talking to
you know, writers, journalists or just the the online investigators
or whatever, where that idea that it's to pool the
information and to pool what the information you can pull.

(01:00:18):
It can only benefit, right if more people are working
on something or is that not right?

Speaker 4 (01:00:23):
No, very much. So, Now there's there's pros and cons
and and obviously, like my partnership with Michelle was very
much a positive experience and you know, we I would
say it was symbiotic. We were able to just help
each other and it was truly a public private partnership.

(01:00:44):
And there's the online salouthing community. There's a lot of
very bright and capable people out there that have capabilities
that far exceed mine in certain ways, or expertise that
lends itself to being able to provide intion. But what
you do see, though, is you have the other side,

(01:01:05):
and the other side is what weighs down the investigation
because now you have these people that are calling in
tips that have no nexus. They get very belligerent. In fact,
they start looking at me as their private investigator, and
I was like, no, that's not how this works.

Speaker 3 (01:01:23):
There needs to be a code of conduct. There needs
to be a filter, a filter that everything goes through,
and you you you know, and I've actually I'm actually
writing this code of conduct up right now. And one
of the things is after the biggest thing, which is
don't name names in public, don't say hey, this is
the guy.

Speaker 4 (01:01:39):
Is this the guy?

Speaker 3 (01:01:39):
Hey, I think this is the guy. You can never
do it then, which is which is what you saw
in the Boston bombing, which set crowdsourcing back years. The
second thing after that is be safe. And the third
thing is that you know, you have to have that
kind of you know, code of conduct. You can't just
go off and especially if you're dealing with victims families, right, yeah,
you have to. You have to just maintain a positive

(01:02:02):
outlook and not just you know, crap all over anybody.
And you're not going to get credit. A lot of
times you're not going to get credit. And there's a
lot of people I found this guy, found this guy.
You just have to say, listen, if you're working with
the victims families, the victims' families, know, but it's going
to be few and far between that a police officer
or a detective is going to go and say this
would And I've had it happen myself, and I was
amazed when they did it, and they invited me to

(01:02:23):
the press conference for something that I helped solve. It
very rarely happens, you know. It's like I think it's
happened maybe twenty percent of the ones that I've been
able to help with. So you know, you're not always
going to get that, but you know you need that code.

Speaker 4 (01:02:35):
Yeah, and then that that would be helpful as long
as that's they abide by it or that there's also
kind of a having a respect that there are going
to be aspects of the investigation that have to be closed.
And that is very very real, and some people have
a hard time understanding that. Those of us that have
experiences over the decades realize that there are people out there.

(01:03:00):
You know, for example, there are people that will confess
to these types of crimes and they have no involvement.
And that's one of the reasons, you know, if we
don't have a case that has such strong DNA evidence
and we have to rely on the circumstances of how
that crime was committed. There's going to be details that
have to be held back from the public. Otherwise we're

(01:03:20):
going to have these people coming in and just confessing
and you know, laying out how it happened because they
read about it in the newspaper, and we can't really
sort them out from the actual guy that did it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:31):
How do you decide what of those you know, what
about evidence to keep behind and what of it would
be helpful for the public to know to.

Speaker 4 (01:03:40):
Help solve it, or just right, it's case by case,
you know, and most certainly it's it's it's assessing what
only the offender would know, and that's what we would
hold back. There's also things that we hold back just
out of sensitivity to the family, you know, because they
don't want to necessyrely hear the horrors that their family

(01:04:02):
member went through. So, you know, there's lots of decisions
that are made very and it has to be made
very early on. You know, for example, a Corners report,
the medical examiner's report, when all the information that's in
there is technically public record, so we have to recognize
very early on at that point in time to seal

(01:04:22):
that record or redact specific information out of that report
that we do not want to let the public know about.

Speaker 2 (01:04:30):
That was actually one of the cool things too about
the ID Channel special is how many victims spoke on
camera talked about their experience, Like, I think that that
part of the Golden State Killer. It's knowing how many
victims there are and what a horrible time that was

(01:04:50):
for so many people in Sacramento in the seventies, and
then just to see these amazing women who were just like, well,
this is what happened in walking through it where it's
like they were the victims of this crime, but they're
also very strong women who are leading their lives. And
seeing them also at crime con with you.

Speaker 3 (01:05:07):
Guys, Jane and Margaret, it's just Jane and Margaret are
just ridiculously amazing. And Jane Jane's sense of humor and
coming up with quip after quip of first, you know,
with his small member and having you know, the conversations
about that, but also just you know, wanting to hit
him in the head with the roast that he had
me up and she's so fantastic.

Speaker 1 (01:05:30):
Are there any cases that Bill you'd want people to
focus on now that this one is off of our
websleuth plates.

Speaker 3 (01:05:38):
Yeah, look up Allenstown four. That's the one that I'm
you know, as far as like the And I was
actually working on the Allenstown four case right when I
learned that Michelle died. I had just gotten back from
being in the woods and working walking that area when
I was in a bar and found out that she
had passed. So I kind of linked these two. And
these two are actually kind of linked in a weird
way too, because Paul knew about that case and had

(01:06:01):
talked to some of the same investigators about DNA way
back in the day about that.

Speaker 4 (01:06:05):
Well, the interesting thing, I didn't know about the Allenstown
four case at all. Billy brought that to my attention
a few years ago when we first met at Michelle's memorial,
and so I kind of looked at that online and said,
that looks like a very interesting case. I had a
case that I went out on in two thousand and two,

(01:06:27):
a homicide of an Asian female. And it turns out
that that guy, Larry Vanner, who killed his living girlfriend
who we couldn't identify Larry, we didn't know who he was,
and he had abandoned a child back in nineteen eighty six.

Speaker 1 (01:06:45):
I've been reading about this one, Lisa.

Speaker 4 (01:06:46):
Jensen, and we were sure once we determined he was
not the biological father Lisa, that we thought that she
was an abductive child from somewhere, and using traditional law
enforcement methods, we could never identify who Lisa was. And
I just happened to get into a conference call February
of twenty seventeen with Peter Headley from San Bernardino and

(01:07:09):
a captain from my Sheriff's office who was the lead
investigator on the two thousand and two homicide. And that's
when I first found out that Lisa Jensen had been
identified as Don Bodin, a missing girl out of Canada.
And eventually that ended up linking this two thousand and
two case out of Contra Costa County to the Allenstown

(01:07:32):
case out of New Hampshire that Billy had told me about.
But I couldn't tell Billy at that point a time.

Speaker 3 (01:07:40):
Yeah, yeah, I know, I know. But and the crazy
thing about that case is is that we still via
gup I could we still you know the girls in
the barrels, which is a woman and three females. We
still don't know their identities, but we know who killed them,
which very rarely happens, you know, it's always the other
way around. So that's the case that I'm very deep
in to right now and working out a special on

(01:08:03):
And also, you know it's going to be in my
book at some point. But there's so many crazy twists
and turns, and we talk about this guy being you know,
we talk about the Golden State Killer and being so evil.
I really think Rasmus and Slash, Bob Evans, splash, Larry Vanner,
he had a tons of different names. Was even more
evil because his mo was this. He would sidle up

(01:08:23):
to a woman who had kids. He would take that
woman sort of away from her family and move her away,
and then he would molest the kids, kill the woman,
and then use those kids to attract another woman that
he's like this poor single father. Once he got that
other woman with other kids, he would kill the kids
that he with the other one once they were ready

(01:08:45):
to talk, and then start that whole cycle all over again.
And he did this a lot, and we're still trying
to figure out where else he's been. So it's right
now I'm delving into these two backgrounds of these guys
that weren't necessarily super nice guys. The difference is is
that one of them is dead and he liked to
talk a lot because he really was a master manipulator,

(01:09:06):
this guy Rasmussen, and you can look up his the
stuff that, you know, his interrogations, and he really thinks
he's going to get out of it, whereas D'Angelo is
a completely different cat, and he's just you know, obviously
spending seven hours just staring at the wall.

Speaker 4 (01:09:18):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:09:19):
Do you think that's because he's a cop too, Like
he's already seen what can happen if you start talking, no.

Speaker 4 (01:09:25):
Question about it. You know, the law enforcement training is
most certainly you know, he's been on the other side
talking to suspects. He understands what it means to incriminate
yourself with statements. And he was married to an attorney.

Speaker 1 (01:09:40):
Oh right, So you think you go to trial? Do
you think he'll have the balls to go to trial
on this?

Speaker 4 (01:09:47):
I think it will eventually go to trial, but don't
expect that trial to happen anytime soon. I think the
trial is probably going to be five years or more.
Out these cases, I mean it takes a long time
to get a case, especially of this magnitude to trial.

Speaker 3 (01:10:02):
Yeah, and he's he's looking for an escape route again. Yeah,
so if he's going to do everything in his power
to either potentially go you know, have spend time in
a hospital as opposed to spend spending time in a
prison or jail, and just do anything he can in
terms of all right, we're going to try to do
delays and delays and delays.

Speaker 1 (01:10:21):
How much should I piss you off? And you is
how I'm in a wheelchair in the court.

Speaker 4 (01:10:24):
Yeah, that was just a bunch of bs, you know.
And that's that's where in many ways, you know, here
he is. He's trying to portray himself as a golden
state killer back in the day as this you know,
just this master criminal mind, and then he's doing this
wimpy wheelchair thing. At this point, he just needs to
man up. He needs to basically take accountability for these crimes,

(01:10:47):
tell us everything. If he wants, if he wants any
type of recognition, so to speak, do that, Like the
BTK did, just stand up there and say I did this,
this is how I did it, this is who I
self identify as, and unfortunately right now he's he's taking the.

Speaker 1 (01:11:07):
Cowardly way out totally.

Speaker 2 (01:11:10):
Sorry, go ahead, No, I just I was thinking maybe
part of that and the difficulty of that is that
judge recently deciding that they can publicly talk about the
size of his penis, which I'm sure it is, has
a lot to do with all of it, All of it, really,
don't you think at the end of the day, like
there's the part of the rage and part of all

(01:11:31):
that stuff. I just think it's like there's a real
humiliation level that's not just he got caught, right, that's possible. Maybe, yeah, definitely,
it's so frustrating.

Speaker 3 (01:11:41):
Well, it's definitely. They talk about it. They actually can take.

Speaker 4 (01:11:43):
A picture of it, right and they have. You know,
we've got the GSK dick pic.

Speaker 1 (01:11:47):
It's there and we'll be putting it up on the Instagram,
my favorite murder Instagram.

Speaker 2 (01:11:51):
There's a brand new hashtag waiting to happen.

Speaker 1 (01:11:54):
You were talking about the single sock Billy.

Speaker 3 (01:11:56):
Yeah, oh yeah, yeah, So this week. I don't know
how early you guys are going to get this on.
But nick Meck, which is a national center for Missing
exploited children, they do rock one sock, which is to
raise awareness for all of the missing children that are
out there. So I'm going to be asking everybody in
this room to be taking off one shoe and one
sock and rocking one sock and we'll take pictures of

(01:12:18):
it and put it up on social media. But you know,
nick Meck is great. They're they're a fantastic organization and
they do a lot with them and it really is
it's the clearinghouse for finding missing children. And I actually
was at nick Meck right before the day before I
went up to Allenstown, which the day before I found
out about Michelle, I was actually interviewing. I was at

(01:12:41):
nick Meck interviewing the guy that had done the the
the facial reconstructions of the four victims and the barrels,
and it was fascinating and he was turning turning the
heads around on the on the screen and then the
showing and you saw this giant hole in the back
of their heads. And this is what this guy did.
He you know, took a rock or a brick and

(01:13:02):
then just did this to these three little girls and
this woman. And that's his earmark. And that's what we've
been looking for. Me and Headley across the country and
seeing other places that he did that because obviously that
was his way of getting rid of somebody was hitting
in the back of the head and we found a
couple so.

Speaker 4 (01:13:15):
In one of those little girls was his own dogs.

Speaker 2 (01:13:17):
Yeah, which is how, which is how they found him horrible, insane.

Speaker 1 (01:13:22):
Karen, you look shook when the socks.

Speaker 2 (01:13:24):
Yeah, we've been on European tour for several weeks. I
haven't had it. I don't remember the last time out
of pedicure. I'm going to have to send mine in
after I go to the foot doctor. Like just the
idea of that, well, well.

Speaker 3 (01:13:39):
I was going to yes, I don't make me do this.
I kept two secrets from you. It was that, it
was not it was having the years. I understand it.

Speaker 2 (01:13:48):
This is like my humiliation birthday. Basically, why do you
hate me this much? I thought we were friends.

Speaker 3 (01:13:54):
I love.

Speaker 2 (01:13:56):
So unfair. I love it. The one thing I did
want to say, Paul Hole is when when I was
listening to The Daily at the very end of that
interview and he kind of weirdly abruptly ended it where
suddenly it was like, well, thanks for doing this interview.
The way you said to him. It was I think
you said it was great to be here, or it
was great to talk to you or something. This sound

(01:14:17):
of your voice and maybe this is just my I
think I can read your mind, but it sounded like
what you were saying is, thank god, this is the
story I'm finally getting to tell. Like there was such
a relief in your voice and almost like a happiness
the way you said like it was great to be
It was like such, it was just so it was
so exciting that that the story finally changed.

Speaker 4 (01:14:41):
Yeah. Yeah, And I can't say that at that moment
in time, that's what I was thinking. I don't remember,
but n it absolutely is great to be able to
at least start talking about who the East Airy Rapist.
That's whow I've known this guy, this was the East
Air Rapist or the ear to me for decades before
Michelle named him the Golden State Killer. To finally see
who he was after all these years, to see that

(01:15:02):
face that all I've seen in my mind when I
read the case files is a masked man, so now
I could see it. Basically the mask has been taken off.
So it is kind of very nice to get to
this point. And as I've mentioned, I have a story
to tell that's never been told and now I have
the opportunity to be able to tell it. And I'm

(01:15:24):
working on that.

Speaker 1 (01:15:25):
And we heard that there's going to be an addendum
to that to I'll be Gone in the Dark.

Speaker 5 (01:15:29):
Is that?

Speaker 1 (01:15:30):
Am I allowed to say that?

Speaker 3 (01:15:31):
Yeah? I think so.

Speaker 2 (01:15:32):
Yeah, we're working on that really, because I've been telling
everyone across the globe, because people have actually been bringing
copies of the book to the meet and greets at
our live shows.

Speaker 1 (01:15:43):
For us design it, We're like, we had nothing to do, yeah,
just to go like, you know, well and those I
sent you the picture.

Speaker 2 (01:15:50):
But there were two murdererists who are from France who
just said we brought you this because we figured you'd
want to see it, the French version of it, which
of course I immediately started crying. I was like, I
really did to see that. I didn't realize it, but
but you know, that's just that there's there's now an
ending like that that it was. There was something very
sad and of course unsatisfying about how how it was and.

Speaker 3 (01:16:14):
Going going through her notes and while we were putting
the book together and finding that coda finding the letter
to the Old Man, and it was it was amazing.
You know, my jaw dropped when I first saw that.
I was just and the way that she wrote it,
and it really did play out exactly how she said,
so interest and I that was one of the first
things I thought about when I heard the news. I

(01:16:34):
was like, I wonder if it was just like that,
you know, and it turns out it was. But finding
that it was, it was almost like she knew. She
knew that if something ever bad happened to her, this
is how the book is going to end if we
didn't catch him. And again, she just wanted him caught
more than anything else. So yeah, that'll it'll end there,
and then we'll tax something else on the end.

Speaker 2 (01:16:52):
It's very cool.

Speaker 1 (01:16:53):
And what's next for Paul?

Speaker 2 (01:16:55):
Are you going to go Hollywood hole?

Speaker 4 (01:16:58):
So I am, you know, of course, I am going
to write a book about my story. I am exploring
TV opportunities to see what's there. You know, I've got
many many cases that I've worked and one of the things,
you know, I though GSK is my biggest case. I
want to make sure people understand that I'm not just
GS case that.

Speaker 1 (01:17:17):
Wasn't your only case, that was my only kid, just
to hold that one file on your desk for thirty years.

Speaker 4 (01:17:23):
You know, I will say for the better part of
the last ten years, I really tunnel visioned on that case,
especially in the last two years, and in some ways,
you know, as Billy was the one that said, oh
you need to, you know, open a Twitter account, I
have been like an incarcerated man. I have just been
so tunnel visioned on the case that a whole world
has kind of grown out there. And now that the

(01:17:44):
case is behind me and I'm retired, I'm now, what
is this online there? But it's it's it's very fun
at the same time, So you know, I am exploring things.
I am helping other agencies out and it's not just
the genealogy side. It bring other aspects of expertise that

(01:18:05):
I can lend to a case.

Speaker 1 (01:18:06):
Any here a science dude.

Speaker 4 (01:18:08):
I have a science background. I have an investigative background.
I have a behavioral background. And I think that's my
strength is I can walk between those disciplines and be
able to piece together stuff that maybe an investigator who
doesn't understand the forensics and is looking at a report
that's just a bunch of scientific gibberish. I can talk
in that investigator's language and say, this is what you've got,

(01:18:30):
this is the direction you need to go. Same thing
if you have a profiler coming in. I can be
able to help bridge these people that don't necessarily walk
in each other's worlds. And so that's my strength, and
that's what I'm hoping to be able to do and
help other law enforcement agencies.

Speaker 2 (01:18:47):
Cut to the Paul Holes Lifeguard show.

Speaker 1 (01:18:53):
I think on that note, what's a really important question
is are you going to take advantage of all the
fucking puns you can use with your last name? I
will be very disappointed, you know, growing.

Speaker 4 (01:19:04):
Up with the last names, I've heard it all. I've
been referred to everybody orfice not fair. Yeah yeah, and
you see some of the hashtags and it's just the
way it is. Yeah, you know, but it's all fun,
and I got hard part.

Speaker 1 (01:19:18):
I understand.

Speaker 2 (01:19:19):
Yeah, people like to have fun, and I think everybody,
especially on Twitter, people just go a little crazy because
they're just everybody's I think for us, at least, the
newness of how how many true crime fans are out there,
how passionate they are, and how we've all basically, like
I said, we've all been watching the same TV shows

(01:19:40):
for twenty years. We've all well, you know, I remember
the episode of whatever the show was, Dateline or twenty
twenty when they were like the Earons is the original Nightstalk,
you know whatever, two thousand and one, whenever that happened,
Like all those we've.

Speaker 1 (01:19:53):
Been telling people of I mean, I've been anecdotally telling
people the story of how he must have been at
one of the the town halls because of this thing,
without even really knowing what the case was for years.
It turns out it might not be true story to
tell at party.

Speaker 2 (01:20:07):
Well, it's amazing and I and it that the Golden
State Killer is up there with the worst of the worst,
So those stories fit even if they're not totally accurate.
That's how bad this guy, I mean, he really is
that awful as a person. So yeah, it's just there's
a whole there's a whole true crime world waiting for.

Speaker 1 (01:20:29):
You, Paul Holes.

Speaker 4 (01:20:30):
Well, I hope to be able to walk into that world,
a new world.

Speaker 3 (01:20:36):
Down the rabbit hole, because me and me and Michelle
used to always talk about I'm going down this rabbit hole,
like when we were doing when we had entered it
into y search, entered his DNA when we only had
a little bit of the markers, not as many as
you had later on, but going down that rabbit hole
of the of that one name we won't mention, and
going through and going through like you know, eighteenth century census,

(01:20:59):
her poor, and like three weeks of that, going like
what am I doing with my life? This is ridiculous,
and thinking like we can get him. But it was
ten you know, it was ten generations ago, and it
just wasn't work.

Speaker 1 (01:21:11):
You call up the did you do? You call up
the guy that you were sure it was and you
were hounding and apologized to him.

Speaker 4 (01:21:18):
Well, there's been multiple guys like that, and I have
gone and spoken with him. Then they have no idea
that I investigated them as a suspect. So it was
you know, in fact, one guy I spent a year
on and after I got his DNA surreptitiously and eliminated him,
I spent three hours in his dining room talking to
him because I thought he was close enough that maybe

(01:21:40):
the East A rapist was somebody he knew whoa that's
that's that. That was just part of the typical investigation.
You can march down this path. You get excited about somebody.
You see all the circumstantial evidence the DNA eliminates, and
you're going.

Speaker 1 (01:21:52):
You should just arrested him. He probably did something.

Speaker 2 (01:21:54):
Right, Well, that's a show, right, other reasons arrest someone
even though they're not the serial killer?

Speaker 4 (01:22:02):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:22:02):
Really quick? Did they not let you talk at that
press conference? Because is that a political thing? Is that
that kind of like the DA speaks and then this
person speaks, and it's a well.

Speaker 4 (01:22:13):
Most certainly you know with the press conference, you do
have the elected officials. They're coming up on their campaign cycle,
so they're going to want to get that attention. I
had told dam Marie Schubert because we weren't. They did
not want to get into the details about the genealogy
at that press conference. The focus was on DiAngelo. I

(01:22:34):
had gone up to her before and I said, you
know what, if the press starts asking questions about the
technical aspects, don't turn it over to me because then
I'm going to be answering and then you are going
to be answering questions about the genealogy side. So I
did back away from being somebody who could have been
up there at that podium. In fact, I had victims
I had to go call, and so I slipped out,

(01:22:54):
you know, as it was dragging on and on, in
order to start calling these victims.

Speaker 1 (01:22:59):
Yeah, okay, well we still wanted you to cool.

Speaker 2 (01:23:05):
This is amazing.

Speaker 1 (01:23:06):
Thank you so much, great, thank you both for being here.

Speaker 2 (01:23:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:23:09):
Well it's been my pleasure, you know. And one of
the things that you said, you talked about Michelle's contribution
to the Golden State killer case, and absolutely she had
a contribution. But you take a look at what you
two are doing in the true crime space. You are
bringing attention to these cases and that is just as significant.
So you are having a role, So understand that.

Speaker 2 (01:23:30):
Thanks. Well, we're definitely having a good time.

Speaker 1 (01:23:34):
Yeah, and feel lucky to be involved in any way
we can with a.

Speaker 2 (01:23:39):
Thing that you know, as all of us say, it
used to make us feel weird to be so interested
in stuff like this, and it's used to be a
thing that we all kept to ourselves. And now it's
you know, there's like a it's a new day and
everyone gets to go, Yeah, I'm into that too. I
love that I know all about it.

Speaker 3 (01:23:54):
That moved murders out there. This was only, you know,
really a handful. And the grand scheme of things, it's
two hundred and fifteen thousand unsolved murders since nineteen eighty
in America. And you know, you guys can shine the
light because you guys are the biggest superstars right now
in true crime. That true crime is seen in a while,

(01:24:15):
really long time. I mean, you had you had John
Walsh and then you had Nancy Grace. But Nancy Grace
is a very polarizing character any of you guys. And
the fact that you know, you've got three thousand people
showing up at at your events and going crazy and
all of the Etsy stuff and all of the crafts
and everything. I mean, it really is amazing. And I
think that there's a lot of great that can be
done from all the murderinos out there.

Speaker 2 (01:24:36):
Yeah, that's true. I think that's only happening because we
also constantly hear when we meet people at the meet
and greet people saying either they're going back to college
to study forensics or they are switching their majors. I mean,
we hear things all the time and we're like, I'm like,
I've just been reading Wikipedia pages. I'm not, but it's

(01:24:57):
people are so excited that they have this interest that
they know they share. That's popular and interesting. And I
love the idea that there could be this wave of
women getting into police work and really being you know,
the next Carol Daily, so that that isn't an odd thing,
and that there is that the female perspective I think

(01:25:19):
is kind of crucial.

Speaker 4 (01:25:20):
It absolutely is. And I've experienced that firsthand, where you
work a case and you're working it from a male
perspective and then the female is seeing it from a
different side, and it definitely is an additive when you go, huh,
you know, that is not how I perceived this at all.
So that is very valuable. And there are a lot

(01:25:40):
of amazing women in law enforcement today.

Speaker 1 (01:25:42):
Yeah. Yeah, Well that's an incredible community, this little murdering community,
and we're lucky to be part of it.

Speaker 3 (01:25:48):
And it also isn't just going back to school, it's voting.
Remember that if you don't want to do go back
to school, if you've got a good job and you're
just saying, all right, just like reading about this this
stuff and listening to it, it's vote, and we need
to get loud and we need to get loud now
as much as we were getting loud and starting to
get loud with the backlog and ending the backlog, and
we need to start getting loud on all of these

(01:26:10):
even the remains that are sitting in police lockers of people.
We need to start figuring out who those people are,
start figuring out not only running the rape kits, but
then running them through familial DNA and solving these crimes.
And that's going to be through the murder reinos getting
loud along with everybody else in just trying to make
that stuff happen.

Speaker 1 (01:26:28):
Okay, are there any resources people can look into online
to kind of find.

Speaker 3 (01:26:33):
I would say, let's start with end the Backlog. Just
do a search for end the Backlog and you can
find it. Risco Hargeta is doing great work there.

Speaker 2 (01:26:39):
Yeah, we've talked about that a lot.

Speaker 1 (01:26:40):
Yeah, there's been.

Speaker 2 (01:26:42):
The cool thing is sometimes murdering knows will get together
just to drink together, and then they'll be like, we
raised two hundred and fifty dollars for end the Backlog.
They're just like, yeah, it's very cool. There's there. Everybody's
very proactive and excited. Yeah, it's cool. Yeah, thanks you guys.

Speaker 1 (01:26:56):
Thank you guys, thank you guys. Thanks for listening. Everyone.
Fuck so this is we gonna do that.

Speaker 2 (01:27:02):
This is a show and its own fucking hooray. It's
all one thing, that's right. Yeah, Steven, Wait you have
to say the thing. Oh, stay sex, I forgot my line,
stay sex, don't get murdered. Bye bye