October 21, 2025 • 55 mins
Elin Lantz Lesser joins us to talk about a cold case that haunted Texas for more than four decades, the 1974 murder of Carla Walker. Recently solved through DNA and genetic genealogy, Elin, host of America’s Crime Lab, walks us through how new science finally brought answers to a case that had gone cold for over 40 years.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This story contains adult content and language. Listener discretion is advised.
(00:22):
Welcome to the Knife. I'm Hannah Smith. I am Haitia Eaton.
It's a very special day today. We have an episode
out and it's not Thursday.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
What how wild? How wild and unpredictable of us.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
I know, you know, we loved this conversation so much
that we decided to go ahead and just release it
even though it's not Thursday. In this episode, we talk
with Alan lance Lesser about solving cold cases with new
DNA technology and genetic genealogy.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Eilan is the host of America's Crime Lab, and she
tells us about a cold case that was solved after
more than forty years. In the beginning, we'll talk a
little bit about genetic genie, which we thought was important
to try to understand how this all works. But stick
with us because we get into a cold case that
is truly fascinating. Enjoy the episode, Alan, Welcome to the Knife.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
Thank you so much. I'm so excited to be here.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
We're really excited to talk to you today.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Yeah, we've been listening to your podcast and we're obsessed,
so we are excited to get into it. So a
little bit about your bio. You co wrote, produced, and
co hosted The Turning, which listeners might be familiar with.
It's excellent, an award winning documentary podcast that intimately explores
insular groups with blurry power dynamics. And there are three
seasons out now. But we're actually here to talk to
(01:44):
you about your other podcasts, America's Crime Lab, and that
show covers cases that are oftentimes unsolved for a long time,
some current cases as well, but that are all solved
with the help of DNA testing and genetic genealogy in
all cases that Authrum Labs have worked on. That name
(02:04):
might sound familiar because Authram has been connected to some
very high profile cases, the Golden State Killer investigation, for one,
but there have been many so America's Crime Lab. It's
a collaboration between Kaleidoscope, iHeart and Authrum Labs. And I'd
love to hear about you know, how the show came
about and were you already really interested in, you know,
(02:26):
DNA use in criminal cases, Like how did this all happen?
Speaker 3 (02:31):
Well? I feel like it was one of those providential
things where it all came together. I personally have always
been a true crime fan in the sense that I
just love human stories, and I think when people face
such horrors, it's like you just see the basis of humanity.
And so I'm someone who's always consumed that media. Basically,
(02:53):
it was really like a team effort for how it
came to be, Like you mentioned Kaleidoscope and iHeart and
Authrom kind of together, We're like, let's make this podcast
where we can spread the word on this new technology
that a lot of people either literally don't know about
or who have vaguely heard about that is changing the
way crimes are being investigated. And I think what's exciting
(03:15):
about our show is that it explains the science in
a way that I think is pretty relatable. Like I'm
not a genetic scientist as the host, and I feel
like I'm kind of getting it now, and I think
it's helpful to be able to consume other media about
true crime. So they kind of conceived of this podcast
idea together. They're like, we want this information to go
(03:38):
out into the public because the more people know about it,
the more detectives across the country could reach out to
AUTHORAM and use the technology. Like a huge barrier to
it being used as people just not knowing about it.
So then because I had worked with some of the
team at Rococoa Punch that's working with Kaleidoscope to make
the podcast on the Turning and other shows, and I
(04:00):
knew I had a background in psychology. I actually have
my PhD in clinical psychology and did a lot of
therapy and all that gave therapy before switching careers. They're like,
we know you like true crime, like would you host
this show with us? And I was like, are you serious?
This is a dream come true because it is something
I'm so passionate about and it just felt truly providential
(04:22):
to be able to work on this.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
That's so cool. Yeah, So we're going to talk about
a specific case that you cover on the podcast. But
first you mentioned, you know, authoram is bringing this like
very new technology, and I've sort of been interested in
Authoram for a while. I've listened to some podcasts with
David Middleman, the founder. I've been trying to understand like, Okay,
(04:44):
DNA testing has been around since like the eighties or
somebody has been used in criminal cases, but what author
is doing seems really different and new. And so I've
heard David Mindleman kind of explain how the technology works.
To be honest, still don't really understand it. There's a
reason I'm a podcaster, not like a scientist. I do
(05:05):
love the way that you talk about like the technology
mean explained through your podcast. Things are always easier to
understand through storytelling in my opinion. But you know, what
have you learned about it from working on this case,
like the very layman's explanation of why what authorm is
doing is so new and important.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
Honestly, I could go on and on about this, so
it may take us a bit to get to the case,
but just kidding. Basically, it's this new technology that you know.
The old DNA technology, while totally great and has helped
solve so many cases, it would look at twenty markers
to create a DNA profile, whereas this new type of
(05:45):
DNA technology takes between one hundred thousand to a million
markers and gives basically way more information in that DNA profile.
Whereas before the old DNA profile with twenty markers, you'd
run through CODIS, which is that national database that maybe
(06:05):
your listeners have heard of before, and you'd look for
a match with someone who is already in CODIS, someone
who is convicted of a serious type of violent crime,
so you'd need to have already arrested them and taken
their DNA from another crime in order to get a match.
So that's really helpful if you have that match, but
(06:27):
also extremely limiting. And then it is true with COTIS,
I think there are certain relationships other than the match,
like a sun or something that maybe you can glean
from too. I won't get into those details though, just
to be correct about it, I want to acknowledge that.
But then with the new technology, because there's so much
more information, you can plug that information into these databases
(06:49):
that are genealogical websites basically, you know, like where you
get a swab of your mouth and send it off
for DNA testing to get to know your ancestry. Well,
some of those sites have consented to forensic investigations, not
all of them, but some of them, and basically they
can use those genealogical websites to build out a family
(07:13):
tree from the profile, and rather than it just being
a hit and codis, you can literally slowly go through
the family tree see what bits of their profile matches
and whittle down, often to a single name of who
they're pretty sure left the DNA at the crime scene
or possibly like among a few siblings or something. So
(07:34):
it basically provides you a lead. And that's something that
AUTHRM explains a lot and investigators who've worked with this
type of DNA. What this really does is it creates
a lead. It's not a slam dunk. It doesn't mean
you have a conviction or you have your case. And
it's not saying, oh, if you left your DNA at
a crime it means one hundred percent you committed it.
(07:55):
It's just giving you a name to investigate. So then
you have to go back and do your due diligence,
figure out if the person has an alibi. You got
to figure out other evidence, whether circumstantial or other links
to the crime, and really do the good old fashioned
detective work that we're familiar with. But then on top
(08:16):
of it, if you have enough DNA, you also can
run the old type of DNA, and then if you
have this suspect, you can take a sample and run
it against using the old technology to doubly confirm like
this is the person. So it basically provides another type
of DNA to test the old kind of DNA against,
(08:36):
and it also creates new leads that were simply never
possible before.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
And DNA gets into CODIS from either someone who has
submitted it to you know, ancestry dot com or one
of these sorts of websites, or I guess I don't
know if Ancestry has consented to COTIS, for example, having
their DNA records. But like, how does DNA make it
into code to begin with? Even if it's like you're
(09:02):
connecting a piece of DNA that doesn't flag in CODIS,
but maybe flags is like a relative of someone who
is in CODIS.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
This is such a good question actually that you ask,
because I think there is a distinction. So this information
with the new technology actually isn't typically being used against COTIS.
CODIS is separate from the genetic genealogy. So I'm glad
you clarified that CODIS is just like the old standard
twenty marker profile. So that's a separate thing, okay, And
(09:33):
this is using information from genealogical websites, so they're not
even touching CODIS in this process, I see. So it
could be anyone off the street, So it's often not criminals,
but it's people who have consented to having their DNA
profile that they uploaded for other reasons provide information to
lead someone potentially to a killer, which is.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
So interesting because then there are cases that we're hearing
about now where the person who ends up, you know,
the lead that is generated and then it ends up
you know through a detective work that it's them. They're
not in the system, maybe they've never been caught for
a crime, right, and so they've been flying under the radar,
and suddenly there's this massive amount of DNA available that's
(10:17):
so wild, Like I mean, it's talked about a lot
in the true crime space, but it's like, Okay, you know,
if you have that aunt or uncle who's like you
really shouldn't be doing any of the DNA testing, like
nobody do it, It's like that could be what's the
motive a red fire? Yeah kidding, but thank you so
much for explaining that. It'll really help us as we
go through the case. We might need some more like explainers,
but totally. You talk about a bunch of interesting cases
(10:39):
on the podcast, but one that we want to talk
about is one that was a cold case, specifically because
we're super interested in cold cases and cold cases being
solved through DNA technology. And so this is the case
of Carla Walker, a case from nineteen seventy four. And
before we get into, you know, the investigation, can you
kind of walk us through who Carla Walker was and
(11:02):
what was going on with the you know, what happened
in nineteen seventy four.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Yeah, So, as you said, in nineteen seventy four, Carla
Walker went missing in the Fort Worth, Texas area, and
she was a seventeen year old girl, junior in high school.
Was known for having a really fiery, energetic personality, was
really silly too, people said. So many people loved her,
(11:27):
and she wanted to be a veterinarian. She loved animals,
loved her little white dog, whose nails she would sometimes
paint pink. So she was spunky and fun, and she
was a cheerleader and she was dating the quarterback of
the football team. And so in February they were going
(11:49):
to go to their Valentine's Day dance and her boyfriend Rodney,
picked her up from home. Her family was all gathered
there to send her off. Take pictures in from the fireplace,
and they say, don't worry, like you don't have a curfew.
You can come back when you want. We trust Rodney,
we trust you. We'll be waiting up for you to
hear how the night went. So they go to the dance,
(12:12):
have a good time, and then after the dance, they
are hanging out in Rodney's actually his mom's car, because
of course they're high schoolers, in the parking lot of
a bowling alley, and they're doing what teens do. They're
hanging out kissing a little bit, and then, according to
Rodney the boyfriend, suddenly the door to the car opens
(12:35):
and Carla kind of falls back, and suddenly there's a
man or possibly two men there with a gun pointing
it to them, and Rodney thinks that he's then shot
and becomes unconscious, and when he wakes up, Carla is gone.
So according to Rodney, presumably she's been abducted.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
And Rodney is unconscious for he thinks about how long.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
I can't remember the exact amount of time, but what
is notable is so the next place he goes allegedly
is to Carla Walker's family, which.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
I think is around one point thirty in the morning.
Is when he gets to the Walker's house, because they're
all still awake waiting for them to get home.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
Is that?
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Am I remembering that? Right?
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Yeah? You are, You're on it. What's interesting is that's
roughly like an hour or hour and a half after
when the alleged abduction occurred, which is I think what
you're alluding to that it's kind of like there's this
break in time. What was Rodney doing during that time?
When he shows up, they noticed even the blood on
his face because he was supposedly hit over the head,
(13:41):
maybe with the butt of the gun or something, it's
coagulated showing time had passed. So I think eventually investigators
kind of wonder about that, what was happening? What was
he doing in that hour hour and a half. So obviously,
when he does arrive there, he tells the family she's
been taken. They are just horrified, you know, they get
(14:04):
lease involved. The search begins. The father is so upset
he even heads out with a gun to try to
find Carla. He's just devastated. What has happened. I want
her back, but they can't find her. Rodney is so
close to the family they really see him almost as
another son or something. He even stays overnight in Carla's
(14:25):
bed for a while because they trust him. And they're
feeling for him, and that's kind of the center of
this investigation at first. Yeah, I was.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Actually curious about that piece of this Rodney sleeping over.
You know, he was like, like you said, really close
to the family, sounds like, and they really trusted him
with Carla, and you know, he was almost like a
son to them. But do we know anything about Rodney's
family situation. I'm picturing like if I'm Rodney's parents and
(14:55):
knowing that he just went through this incredibly horrific experience,
his girlfriend abducted, he's badly beaten, I would want him
home with me. Do we know anything else about why
he stayed there?
Speaker 3 (15:08):
You know, I'm not entirely sure, and I don't want
to give you a wrong answer. That's such a good question, though,
you would think that he would go home, and so
that is almost a little bit suspect. But I do
get the sense that that house became like the epicenter
where everybody was coming, like the police were coming. He
was probably being you know, questioned by police. Maybe they
(15:29):
wanted him around, and that's there was like the hustle
and bustle was happening there. So I wonder if that
was part of the reason.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
Yeah, because he shows up and he's you know, bloodied
and beaten, but they remember him also seeming like genuinely terrified.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
Yeah, he was terrified, and he seemed to be so
worried about Carla and what happened, and you know, feeling
guilt and fear around like what happened? What could I
have done to stop this? And who were these people
or this person who took her?
Speaker 2 (16:02):
Yeah, so I think I took us on a little tangent.
But so the police arrive and they go off searching
with the dad goes with them. Rodney stays back at
the house with Carla's mom and maybe also her aunt
and Carla's twelve year old brother. They're all still at
the house. What goes on during the search.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
Yeah, so a lot of people in the community start searching.
It takes them days, but eventually three days later, they
find Carla's body underneath a cattle culvert basically in the
middle of a field, kind of a quasi bridge that
cattle can walk across. She's found underneath that, and clearly
(16:41):
she was sexually assaulted and murdered. Basically, some of the
evidence that the investigators had with the case was, first
of all, in the Bowling Alley parking lot, they found
a magazine to a gun. Now this is nineteen seventy four, Texas,
so it could be unrelated to the crime. But they
do their due diligence and try to find anyone who
(17:04):
in the area who owned that gun and question them,
and they didn't really find many leads. It just kind
of seems to stop dead. They don't go anywhere with that, really,
And then they also noticed that Carla's promise ring that Rodney,
her boyfriend, had actually given her, was strewn next to
her body, which some people thought could indicate that maybe
(17:29):
Rodney actually had something to do with it, which, of course,
statistically that's really common for the boyfriend the spouse to
be the one to have committed.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
The crime something so personal. Yes, because he gave this
to her as like a pre engagement or something like
an intention to will get engaged someday, I would assume.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Exactly he's saying, I'm committed to you one day we'll
get married, and this ring is a symbol of that.
So it's a very meaningful symbol, I would assume for
them both. And so when I heard this, my initial
thought was, Hey, maybe it was like Rodney was upset
at her for some reason and took off hering and
(18:08):
threw it to the side, or she threw it to
the side and that led to an escalation of some kind.
So who knows what happened, but there simply isn't enough
evidence and they're not sure how it transpired. So over time,
eventually the case goes cold and it's devastating to the family. Jim,
(18:30):
Carla's younger brother, whom you mentioned, was just devastated. He actually,
I think lived in that house and kept the family
home throughout his adulthood in hopes that maybe someone who
knew something would come and tell him what happened. Wow,
he truly was haunted by it and counted the days
since Carla's subduction years into his life.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Listening to Jim talk about witnessing his parents' anguish over
Carla's abduction was I think it was life changing and
something he never forgot.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
Yeah, and I have to say that's something I really
value about what we were able to do with the podcast.
I know you guys do this a lot on your podcast,
but talking to family members and really getting up close
to what it actually feels like in the moment for
those people actually witnessing what happened, I think there's a
power and an importance in that.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
And yeah, yeah, because you talk with Jim in the podcast,
and some of it it's edded together. But I imagine,
you know, how long did you actually how long was
that interview with him?
Speaker 3 (19:47):
You know, we've done so many I don't know, maybe
like an hour or two. Yeah, I think it is
important to hear those stories, especially because this is something
that still impacts him, you know, to this day, as
it impacts so many people in that community. I mean,
the whole community I think was really overwhelmed and frightened
by what happened. It haunted a lot of people in
(20:09):
that community for years to come because they believed it
was someone in the community who had perpetrated this crime
and they didn't solve it. I mean, how scary for
anyone who has children to know that a young seventeen
year old has been abducted, sexually assaulted, and killed in
this way.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Yeah, And it seems like also during this time, there's
still a fair amount of people that suspected Rodney.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
Yes, and it gets so intense all the suspicion around Rodney,
that Rodney actually moves away from Texas and goes to
Alaska to restart his life. And now that's a question
of is he escaping something and doesn't want to get caught,
or is he just so haunted by what happened and
how people look at him differently and treat him differently,
(20:57):
and you know, maybe he just felt he had to
leave and kind of start over.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
It's so like, you know, thinking about that time that
passed with him, you know, thinking he was shot, probably
hit over the head with a gun potentially, and then
there's this time that elapses, and then he comes to
the family, and then the promise ring and then leaving
for Alaska. All of these things. It's like you could
read them two ways. You could read them as suspicious
(21:24):
or if he's innocent, then it's horrible because then this
person's life is being terribly affected by this, not only
the death of his girlfriend, but his community thinking that
he's probably done this, which I guess goes to show.
I mean, that's one of many examples, speaking with her
brother as well, just the way that cold cases don't
(21:46):
just go away for people and for communities, and when
there's a violent crime that's occurred. It like stays with people.
Which I'm sure you've heard this over and over now
with doing this podcast, and we've also heard on the
Knife Through interview, is that people really care about resolution,
Like it means a lot to people and to communities
to have that answer. Without it, it's just like things
(22:09):
are just left unresolved and people are continuing to hurt
for so long. And so before we get into sort
of like the next break in the case, did the
police have any other suspects? I mean, I assume Rodney was.
Was he a suspect at one time? Did they have
any other like leads or suspects.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
Yeah, so there were a number of people they looked into.
First of all, Rodney definitely was high on the list.
I think it's interesting initially because he was so close
to the family, he wasn't thought of, at least in
the immediate family as a direct suspect. Again, he like
slept over. But then when they spent more time thinking
(22:49):
about it and the sexual nature of the crime, where
had he been for that hour to hour and a half,
they kind of thought, did they get into some kind
of argument, could this had led to a murder? And
then They also did question all the people who owned
the gun that matched the magazine that was left in
(23:12):
the Bulling Alley parking lot, and basically one of the
people that they questioned didn't have their gun. I think
everybody else was able to provide their gun and show
it and they were able to kind of cross them
off list. There was one person who said his gun
had been stolen. They asked him to take a polygraph.
(23:32):
He was very willing. He passed the polygraph. Of course,
we know polygraphs are not that reliable today, but back
then that was considered the gold standard. And also, I
mean he was more than willing to take the polygraph test.
He just simply didn't have the gun, he said, And
so there was kind of nowhere else to go. And
(23:52):
then a while later, someone else actually came out of
the woodwork and confessed to the crime. Not on the
suspect list, and they were really shocked to hear from
this person. And he confessed to the crime, but interestingly,
he seemed to only no information that had been in
the news, didn't really know about Rodney being there, or
(24:14):
couldn't remember it. Suspect Yeah, but there was a grand
jury and he was indicted and jailed for the crime,
but then eventually he recanted and admitted I made it
up for some reason. Who really knows why?
Speaker 1 (24:29):
It's wild that that happens, and how often it happens
that people confess to crimes that they didn't do.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
Yeah, yeah, And it's just such a waste of resources
for all of the investigators and then prosecutors in this
case that then have to pursue it, because why would
someone come forward and say that they did something so
horrific if they didn't.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
Well.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Also, I don't remember if you talked about this in
the podcast, but was Jim told like did her family
think that he had done it? Like when he was
indicted by a grand jury? Like, were people like, oh, yeah,
we got the guy.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
I think a lot of people did think like he
must have done it again because he admitted to it.
And again a grand jury, which I think a lot
of people don't really realize, Like what even is a
grand jury? I like only recently realized what it is.
But it's like basically a mini trial where they have
a kind of jury and they like put forward the
(25:27):
evidence that they would put forward in the trial to
basically determine do we have enough evidence to go to trial,
and that's what creates an indictment. So he was indicted.
So even through this legal system, it was determined that
there was enough evidence for him to go to trial,
but alas it wasn't him. And yeah, it is such
(25:47):
a good reminder too in general when we talk about crimes,
like you don't know what people's motivations are for really
weird or unusual behavior, and that's why the evidence itself
is so important, the hard evidence.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
Do you remember how long after Carla's murder he came
forward and said that he had done it?
Speaker 3 (26:08):
This person I can't recall now off the top of
my head. I think it was a long time later though,
like they had been investigating for a very long time,
and he eventually came forward and possibly again because this
case was sort of in the air, it had been
in the media, the community was so focused on it. Yeah,
and it sounds like possibly the man was having trouble
(26:31):
in his marriage and oddly, somehow this was one way
to cope with that. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
So the case is still cold or then it goes
cold again.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
Basically, yeah, it goes cold again, and unfortunately it goes
cold for forty six years, so almost half a century.
We don't know what happened to her until they decide
to start doing some DNA analysis on the case.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
I have to touch on this because I thought this
part of the story was, like, so just reminiscent of
what I picture of, like small town Texas. Is the
Cowtown Cold Case Chicks. Yes, so COVID COVID. They get
together online, then they get together at a diner, it
sounds like, and they start talking about this case because
(27:28):
one of the women in this group, it's.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Basically what explained the Cowtown Yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Yeah, so the Cowtown Cold Case Chicks are a group
of women who live locally, got online, started talking about
cold cases and murders that had happened in the Fort
Worth area. They had a rule that you couldn't talk
about politics, only murder.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
Which makes sense. Yeah, totally makes sense.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Nothing would get done and twenty twenty, yeah, or any time,
I guess, but yeah. And so one of these women
went to high school with Carla Walker. They weren't friends,
but she knew who Carlo was and has memories of
seeing her at school. And then another woman in the
group is in twenty twenty married to Rodney's best friend.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
Oh wow. Yeah, so this is like all deeply connected.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Deeply connected, and so they're like, okay, we want to
try to solve this, and they put together their own
case file.
Speaker 3 (28:25):
Yeah. No, it is a great story of and what
I love is the idea of just these people coming
out of the woodwork. They're all they're coming from all
walks of life, different backgrounds, maybe different politics, but they're
they're brought together from this case and somehow just feeling
this emotional connection to it and this personal connection. So
they put together just all the information they can glean
(28:48):
into a file and they go actually to crime con
I think, and they want to get the attention of
Paul Hols, who is a very famous investigator. He was
heavily involved in the Golden State killer investigation that was solved,
and so he's like a big deal in the crime
world and he's kind of almost like this star. And
(29:10):
he's on stage giving this presentation and afterwards the Cowtown
chicks go up to him, hand over the file and say,
you need to work this case. I love it. What initiative, seriously,
it's amazing.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Yeah, And he happens to be working on a show,
a TV show and looking for the next case that
he's going to investigate, and so he's like, yeah, let's
do it.
Speaker 3 (29:33):
It is funny at how these things just like come
together sometimes. But that's a way that they can get
the funding to do the DNA testing on the DNA
that they have to try to determine who committed this
crime after all these years. So Paul Hols does the case,
makes the TV show, and they do the testing, but
(29:56):
basically they do testing that basically kind of fails, or
they do have a profile that they're able to put
into codis, like we talked about before, but there's no match.
And for some reason, I think with a different lab
that they used or something they consumed some of the
DNA and they just feel like they're out of luck.
(30:19):
They basically couldn't solve this case for the TV show.
Speaker 2 (30:22):
Because one thing I didn't realize until listening to America's
Crime Mob is that when you test the DNA profile,
you get one shot and then it's no longer test.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
You use it.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
You use it up as you're testing it, right exactly, Yes,
it's consumed in the process of the testing, So once
you test it, you can't test it again, and if
you somehow fail with the analysis, then you're just left
with nothing. So they had had some DNA from semen
found on a bra strap, which was a good solid sample,
(30:55):
but they used it up and they couldn't get the
DNA profile that they needed. So they think it's over.
They think this is the end of the road. Like,
can you just like talk to us a little bit
about that? Because I thought that was really powerful in
the podcast of you know, Paul stepping in to try
to help solve this case, doing his best obviously and
then like hitting that roadblock, Like what what must have.
Speaker 1 (31:19):
That been like for him?
Speaker 3 (31:21):
I think he was really devastated. I think Paul Holds
is someone who takes his cases home with him. He's
he really feels them. He talked about like sipping on
his beverage of choice of liquor in his basement man cave,
just like thinking about this case, feeling like what have
(31:43):
we done? We consumed the DNA and now we'll never know,
And so I think it kind of haunted him. And
you know, he had spent his career working cases like this,
and so I think he felt it personally. I think
he was like, maybe we shouldn't have even tested it
if we weren't sure we're going to get the result.
And obviously I would imagine everyone involved. I would imagine Jim,
(32:06):
Carla's brother would have been devastated to think that this
was our shot at figuring it out, and now we
haven't figured it out after all these years. I got
my hopes dashed yet again. I think it is that
feeling of like with those cold cases, what you guys
were talking about before, like this feeling of it being
up in the air and that doubt and not knowing.
I mean, it's torturous for these people.
Speaker 1 (32:28):
Yeah, I mean it's just like horrible. And obviously it
was like, you know, really trying to help and very invested.
And then it sounded like, you know, because he had
used up a lot of it, that he wasn't sure
if anything left was testable? Is that and then like
how does so how do we where do we go
from here? If it's like there's no more DNA?
Speaker 3 (32:49):
Right, So it seemed like maybe there weren't any other options.
Now there actually was another sample of DNA. The problem
was that it was mixed, so DNA that had maybe
been mixed with Carla's DNA or like maybe exposed to
plants and plant DNA. You know, that's the other thing actually,
(33:11):
quick side note about this technology so that your listeners
can feel like, ooh, I'm I'm up on this and
can explain this to other people. What's cool about the
technology that authrom this lab has is that it can
take DNA that is way more degraded in way worse condition,
with much smaller amounts than you would typically need with
(33:35):
an old type of DNA testing, and still come out
with an answer with again way more information again between
one hundred thousand and a million markers as opposed to
like twenty. Part of what authroom does is have a
whole process for also determining can we analyze this DNA
(33:56):
or not do we have enough? But it's not like
the cheek swab that you take when you're setting in
your genetics to get your genealogy or something like. That's
a nice clean saliva swab, whereas this is like it
happened to fall on her bra strap or her dress.
It's been sitting out in the sun and the heat,
the Texas heat for three days. Then on top of that,
(34:18):
in Carla's case, there is this additional DNA on her dress,
But again it's mixed with other DNA, so the idea
that it can be tested, you know, Paul Hols thinks,
I don't think this is possible, and people just think
this is the end of the line. However, because of
the TV show, two people, Kristen and David Middleman, the
(34:39):
co founders of Athram, they see this special on the
Carla Walker case and I think one of their children
was around the age of Carla at the time when
they saw the show, and they were just really struck
by the case, personally drawn to what happened, and they said,
I bet we can solve it. So they actually reached
out to the team and said, hey, is there any
(35:03):
more DNA evidence And they said, well, we do have
this mixed DNA, a very small sample, like I don't know,
I think other people have said, we can't really test it.
So they say send it to us, let's see if
we can test it or not. They send it on
over and it is like the tiniest little bit of DNA.
It's I think it's like four nanograms if I'm remembering correctly,
(35:25):
which is like just like a handful of cells like
so tiny you can't see it with a naked eye,
like so small. I don't even know how they do
this stuff, and so you know, you'd think you can't
test that, but authroam says, we can test it. We
think we can test it, and we think we can
come out with our result. So they say, okay, move
forward with the testing. They move forward with the testing,
(35:49):
and I can't remember, but I think it was on
a holiday or something. David Mendelman, one of the heads
of AUTHROM, calls up Detective Jeff Bennett, who's on the case.
And when Detective Jeff Bennett sees that he's getting this
call from David Middleman on a holiday, he thinks they've
got him. So he picks up the call and they say,
we have a name. So basically, they had the DNA
(36:14):
profile and through genetic genealogy of looking through the family tree,
they were able to narrow it down to Glenn Samuel mccurly.
Speaker 1 (36:22):
They think this is a name that is the actual suspect,
because I know, sometimes when they're doing the family tree thing,
it might be like a relative or are they pretty
sure it's this guy, or they think it might be
someone related to him.
Speaker 3 (36:35):
They come up with this name. It's a little bit
confusing at first they think it's this man, but then
it turns out when they look him up, he died
maybe two years before the crime was committed. So then
they thought, oh, did his DNA somehow get on the
dress although it is seaman DNA.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
Because there is something else right about her sister having
worn the dress.
Speaker 3 (36:55):
Yes, Carlo was re wearing this powder blue dress to
the Valentine's Date dance that her sister I think had worn,
you know, as you do you share dresses sometimes. And
so they thought, okay, well, if this man is dead,
maybe by the time of the abduction and murder, like
maybe it was actually from a different event. But then
(37:17):
they look more deeply into the family tree and they
realize that he had three sons and that he does
have a son, Glenn Samuel McCurley junior, who may have
committed this crime.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Yeah, because they learned that he was Glenn Samuel McCurley junior.
Of these three sons, he was the only one of
them living in Texas when Carla was murdered, right, So yeah.
Speaker 1 (37:45):
What a huge break in the case. Like this was
like a couple of years ago, right that this happened.
Speaker 3 (37:50):
Yeah, it was extremely recently. I should know the year
or like the exact months of when it was solved.
But yeah, like COVID times was like the first break,
so and it took a little while for it to
get to Authrom after the TV show, Right, So this
is all happening in the last few years.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
Carla was killed in nineteen seventy four, and you know,
obviously a ton of police work had gone into this
case for many years, and now there's this name which
is a huge lead. Though, as you had said before,
this is a lead. Like it's not like they can
just take this test into a court and say, look
(38:27):
at that, like he's the one. So, you know, what
do they do with this? Like how does this where
does the investigation go from here?
Speaker 3 (38:35):
You're right, we can't know for sure even if he
left his seamen at the crime scene, do we know
that he was the one to kill Carla. So they
locate him. He's still living in the community, in the
same home he's been living in for decades, and they
stop by to just check in with him. It's kind
(38:55):
of around COVID time, so the investigators kind of pretend
that they're just doing like home checks on people, like
is everything going okay? Do you need masks? That kind
of thing, I think, And they talk to his wife,
and I do think one little interesting moment is when
they first show up, they say hi to the wife
and Glenn is working out back in the backyard or something,
(39:17):
and he comes around up front and when he sees police,
he immediately throws up his hands and says, oh, it
wasn't me. It wasn't me, basically joking that yes, exactly,
but like yeah, creepy yeah. And so they go in
(39:39):
and they end up asking him like, you know, we're
also looking into this crime that happened so many years ago.
And anyway, it's confusing because they leave and then they
come back again, and I don't need to get into
the mechanics of all that, but they come back again
and they really think this is the guy. They ask him,
you know, where were you the night of Carla's and
(40:01):
he says, oh, I was driving my wife around because
she can't drive, so I always drive her around. And
then the wife, who's sitting elsewhere in the room in
they're like living room, kind of says from the table, oh, now,
you're wrong about that, Like I was out of town
that weekend. Silly Glenn. So his alibi is shot. A
little while later, they asked, you know, could we have
(40:22):
a DNA sample, and he said, oh, you know, I
think back in the day they actually took my DNA sample,
so I don't think you need it. But then the
wife again in the corner, says, oh, well, you know, honey,
back then there were no DNA samples taking. It was,
you know, the seventies, So I amazing.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
He was bluff like just thrown him under the bus.
Did she suspect him?
Speaker 3 (40:46):
Yeah, like what was called?
Speaker 1 (40:47):
Or maybe she just didn't know.
Speaker 3 (40:48):
Yeah, yeah, I kind of the things you just had
no idea and was just like, oh help these kind
police officers out A truth teller, Yes, a true truth teller.
So eventually, somehow he agrees to give his DNA. I
still don't know how or why he agreed to that,
but they take a swab of his DNA and they
(41:12):
decide they're going to run it, and they run it
and it is a match. So what's also great, quite
often when they're checking the DNA, they run it against
the old type of technology, because that's like what's typically
historically used, So they'll use that twenty marker system I
talked about to double check to confirm that what they
(41:34):
found with the new technology is correct.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
Oh that's interesting.
Speaker 3 (41:38):
Yeah, that's another nice layer to this. Is quite often
in these cases it's like a double check of the
DNA testing. Often that test is done at the police
department as opposed to like at awthroom, so there's also
different people doing the testing.
Speaker 2 (41:53):
That makes total sense because I was wondering, you know,
because there's such it's such new technology and they're one
of the only labs that is doing it. How do
you have your like quality control? But they're comparing it
against the twenty marker system that is widely accepted exactly.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
Okay, did he show up in that system? Like was
he in Cotis?
Speaker 3 (42:14):
So yeah, he hadn't been in Cotis because they had
put his NA through Cotis years, Produ's right, I think years.
Maybe I'm getting the timeline round here, and they didn't
have a match, so he wasn't in Cotis. So they
decide to take him in for questioning, and at first
(42:34):
he says, no, I didn't do it. He denies it,
but after further questioning, eventually he admits to having committed
the crime. So what was miraculous is that Glenn Samuel
McCurley Junior had been on that list of suspects they had.
They had littled it down to like around eighty four suspects,
(42:55):
and he was actually on that list because he was
actually that man who had had the type of gun
that matched the magazine at the Bowling Alley parking lot.
Speaker 2 (43:07):
He was the one who said it was stolen.
Speaker 3 (43:09):
Yeah, exactly who had taken the polygraph past the polygraph
He had another example of how we can't entirely trussed
polygraph tests. And they questioned him, we know the gun
wasn't stolen. Tell us, Glenn, do you have it in
your home? Where is it? And he eventually admits, yes,
it's in my home, and he tells them where it's hidden.
He actually made this like room addition. He built this
(43:32):
addition to his home and hidden in the ceiling plank.
You can push it up, he says, and you can
find my gun there, wrapped in a towel. And so
they go and they find the gun.
Speaker 2 (43:44):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (43:45):
So there's another piece of evidence against him.
Speaker 1 (43:48):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (43:49):
And he hadn't committed other crimes in this forty six
years or did he.
Speaker 3 (43:54):
As far as getting caught for crimes, Yeah, he was
had pretty much clean background and he technically was on
the suspect list but had kind of been rolled out.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
But he wasn't like this known violent offender, no.
Speaker 3 (44:10):
Wow. He was a part of the community. He had
two kids, had this wife, had been living there for years.
Was just considered to be, you know, this man in
the community, someone that was probably trusted and loved. So
I think it was really shocking, and so he did
admit to it. So eventually it was deciding, you know,
it was going to go to trial, but unexpectedly, initially
(44:33):
he said I'm going to plead not guilty. After having confessed,
after the DNA evidence and after finding the gun, he
still was going to plead not guilty. And so I
think a lot of people were very upset about this,
and a lot of people even wonder, how can you
possibly plead not guilty after all that? But think about it,
(44:54):
there might be ways where they can somehow throw out
the DNA evidence in court, or somehow find a loophole
to throw out the confession or chalk it up to
a false confession or something or convince the jury or something.
So you know, it is a scary thought. Even if
you have the DNA evidence, it's not a slam dunk.
Speaker 2 (45:14):
Totally, because the jury would have been looking at him
as this elderly man, not this like young person who
can fight off the star football player and cannop this
other young woman they would be looking at. I mean,
he must have been in his seventie old.
Speaker 3 (45:30):
Yeah, he was young at the time of the crime,
so I think he was in his seventies forty six
years later when they're questioning and jailing him.
Speaker 1 (45:41):
What ended up happening though with the trial.
Speaker 3 (45:43):
So eventually though, he unexpectedly changed his plea last minute
too guilty, and so he was convicted of the crime.
And I think everyone involved was so relieved to know
that he was going to prison for probably the rest
of his life.
Speaker 2 (46:00):
Wow. I don't know if you have any information on this,
but I think I read that they ended up suspecting
him of additional rapes and murders, although he was never charged.
Were you able to find anything about that?
Speaker 3 (46:13):
Yeah, So one interesting thing is when they were interviewing
him in that confession, he did describe details of Carla's
case and what happened, But he also seemed to be
like kind of mixing up stories and in like, for example,
what she was wearing and confused it. Potentially they noticed
(46:34):
what he described was similar to another murder that had
happened nearby of a young woman or girl in the area,
and so the detective put two and two together and thought, oh,
my gosh, is he confusing different crimes he committed. And
so he asked Glenn in that questioning, oh, like, are
(46:55):
you confusing different people that you did this to? And
Glenn replet lies, I don't think so, which Wow suggested
to that detective. I think he's committed numerous crimes.
Speaker 2 (47:09):
Yeah, I mean, as devastating as that is to hear,
it's like that was one of my first thoughts listening
to Like you think about forty six years. You go
from in his early thirties, think he was thirty one
when Carla was murdered, when he murdered Carla, and then
he's living as this like family man, this church going husband,
his father forty six years he just what doesn't do
(47:31):
that again? I mean maybe, but it's such a brazen
and violent offense that it was both, you know, maybe jarring,
But I wasn't totally surprised when I read that because
it was such a horrific murder to begin with to
think that then he just turned his life around highly unlike.
Speaker 1 (47:47):
Yeah, totally. Well, also, I don't know, it just it
sounds like something a serial killer would do, right the
type of murder it was. Although did he know Carla?
Was she total stranger to him? I can't remember.
Speaker 3 (48:00):
He didn't personally know her, like it was like his
child went to the same school high school as one
of Carla's siblings, but that was later after the abduction.
So no, he didn't know them personally, but like lived nearby.
Speaker 2 (48:13):
And did he just happen to be in that Bowling
Alley parking lot or was he following them? Did they
ever find out?
Speaker 3 (48:21):
I'm not entirely sure. I can't remember because we do
so many cases it's hard to keep track of all
those details.
Speaker 2 (48:28):
No, all good. I was just curious, But yeah, I
mean it's just wild.
Speaker 3 (48:33):
I do get the sense that, you know, his wife
was out of town when this happened. I kind of
personally wonder if like this was something he would do
when his wife was like out of town, and he
would just find somebody who seemed vulnerable and like attack
them when they're alone, maybe followed them there, or just
found someone we thought he could take control over.
Speaker 1 (48:55):
Should I think his wife's reaction when he's being questioned
makes me feel like she had idea. Yeah, like, of course,
we're upstanding people. The police are here, We're going to
answer the questions.
Speaker 2 (49:05):
Like why wouldn't you give them DNA.
Speaker 1 (49:08):
Which must have been so shocking for her to find
that out.
Speaker 2 (49:12):
Yeah, yeah, totally. Or his children.
Speaker 1 (49:14):
Yeah, oh my gosh. But you know, it's something that
you talk about on the podcast a lot that I
think is so important and interesting and that you mentioned earlier,
which is like people do weird things, and it can
be really easy when we're talking about a case to
think that something is suspicious, or this person acted this
way and that's really suspicious. Like Rodney slept over or
(49:36):
where was Rodney for that hour and a half, or
the fact that he moved to Alaska could all be
considered like really suspicious behavior. And you know, when you
don't have hard evidence, anybody can become a suspect and
like suddenly, it can tear towns apart and families apart,
and the fact that this cold case finally got an
answer is just incredible. Someone who probably without this would
(50:01):
have kept living the rest of his life free and
never have faced consequences for this. And that's the heart
of what I find so fascinating about DNA technology and
genetic genealogy being used to solve cases, especially cult cases.
It's just it's mind blowing that we're here, that we're
able to do that with technology today. How has that
(50:24):
been for you working on these cases.
Speaker 3 (50:26):
Yeah, that is such a good point that it is
what is so amazing about this technology. Not to I
don't mean to sound due cliche or like I'm promoting
the technology. I just think it's pretty cool. As someone
who came into this project and learned about this technology
from knowing almost nothing to now knowing so much more
about it. It's like it is solving cases that have
(50:49):
been stone cold for decades. Candy Rogers another one we
had talked about maybe discussing that was called for sixty
two years before that was solved as well. These are
cases that are considered the mount everest of cases for
these communities or these police departments, and suddenly they're just
getting solved like that. And I think the impact is
(51:11):
that now people can be caught before they perpetrate more
than once. You know, I think about the Idaho college
student murder case with Brian Coberger. Authram was involved in
tracking him down and identifying him through the same DNA analysis.
So and that was, you know, a matter of weeks
after he perpetrated the crime. And I wouldn't be surprised
(51:33):
if he would have gone on to perpetrate other crimes.
Speaker 2 (51:35):
Oh my gosh. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (51:36):
Yeah. And so just to think that this technology can
actually stop potentially serial killers in their tracks, it's miraculous, totally. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (51:46):
I went to Washington State University in Pullman.
Speaker 3 (51:49):
Oh wow.
Speaker 2 (51:49):
So I've spent a lot of time at u of I,
and that case blows my mind. And I had read
about Authram when that happened and was blown away by
it because of course, I'm sure he would have gone
on to commit other crimes. I mean, that's just such
a horrific attack. And also studying criminology. Yeah, yeah, not
a good guy.
Speaker 3 (52:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (52:08):
Well, I just had one last question. You had an
episode where you mentioned the vast number of unidentified remains
that exist in the US and I think you called
it a silent epidemic, so I wanted to quickly ask
you about that and what is being done to identify
those unidentified remains and what you meant by silent epidemic.
Speaker 3 (52:29):
Well, I think for a lot of us, as we
go throughout the world and life, we assume that the
government protects us and takes cases of like missing persons
or of bodies that are found, remains that are found,
and says we're going to at least figure out who
this is. Like, let's for a second, forget even solving
(52:49):
the murder if it's a murder, Like, let's just figure
out who this person is who has passed away and
their bodies found. But the reality is that there are
tens of thousands of remains existing in the US that
are simply unidentified. And for each one of those people,
you know, there's a family, a community, friends who have
(53:11):
lost that person and just have no idea what happened
to them. And so some of the cases we discuss
on our podcast are people that have simply been identified,
and the huge implications of that are how that potentially
opens a murder investigation from there, and what it's like
for families to hear. Oh, I lost my dad when
I was little, and I never knew what happened to him.
(53:32):
I thought he left me and never wanted to speak
to me again, but oh, it turns out he died
in this very dramatic way. I think it helps people
to just know what happened. Even if they you know,
it's still a huge loss, probably still traumatic for them,
but to just have some kind of knowledge is so important.
And it's funny we think of basic things like medical
(53:55):
care being something that everybody should have, you know, But
it's like I would hope that if if I died
and my body was left somewhere, that someone would try
to find out who I was. And so luckily it's
a lot more to get into than really for right now,
but AUTHROAM is partnering with other forensic anthropologists and partnering
(54:17):
with different communities to try to identify a lot of
these remains, and I think they're also working on legislation
to try to get more remains identified and soon.
Speaker 1 (54:31):
That's amazing, Yeah, so amazing. Yeah, it's important, I think. Yeah,
not something I had spent a lot of time thinking about,
but yeah, I think it's important as well yeah wow,
I mean we could talk to you forever. But Alen,
thank you so much for coming on The Knife and
talking to us. We love your podcast and we hope
that everyone goes and listens to it. America's Crime Lab.
(54:52):
Thank you so much, Thank you.
Speaker 3 (54:54):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (54:59):
If you have a store sorry for us, we would
love to hear it. Our email is The Knife at
exactlyrightmedia dot com, or you can follow us on Instagram
at the Knife Podcast or Blue Sky at the Knife Podcast.
Speaker 1 (55:09):
This has been an Exactly Right production hosted and produced
by me Hannah Smith and.
Speaker 2 (55:14):
Me paysha Eton. Our producers are Tom Bryfogel and Alexis Samarosi.
Speaker 1 (55:18):
This episode was mixed by Tom Bryfogel. Our associate producer
is Christina Chamberlain. Our theme music is by Birds in
the Airport.
Speaker 2 (55:26):
Artwork by Vanessa Lilac.
Speaker 1 (55:27):
Executive produced by Karen Kilgarriff, Georgia Hardstark and Danielle Kramer.
This story contains adult content and language. Listener discretion is advised.
(00:22):
Welcome to the Knife. I'm Hannah Smith. I am Haitia Eaton.
It's a very special day today. We have an episode
out and it's not Thursday.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
What how wild? How wild and unpredictable of us.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
I know, you know, we loved this conversation so much
that we decided to go ahead and just release it
even though it's not Thursday. In this episode, we talk
with Alan lance Lesser about solving cold cases with new
DNA technology and genetic genealogy.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Eilan is the host of America's Crime Lab, and she
tells us about a cold case that was solved after
more than forty years. In the beginning, we'll talk a
little bit about genetic genie, which we thought was important
to try to understand how this all works. But stick
with us because we get into a cold case that
is truly fascinating. Enjoy the episode, Alan, Welcome to the Knife.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
Thank you so much. I'm so excited to be here.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
We're really excited to talk to you today.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Yeah, we've been listening to your podcast and we're obsessed,
so we are excited to get into it. So a
little bit about your bio. You co wrote, produced, and
co hosted The Turning, which listeners might be familiar with.
It's excellent, an award winning documentary podcast that intimately explores
insular groups with blurry power dynamics. And there are three
seasons out now. But we're actually here to talk to
(01:44):
you about your other podcasts, America's Crime Lab, and that
show covers cases that are oftentimes unsolved for a long time,
some current cases as well, but that are all solved
with the help of DNA testing and genetic genealogy in
all cases that Authrum Labs have worked on. That name
(02:04):
might sound familiar because Authram has been connected to some
very high profile cases, the Golden State Killer investigation, for one,
but there have been many so America's Crime Lab. It's
a collaboration between Kaleidoscope, iHeart and Authrum Labs. And I'd
love to hear about you know, how the show came
about and were you already really interested in, you know,
(02:26):
DNA use in criminal cases, Like how did this all happen?
Speaker 3 (02:31):
Well? I feel like it was one of those providential
things where it all came together. I personally have always
been a true crime fan in the sense that I
just love human stories, and I think when people face
such horrors, it's like you just see the basis of humanity.
And so I'm someone who's always consumed that media. Basically,
(02:53):
it was really like a team effort for how it
came to be, Like you mentioned Kaleidoscope and iHeart and
Authrom kind of together, We're like, let's make this podcast
where we can spread the word on this new technology
that a lot of people either literally don't know about
or who have vaguely heard about that is changing the
way crimes are being investigated. And I think what's exciting
(03:15):
about our show is that it explains the science in
a way that I think is pretty relatable. Like I'm
not a genetic scientist as the host, and I feel
like I'm kind of getting it now, and I think
it's helpful to be able to consume other media about
true crime. So they kind of conceived of this podcast
idea together. They're like, we want this information to go
(03:38):
out into the public because the more people know about it,
the more detectives across the country could reach out to
AUTHORAM and use the technology. Like a huge barrier to
it being used as people just not knowing about it.
So then because I had worked with some of the
team at Rococoa Punch that's working with Kaleidoscope to make
the podcast on the Turning and other shows, and I
(04:00):
knew I had a background in psychology. I actually have
my PhD in clinical psychology and did a lot of
therapy and all that gave therapy before switching careers. They're like,
we know you like true crime, like would you host
this show with us? And I was like, are you serious?
This is a dream come true because it is something
I'm so passionate about and it just felt truly providential
(04:22):
to be able to work on this.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
That's so cool. Yeah, So we're going to talk about
a specific case that you cover on the podcast. But
first you mentioned, you know, authoram is bringing this like
very new technology, and I've sort of been interested in
Authoram for a while. I've listened to some podcasts with
David Middleman, the founder. I've been trying to understand like, Okay,
(04:44):
DNA testing has been around since like the eighties or
somebody has been used in criminal cases, but what author
is doing seems really different and new. And so I've
heard David Mindleman kind of explain how the technology works.
To be honest, still don't really understand it. There's a
reason I'm a podcaster, not like a scientist. I do
(05:05):
love the way that you talk about like the technology
mean explained through your podcast. Things are always easier to
understand through storytelling in my opinion. But you know, what
have you learned about it from working on this case,
like the very layman's explanation of why what authorm is
doing is so new and important.
Speaker 3 (05:24):
Honestly, I could go on and on about this, so
it may take us a bit to get to the case,
but just kidding. Basically, it's this new technology that you know.
The old DNA technology, while totally great and has helped
solve so many cases, it would look at twenty markers
to create a DNA profile, whereas this new type of
(05:45):
DNA technology takes between one hundred thousand to a million
markers and gives basically way more information in that DNA profile.
Whereas before the old DNA profile with twenty markers, you'd
run through CODIS, which is that national database that maybe
(06:05):
your listeners have heard of before, and you'd look for
a match with someone who is already in CODIS, someone
who is convicted of a serious type of violent crime,
so you'd need to have already arrested them and taken
their DNA from another crime in order to get a match.
So that's really helpful if you have that match, but
(06:27):
also extremely limiting. And then it is true with COTIS,
I think there are certain relationships other than the match,
like a sun or something that maybe you can glean
from too. I won't get into those details though, just
to be correct about it, I want to acknowledge that.
But then with the new technology, because there's so much
more information, you can plug that information into these databases
(06:49):
that are genealogical websites basically, you know, like where you
get a swab of your mouth and send it off
for DNA testing to get to know your ancestry. Well,
some of those sites have consented to forensic investigations, not
all of them, but some of them, and basically they
can use those genealogical websites to build out a family
(07:13):
tree from the profile, and rather than it just being
a hit and codis, you can literally slowly go through
the family tree see what bits of their profile matches
and whittle down, often to a single name of who
they're pretty sure left the DNA at the crime scene
or possibly like among a few siblings or something. So
(07:34):
it basically provides you a lead. And that's something that
AUTHRM explains a lot and investigators who've worked with this
type of DNA. What this really does is it creates
a lead. It's not a slam dunk. It doesn't mean
you have a conviction or you have your case. And
it's not saying, oh, if you left your DNA at
a crime it means one hundred percent you committed it.
(07:55):
It's just giving you a name to investigate. So then
you have to go back and do your due diligence,
figure out if the person has an alibi. You got
to figure out other evidence, whether circumstantial or other links
to the crime, and really do the good old fashioned
detective work that we're familiar with. But then on top
(08:16):
of it, if you have enough DNA, you also can
run the old type of DNA, and then if you
have this suspect, you can take a sample and run
it against using the old technology to doubly confirm like
this is the person. So it basically provides another type
of DNA to test the old kind of DNA against,
(08:36):
and it also creates new leads that were simply never
possible before.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
And DNA gets into CODIS from either someone who has
submitted it to you know, ancestry dot com or one
of these sorts of websites, or I guess I don't
know if Ancestry has consented to COTIS, for example, having
their DNA records. But like, how does DNA make it
into code to begin with? Even if it's like you're
(09:02):
connecting a piece of DNA that doesn't flag in CODIS,
but maybe flags is like a relative of someone who
is in CODIS.
Speaker 3 (09:10):
This is such a good question actually that you ask,
because I think there is a distinction. So this information
with the new technology actually isn't typically being used against COTIS.
CODIS is separate from the genetic genealogy. So I'm glad
you clarified that CODIS is just like the old standard
twenty marker profile. So that's a separate thing, okay, And
(09:33):
this is using information from genealogical websites, so they're not
even touching CODIS in this process, I see. So it
could be anyone off the street, So it's often not criminals,
but it's people who have consented to having their DNA
profile that they uploaded for other reasons provide information to
lead someone potentially to a killer, which is.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
So interesting because then there are cases that we're hearing
about now where the person who ends up, you know,
the lead that is generated and then it ends up
you know through a detective work that it's them. They're
not in the system, maybe they've never been caught for
a crime, right, and so they've been flying under the radar,
and suddenly there's this massive amount of DNA available that's
(10:17):
so wild, Like I mean, it's talked about a lot
in the true crime space, but it's like, Okay, you know,
if you have that aunt or uncle who's like you
really shouldn't be doing any of the DNA testing, like
nobody do it, It's like that could be what's the
motive a red fire? Yeah kidding, but thank you so
much for explaining that. It'll really help us as we
go through the case. We might need some more like explainers,
but totally. You talk about a bunch of interesting cases
(10:39):
on the podcast, but one that we want to talk
about is one that was a cold case, specifically because
we're super interested in cold cases and cold cases being
solved through DNA technology. And so this is the case
of Carla Walker, a case from nineteen seventy four. And
before we get into, you know, the investigation, can you
kind of walk us through who Carla Walker was and
(11:02):
what was going on with the you know, what happened
in nineteen seventy four.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
Yeah, So, as you said, in nineteen seventy four, Carla
Walker went missing in the Fort Worth, Texas area, and
she was a seventeen year old girl, junior in high school.
Was known for having a really fiery, energetic personality, was
really silly too, people said. So many people loved her,
(11:27):
and she wanted to be a veterinarian. She loved animals,
loved her little white dog, whose nails she would sometimes
paint pink. So she was spunky and fun, and she
was a cheerleader and she was dating the quarterback of
the football team. And so in February they were going
(11:49):
to go to their Valentine's Day dance and her boyfriend Rodney,
picked her up from home. Her family was all gathered
there to send her off. Take pictures in from the fireplace,
and they say, don't worry, like you don't have a curfew.
You can come back when you want. We trust Rodney,
we trust you. We'll be waiting up for you to
hear how the night went. So they go to the dance,
(12:12):
have a good time, and then after the dance, they
are hanging out in Rodney's actually his mom's car, because
of course they're high schoolers, in the parking lot of
a bowling alley, and they're doing what teens do. They're
hanging out kissing a little bit, and then, according to
Rodney the boyfriend, suddenly the door to the car opens
(12:35):
and Carla kind of falls back, and suddenly there's a
man or possibly two men there with a gun pointing
it to them, and Rodney thinks that he's then shot
and becomes unconscious, and when he wakes up, Carla is gone.
So according to Rodney, presumably she's been abducted.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
And Rodney is unconscious for he thinks about how long.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
I can't remember the exact amount of time, but what
is notable is so the next place he goes allegedly
is to Carla Walker's family, which.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
I think is around one point thirty in the morning.
Is when he gets to the Walker's house, because they're
all still awake waiting for them to get home.
Speaker 3 (13:19):
Is that?
Speaker 2 (13:19):
Am I remembering that? Right?
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Yeah? You are, You're on it. What's interesting is that's
roughly like an hour or hour and a half after
when the alleged abduction occurred, which is I think what
you're alluding to that it's kind of like there's this
break in time. What was Rodney doing during that time?
When he shows up, they noticed even the blood on
his face because he was supposedly hit over the head,
(13:41):
maybe with the butt of the gun or something, it's
coagulated showing time had passed. So I think eventually investigators
kind of wonder about that, what was happening? What was
he doing in that hour hour and a half. So obviously,
when he does arrive there, he tells the family she's
been taken. They are just horrified, you know, they get
(14:04):
lease involved. The search begins. The father is so upset
he even heads out with a gun to try to
find Carla. He's just devastated. What has happened. I want
her back, but they can't find her. Rodney is so
close to the family they really see him almost as
another son or something. He even stays overnight in Carla's
(14:25):
bed for a while because they trust him. And they're
feeling for him, and that's kind of the center of
this investigation at first. Yeah, I was.
Speaker 2 (14:34):
Actually curious about that piece of this Rodney sleeping over.
You know, he was like, like you said, really close
to the family, sounds like, and they really trusted him
with Carla, and you know, he was almost like a
son to them. But do we know anything about Rodney's
family situation. I'm picturing like if I'm Rodney's parents and
(14:55):
knowing that he just went through this incredibly horrific experience,
his girlfriend abducted, he's badly beaten, I would want him
home with me. Do we know anything else about why
he stayed there?
Speaker 3 (15:08):
You know, I'm not entirely sure, and I don't want
to give you a wrong answer. That's such a good question, though,
you would think that he would go home, and so
that is almost a little bit suspect. But I do
get the sense that that house became like the epicenter
where everybody was coming, like the police were coming. He
was probably being you know, questioned by police. Maybe they
(15:29):
wanted him around, and that's there was like the hustle
and bustle was happening there. So I wonder if that
was part of the reason.
Speaker 2 (15:37):
Yeah, because he shows up and he's you know, bloodied
and beaten, but they remember him also seeming like genuinely terrified.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
Yeah, he was terrified, and he seemed to be so
worried about Carla and what happened, and you know, feeling
guilt and fear around like what happened? What could I
have done to stop this? And who were these people
or this person who took her?
Speaker 2 (16:02):
Yeah, so I think I took us on a little tangent.
But so the police arrive and they go off searching
with the dad goes with them. Rodney stays back at
the house with Carla's mom and maybe also her aunt
and Carla's twelve year old brother. They're all still at
the house. What goes on during the search.
Speaker 3 (16:19):
Yeah, so a lot of people in the community start searching.
It takes them days, but eventually three days later, they
find Carla's body underneath a cattle culvert basically in the
middle of a field, kind of a quasi bridge that
cattle can walk across. She's found underneath that, and clearly
(16:41):
she was sexually assaulted and murdered. Basically, some of the
evidence that the investigators had with the case was, first
of all, in the Bowling Alley parking lot, they found
a magazine to a gun. Now this is nineteen seventy four, Texas,
so it could be unrelated to the crime. But they
do their due diligence and try to find anyone who
(17:04):
in the area who owned that gun and question them,
and they didn't really find many leads. It just kind
of seems to stop dead. They don't go anywhere with that, really,
And then they also noticed that Carla's promise ring that Rodney,
her boyfriend, had actually given her, was strewn next to
her body, which some people thought could indicate that maybe
(17:29):
Rodney actually had something to do with it, which, of course,
statistically that's really common for the boyfriend the spouse to
be the one to have committed.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
The crime something so personal. Yes, because he gave this
to her as like a pre engagement or something like
an intention to will get engaged someday, I would assume.
Speaker 3 (17:47):
Exactly he's saying, I'm committed to you one day we'll
get married, and this ring is a symbol of that.
So it's a very meaningful symbol, I would assume for
them both. And so when I heard this, my initial
thought was, Hey, maybe it was like Rodney was upset
at her for some reason and took off hering and
(18:08):
threw it to the side, or she threw it to
the side and that led to an escalation of some kind.
So who knows what happened, but there simply isn't enough
evidence and they're not sure how it transpired. So over time,
eventually the case goes cold and it's devastating to the family. Jim,
(18:30):
Carla's younger brother, whom you mentioned, was just devastated. He actually,
I think lived in that house and kept the family
home throughout his adulthood in hopes that maybe someone who
knew something would come and tell him what happened. Wow,
he truly was haunted by it and counted the days
since Carla's subduction years into his life.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Listening to Jim talk about witnessing his parents' anguish over
Carla's abduction was I think it was life changing and
something he never forgot.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
Yeah, and I have to say that's something I really
value about what we were able to do with the podcast.
I know you guys do this a lot on your podcast,
but talking to family members and really getting up close
to what it actually feels like in the moment for
those people actually witnessing what happened, I think there's a
power and an importance in that.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
And yeah, yeah, because you talk with Jim in the podcast,
and some of it it's edded together. But I imagine,
you know, how long did you actually how long was
that interview with him?
Speaker 3 (19:47):
You know, we've done so many I don't know, maybe
like an hour or two. Yeah, I think it is
important to hear those stories, especially because this is something
that still impacts him, you know, to this day, as
it impacts so many people in that community. I mean,
the whole community I think was really overwhelmed and frightened
by what happened. It haunted a lot of people in
(20:09):
that community for years to come because they believed it
was someone in the community who had perpetrated this crime
and they didn't solve it. I mean, how scary for
anyone who has children to know that a young seventeen
year old has been abducted, sexually assaulted, and killed in
this way.
Speaker 2 (20:27):
Yeah, And it seems like also during this time, there's
still a fair amount of people that suspected Rodney.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
Yes, and it gets so intense all the suspicion around Rodney,
that Rodney actually moves away from Texas and goes to
Alaska to restart his life. And now that's a question
of is he escaping something and doesn't want to get caught,
or is he just so haunted by what happened and
how people look at him differently and treat him differently,
(20:57):
and you know, maybe he just felt he had to
leave and kind of start over.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
It's so like, you know, thinking about that time that
passed with him, you know, thinking he was shot, probably
hit over the head with a gun potentially, and then
there's this time that elapses, and then he comes to
the family, and then the promise ring and then leaving
for Alaska. All of these things. It's like you could
read them two ways. You could read them as suspicious
(21:24):
or if he's innocent, then it's horrible because then this
person's life is being terribly affected by this, not only
the death of his girlfriend, but his community thinking that
he's probably done this, which I guess goes to show.
I mean, that's one of many examples, speaking with her
brother as well, just the way that cold cases don't
(21:46):
just go away for people and for communities, and when
there's a violent crime that's occurred. It like stays with people.
Which I'm sure you've heard this over and over now
with doing this podcast, and we've also heard on the
Knife Through interview, is that people really care about resolution,
Like it means a lot to people and to communities
to have that answer. Without it, it's just like things
(22:09):
are just left unresolved and people are continuing to hurt
for so long. And so before we get into sort
of like the next break in the case, did the
police have any other suspects? I mean, I assume Rodney was.
Was he a suspect at one time? Did they have
any other like leads or suspects.
Speaker 3 (22:27):
Yeah, so there were a number of people they looked into.
First of all, Rodney definitely was high on the list.
I think it's interesting initially because he was so close
to the family, he wasn't thought of, at least in
the immediate family as a direct suspect. Again, he like
slept over. But then when they spent more time thinking
(22:49):
about it and the sexual nature of the crime, where
had he been for that hour to hour and a half,
they kind of thought, did they get into some kind
of argument, could this had led to a murder? And
then They also did question all the people who owned
the gun that matched the magazine that was left in
(23:12):
the Bulling Alley parking lot, and basically one of the
people that they questioned didn't have their gun. I think
everybody else was able to provide their gun and show
it and they were able to kind of cross them
off list. There was one person who said his gun
had been stolen. They asked him to take a polygraph.
(23:32):
He was very willing. He passed the polygraph. Of course,
we know polygraphs are not that reliable today, but back
then that was considered the gold standard. And also, I
mean he was more than willing to take the polygraph test.
He just simply didn't have the gun, he said, And
so there was kind of nowhere else to go. And
(23:52):
then a while later, someone else actually came out of
the woodwork and confessed to the crime. Not on the
suspect list, and they were really shocked to hear from
this person. And he confessed to the crime, but interestingly,
he seemed to only no information that had been in
the news, didn't really know about Rodney being there, or
(24:14):
couldn't remember it. Suspect Yeah, but there was a grand
jury and he was indicted and jailed for the crime,
but then eventually he recanted and admitted I made it
up for some reason. Who really knows why?
Speaker 1 (24:29):
It's wild that that happens, and how often it happens
that people confess to crimes that they didn't do.
Speaker 2 (24:35):
Yeah, yeah, And it's just such a waste of resources
for all of the investigators and then prosecutors in this
case that then have to pursue it, because why would
someone come forward and say that they did something so
horrific if they didn't.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
Well.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Also, I don't remember if you talked about this in
the podcast, but was Jim told like did her family
think that he had done it? Like when he was
indicted by a grand jury? Like, were people like, oh, yeah,
we got the guy.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
I think a lot of people did think like he
must have done it again because he admitted to it.
And again a grand jury, which I think a lot
of people don't really realize, Like what even is a
grand jury? I like only recently realized what it is.
But it's like basically a mini trial where they have
a kind of jury and they like put forward the
(25:27):
evidence that they would put forward in the trial to
basically determine do we have enough evidence to go to trial,
and that's what creates an indictment. So he was indicted.
So even through this legal system, it was determined that
there was enough evidence for him to go to trial,
but alas it wasn't him. And yeah, it is such
(25:47):
a good reminder too in general when we talk about crimes,
like you don't know what people's motivations are for really
weird or unusual behavior, and that's why the evidence itself
is so important, the hard evidence.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
Do you remember how long after Carla's murder he came
forward and said that he had done it?
Speaker 3 (26:08):
This person I can't recall now off the top of
my head. I think it was a long time later though,
like they had been investigating for a very long time,
and he eventually came forward and possibly again because this
case was sort of in the air, it had been
in the media, the community was so focused on it. Yeah,
and it sounds like possibly the man was having trouble
(26:31):
in his marriage and oddly, somehow this was one way
to cope with that. I don't know.
Speaker 1 (26:38):
So the case is still cold or then it goes
cold again.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
Basically, yeah, it goes cold again, and unfortunately it goes
cold for forty six years, so almost half a century.
We don't know what happened to her until they decide
to start doing some DNA analysis on the case.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
I have to touch on this because I thought this
part of the story was, like, so just reminiscent of
what I picture of, like small town Texas. Is the
Cowtown Cold Case Chicks. Yes, so COVID COVID. They get
together online, then they get together at a diner, it
sounds like, and they start talking about this case because
(27:28):
one of the women in this group, it's.
Speaker 1 (27:30):
Basically what explained the Cowtown Yeah.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Yeah, so the Cowtown Cold Case Chicks are a group
of women who live locally, got online, started talking about
cold cases and murders that had happened in the Fort
Worth area. They had a rule that you couldn't talk
about politics, only murder.
Speaker 1 (27:51):
Which makes sense. Yeah, totally makes sense.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Nothing would get done and twenty twenty, yeah, or any time,
I guess, but yeah. And so one of these women
went to high school with Carla Walker. They weren't friends,
but she knew who Carlo was and has memories of
seeing her at school. And then another woman in the
group is in twenty twenty married to Rodney's best friend.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
Oh wow. Yeah, so this is like all deeply connected.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Deeply connected, and so they're like, okay, we want to
try to solve this, and they put together their own
case file.
Speaker 3 (28:25):
Yeah. No, it is a great story of and what
I love is the idea of just these people coming
out of the woodwork. They're all they're coming from all
walks of life, different backgrounds, maybe different politics, but they're
they're brought together from this case and somehow just feeling
this emotional connection to it and this personal connection. So
they put together just all the information they can glean
(28:48):
into a file and they go actually to crime con
I think, and they want to get the attention of
Paul Hols, who is a very famous investigator. He was
heavily involved in the Golden State killer investigation that was solved,
and so he's like a big deal in the crime
world and he's kind of almost like this star. And
(29:10):
he's on stage giving this presentation and afterwards the Cowtown
chicks go up to him, hand over the file and say,
you need to work this case. I love it. What initiative, seriously,
it's amazing.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Yeah, And he happens to be working on a show,
a TV show and looking for the next case that
he's going to investigate, and so he's like, yeah, let's
do it.
Speaker 3 (29:33):
It is funny at how these things just like come
together sometimes. But that's a way that they can get
the funding to do the DNA testing on the DNA
that they have to try to determine who committed this
crime after all these years. So Paul Hols does the case,
makes the TV show, and they do the testing, but
(29:56):
basically they do testing that basically kind of fails, or
they do have a profile that they're able to put
into codis, like we talked about before, but there's no match.
And for some reason, I think with a different lab
that they used or something they consumed some of the
DNA and they just feel like they're out of luck.
(30:19):
They basically couldn't solve this case for the TV show.
Speaker 2 (30:22):
Because one thing I didn't realize until listening to America's
Crime Mob is that when you test the DNA profile,
you get one shot and then it's no longer test.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
You use it.
Speaker 3 (30:35):
You use it up as you're testing it, right exactly, Yes,
it's consumed in the process of the testing, So once
you test it, you can't test it again, and if
you somehow fail with the analysis, then you're just left
with nothing. So they had had some DNA from semen
found on a bra strap, which was a good solid sample,
(30:55):
but they used it up and they couldn't get the
DNA profile that they needed. So they think it's over.
They think this is the end of the road. Like,
can you just like talk to us a little bit
about that? Because I thought that was really powerful in
the podcast of you know, Paul stepping in to try
to help solve this case, doing his best obviously and
then like hitting that roadblock, Like what what must have.
Speaker 1 (31:19):
That been like for him?
Speaker 3 (31:21):
I think he was really devastated. I think Paul Holds
is someone who takes his cases home with him. He's
he really feels them. He talked about like sipping on
his beverage of choice of liquor in his basement man cave,
just like thinking about this case, feeling like what have
(31:43):
we done? We consumed the DNA and now we'll never know,
And so I think it kind of haunted him. And
you know, he had spent his career working cases like this,
and so I think he felt it personally. I think
he was like, maybe we shouldn't have even tested it
if we weren't sure we're going to get the result.
And obviously I would imagine everyone involved. I would imagine Jim,
(32:06):
Carla's brother would have been devastated to think that this
was our shot at figuring it out, and now we
haven't figured it out after all these years. I got
my hopes dashed yet again. I think it is that
feeling of like with those cold cases, what you guys
were talking about before, like this feeling of it being
up in the air and that doubt and not knowing.
I mean, it's torturous for these people.
Speaker 1 (32:28):
Yeah, I mean it's just like horrible. And obviously it
was like, you know, really trying to help and very invested.
And then it sounded like, you know, because he had
used up a lot of it, that he wasn't sure
if anything left was testable? Is that and then like
how does so how do we where do we go
from here? If it's like there's no more DNA?
Speaker 3 (32:49):
Right, So it seemed like maybe there weren't any other options.
Now there actually was another sample of DNA. The problem
was that it was mixed, so DNA that had maybe
been mixed with Carla's DNA or like maybe exposed to
plants and plant DNA. You know, that's the other thing actually,
(33:11):
quick side note about this technology so that your listeners
can feel like, ooh, I'm I'm up on this and
can explain this to other people. What's cool about the
technology that authrom this lab has is that it can
take DNA that is way more degraded in way worse condition,
with much smaller amounts than you would typically need with
(33:35):
an old type of DNA testing, and still come out
with an answer with again way more information again between
one hundred thousand and a million markers as opposed to
like twenty. Part of what authroom does is have a
whole process for also determining can we analyze this DNA
(33:56):
or not do we have enough? But it's not like
the cheek swab that you take when you're setting in
your genetics to get your genealogy or something like. That's
a nice clean saliva swab, whereas this is like it
happened to fall on her bra strap or her dress.
It's been sitting out in the sun and the heat,
the Texas heat for three days. Then on top of that,
(34:18):
in Carla's case, there is this additional DNA on her dress,
But again it's mixed with other DNA, so the idea
that it can be tested, you know, Paul Hols thinks,
I don't think this is possible, and people just think
this is the end of the line. However, because of
the TV show, two people, Kristen and David Middleman, the
(34:39):
co founders of Athram, they see this special on the
Carla Walker case and I think one of their children
was around the age of Carla at the time when
they saw the show, and they were just really struck
by the case, personally drawn to what happened, and they said,
I bet we can solve it. So they actually reached
out to the team and said, hey, is there any
(35:03):
more DNA evidence And they said, well, we do have
this mixed DNA, a very small sample, like I don't know,
I think other people have said, we can't really test it.
So they say send it to us, let's see if
we can test it or not. They send it on
over and it is like the tiniest little bit of DNA.
It's I think it's like four nanograms if I'm remembering correctly,
(35:25):
which is like just like a handful of cells like
so tiny you can't see it with a naked eye,
like so small. I don't even know how they do
this stuff, and so you know, you'd think you can't
test that, but authroam says, we can test it. We
think we can test it, and we think we can
come out with our result. So they say, okay, move
forward with the testing. They move forward with the testing,
(35:49):
and I can't remember, but I think it was on
a holiday or something. David Mendelman, one of the heads
of AUTHROM, calls up Detective Jeff Bennett, who's on the case.
And when Detective Jeff Bennett sees that he's getting this
call from David Middleman on a holiday, he thinks they've
got him. So he picks up the call and they say,
we have a name. So basically, they had the DNA
(36:14):
profile and through genetic genealogy of looking through the family tree,
they were able to narrow it down to Glenn Samuel mccurly.
Speaker 1 (36:22):
They think this is a name that is the actual suspect,
because I know, sometimes when they're doing the family tree thing,
it might be like a relative or are they pretty
sure it's this guy, or they think it might be
someone related to him.
Speaker 3 (36:35):
They come up with this name. It's a little bit
confusing at first they think it's this man, but then
it turns out when they look him up, he died
maybe two years before the crime was committed. So then
they thought, oh, did his DNA somehow get on the
dress although it is seaman DNA.
Speaker 2 (36:51):
Because there is something else right about her sister having
worn the dress.
Speaker 3 (36:55):
Yes, Carlo was re wearing this powder blue dress to
the Valentine's Date dance that her sister I think had worn,
you know, as you do you share dresses sometimes. And
so they thought, okay, well, if this man is dead,
maybe by the time of the abduction and murder, like
maybe it was actually from a different event. But then
(37:17):
they look more deeply into the family tree and they
realize that he had three sons and that he does
have a son, Glenn Samuel McCurley junior, who may have
committed this crime.
Speaker 1 (37:31):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Yeah, because they learned that he was Glenn Samuel McCurley junior.
Of these three sons, he was the only one of
them living in Texas when Carla was murdered, right, So yeah.
Speaker 1 (37:45):
What a huge break in the case. Like this was
like a couple of years ago, right that this happened.
Speaker 3 (37:50):
Yeah, it was extremely recently. I should know the year
or like the exact months of when it was solved.
But yeah, like COVID times was like the first break,
so and it took a little while for it to
get to Authrom after the TV show, Right, So this
is all happening in the last few years.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
Carla was killed in nineteen seventy four, and you know,
obviously a ton of police work had gone into this
case for many years, and now there's this name which
is a huge lead. Though, as you had said before,
this is a lead. Like it's not like they can
just take this test into a court and say, look
(38:27):
at that, like he's the one. So, you know, what
do they do with this? Like how does this where
does the investigation go from here?
Speaker 3 (38:35):
You're right, we can't know for sure even if he
left his seamen at the crime scene, do we know
that he was the one to kill Carla. So they
locate him. He's still living in the community, in the
same home he's been living in for decades, and they
stop by to just check in with him. It's kind
(38:55):
of around COVID time, so the investigators kind of pretend
that they're just doing like home checks on people, like
is everything going okay? Do you need masks? That kind
of thing, I think, And they talk to his wife,
and I do think one little interesting moment is when
they first show up, they say hi to the wife
and Glenn is working out back in the backyard or something,
(39:17):
and he comes around up front and when he sees police,
he immediately throws up his hands and says, oh, it
wasn't me. It wasn't me, basically joking that yes, exactly,
but like yeah, creepy yeah. And so they go in
(39:39):
and they end up asking him like, you know, we're
also looking into this crime that happened so many years ago.
And anyway, it's confusing because they leave and then they
come back again, and I don't need to get into
the mechanics of all that, but they come back again
and they really think this is the guy. They ask him,
you know, where were you the night of Carla's and
(40:01):
he says, oh, I was driving my wife around because
she can't drive, so I always drive her around. And
then the wife, who's sitting elsewhere in the room in
they're like living room, kind of says from the table, oh, now,
you're wrong about that, Like I was out of town
that weekend. Silly Glenn. So his alibi is shot. A
little while later, they asked, you know, could we have
(40:22):
a DNA sample, and he said, oh, you know, I
think back in the day they actually took my DNA sample,
so I don't think you need it. But then the
wife again in the corner, says, oh, well, you know, honey,
back then there were no DNA samples taking. It was,
you know, the seventies, So I amazing.
Speaker 1 (40:42):
He was bluff like just thrown him under the bus.
Did she suspect him?
Speaker 3 (40:46):
Yeah, like what was called?
Speaker 1 (40:47):
Or maybe she just didn't know.
Speaker 3 (40:48):
Yeah, yeah, I kind of the things you just had
no idea and was just like, oh help these kind
police officers out A truth teller, Yes, a true truth teller.
So eventually, somehow he agrees to give his DNA. I
still don't know how or why he agreed to that,
but they take a swab of his DNA and they
(41:12):
decide they're going to run it, and they run it
and it is a match. So what's also great, quite
often when they're checking the DNA, they run it against
the old type of technology, because that's like what's typically
historically used, So they'll use that twenty marker system I
talked about to double check to confirm that what they
(41:34):
found with the new technology is correct.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
Oh that's interesting.
Speaker 3 (41:38):
Yeah, that's another nice layer to this. Is quite often
in these cases it's like a double check of the
DNA testing. Often that test is done at the police
department as opposed to like at awthroom, so there's also
different people doing the testing.
Speaker 2 (41:53):
That makes total sense because I was wondering, you know,
because there's such it's such new technology and they're one
of the only labs that is doing it. How do
you have your like quality control? But they're comparing it
against the twenty marker system that is widely accepted exactly.
Speaker 1 (42:10):
Okay, did he show up in that system? Like was
he in Cotis?
Speaker 3 (42:14):
So yeah, he hadn't been in Cotis because they had
put his NA through Cotis years, Produ's right, I think years.
Maybe I'm getting the timeline round here, and they didn't
have a match, so he wasn't in Cotis. So they
decide to take him in for questioning, and at first
(42:34):
he says, no, I didn't do it. He denies it,
but after further questioning, eventually he admits to having committed
the crime. So what was miraculous is that Glenn Samuel
McCurley Junior had been on that list of suspects they had.
They had littled it down to like around eighty four suspects,
(42:55):
and he was actually on that list because he was
actually that man who had had the type of gun
that matched the magazine at the Bowling Alley parking lot.
Speaker 2 (43:07):
He was the one who said it was stolen.
Speaker 3 (43:09):
Yeah, exactly who had taken the polygraph past the polygraph
He had another example of how we can't entirely trussed
polygraph tests. And they questioned him, we know the gun
wasn't stolen. Tell us, Glenn, do you have it in
your home? Where is it? And he eventually admits, yes,
it's in my home, and he tells them where it's hidden.
He actually made this like room addition. He built this
(43:32):
addition to his home and hidden in the ceiling plank.
You can push it up, he says, and you can
find my gun there, wrapped in a towel. And so
they go and they find the gun.
Speaker 2 (43:44):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (43:45):
So there's another piece of evidence against him.
Speaker 1 (43:48):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (43:49):
And he hadn't committed other crimes in this forty six
years or did he.
Speaker 3 (43:54):
As far as getting caught for crimes, Yeah, he was
had pretty much clean background and he technically was on
the suspect list but had kind of been rolled out.
Speaker 2 (44:06):
But he wasn't like this known violent offender, no.
Speaker 3 (44:10):
Wow. He was a part of the community. He had
two kids, had this wife, had been living there for years.
Was just considered to be, you know, this man in
the community, someone that was probably trusted and loved. So
I think it was really shocking, and so he did
admit to it. So eventually it was deciding, you know,
it was going to go to trial, but unexpectedly, initially
(44:33):
he said I'm going to plead not guilty. After having confessed,
after the DNA evidence and after finding the gun, he
still was going to plead not guilty. And so I
think a lot of people were very upset about this,
and a lot of people even wonder, how can you
possibly plead not guilty after all that? But think about it,
(44:54):
there might be ways where they can somehow throw out
the DNA evidence in court, or somehow find a loophole
to throw out the confession or chalk it up to
a false confession or something or convince the jury or something.
So you know, it is a scary thought. Even if
you have the DNA evidence, it's not a slam dunk.
Speaker 2 (45:14):
Totally, because the jury would have been looking at him
as this elderly man, not this like young person who
can fight off the star football player and cannop this
other young woman they would be looking at. I mean,
he must have been in his seventie old.
Speaker 3 (45:30):
Yeah, he was young at the time of the crime,
so I think he was in his seventies forty six
years later when they're questioning and jailing him.
Speaker 1 (45:41):
What ended up happening though with the trial.
Speaker 3 (45:43):
So eventually though, he unexpectedly changed his plea last minute
too guilty, and so he was convicted of the crime.
And I think everyone involved was so relieved to know
that he was going to prison for probably the rest
of his life.
Speaker 2 (46:00):
Wow. I don't know if you have any information on this,
but I think I read that they ended up suspecting
him of additional rapes and murders, although he was never charged.
Were you able to find anything about that?
Speaker 3 (46:13):
Yeah, So one interesting thing is when they were interviewing
him in that confession, he did describe details of Carla's
case and what happened, But he also seemed to be
like kind of mixing up stories and in like, for example,
what she was wearing and confused it. Potentially they noticed
(46:34):
what he described was similar to another murder that had
happened nearby of a young woman or girl in the area,
and so the detective put two and two together and thought, oh,
my gosh, is he confusing different crimes he committed. And
so he asked Glenn in that questioning, oh, like, are
(46:55):
you confusing different people that you did this to? And
Glenn replet lies, I don't think so, which Wow suggested
to that detective. I think he's committed numerous crimes.
Speaker 2 (47:09):
Yeah, I mean, as devastating as that is to hear,
it's like that was one of my first thoughts listening
to Like you think about forty six years. You go
from in his early thirties, think he was thirty one
when Carla was murdered, when he murdered Carla, and then
he's living as this like family man, this church going husband,
his father forty six years he just what doesn't do
(47:31):
that again? I mean maybe, but it's such a brazen
and violent offense that it was both, you know, maybe jarring,
But I wasn't totally surprised when I read that because
it was such a horrific murder to begin with to
think that then he just turned his life around highly unlike.
Speaker 1 (47:47):
Yeah, totally. Well, also, I don't know, it just it
sounds like something a serial killer would do, right the
type of murder it was. Although did he know Carla?
Was she total stranger to him? I can't remember.
Speaker 3 (48:00):
He didn't personally know her, like it was like his
child went to the same school high school as one
of Carla's siblings, but that was later after the abduction.
So no, he didn't know them personally, but like lived nearby.
Speaker 2 (48:13):
And did he just happen to be in that Bowling
Alley parking lot or was he following them? Did they
ever find out?
Speaker 3 (48:21):
I'm not entirely sure. I can't remember because we do
so many cases it's hard to keep track of all
those details.
Speaker 2 (48:28):
No, all good. I was just curious, But yeah, I
mean it's just wild.
Speaker 3 (48:33):
I do get the sense that, you know, his wife
was out of town when this happened. I kind of
personally wonder if like this was something he would do
when his wife was like out of town, and he
would just find somebody who seemed vulnerable and like attack
them when they're alone, maybe followed them there, or just
found someone we thought he could take control over.
Speaker 1 (48:55):
Should I think his wife's reaction when he's being questioned
makes me feel like she had idea. Yeah, like, of course,
we're upstanding people. The police are here, We're going to
answer the questions.
Speaker 2 (49:05):
Like why wouldn't you give them DNA.
Speaker 1 (49:08):
Which must have been so shocking for her to find
that out.
Speaker 2 (49:12):
Yeah, yeah, totally. Or his children.
Speaker 1 (49:14):
Yeah, oh my gosh. But you know, it's something that
you talk about on the podcast a lot that I
think is so important and interesting and that you mentioned earlier,
which is like people do weird things, and it can
be really easy when we're talking about a case to
think that something is suspicious, or this person acted this
way and that's really suspicious. Like Rodney slept over or
(49:36):
where was Rodney for that hour and a half, or
the fact that he moved to Alaska could all be
considered like really suspicious behavior. And you know, when you
don't have hard evidence, anybody can become a suspect and
like suddenly, it can tear towns apart and families apart,
and the fact that this cold case finally got an
answer is just incredible. Someone who probably without this would
(50:01):
have kept living the rest of his life free and
never have faced consequences for this. And that's the heart
of what I find so fascinating about DNA technology and
genetic genealogy being used to solve cases, especially cult cases.
It's just it's mind blowing that we're here, that we're
able to do that with technology today. How has that
(50:24):
been for you working on these cases.
Speaker 3 (50:26):
Yeah, that is such a good point that it is
what is so amazing about this technology. Not to I
don't mean to sound due cliche or like I'm promoting
the technology. I just think it's pretty cool. As someone
who came into this project and learned about this technology
from knowing almost nothing to now knowing so much more
about it. It's like it is solving cases that have
(50:49):
been stone cold for decades. Candy Rogers another one we
had talked about maybe discussing that was called for sixty
two years before that was solved as well. These are
cases that are considered the mount everest of cases for
these communities or these police departments, and suddenly they're just
getting solved like that. And I think the impact is
(51:11):
that now people can be caught before they perpetrate more
than once. You know, I think about the Idaho college
student murder case with Brian Coberger. Authram was involved in
tracking him down and identifying him through the same DNA analysis.
So and that was, you know, a matter of weeks
after he perpetrated the crime. And I wouldn't be surprised
(51:33):
if he would have gone on to perpetrate other crimes.
Speaker 2 (51:35):
Oh my gosh. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (51:36):
Yeah. And so just to think that this technology can
actually stop potentially serial killers in their tracks, it's miraculous, totally. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (51:46):
I went to Washington State University in Pullman.
Speaker 3 (51:49):
Oh wow.
Speaker 2 (51:49):
So I've spent a lot of time at u of I,
and that case blows my mind. And I had read
about Authram when that happened and was blown away by
it because of course, I'm sure he would have gone
on to commit other crimes. I mean, that's just such
a horrific attack. And also studying criminology. Yeah, yeah, not
a good guy.
Speaker 3 (52:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (52:08):
Well, I just had one last question. You had an
episode where you mentioned the vast number of unidentified remains
that exist in the US and I think you called
it a silent epidemic, so I wanted to quickly ask
you about that and what is being done to identify
those unidentified remains and what you meant by silent epidemic.
Speaker 3 (52:29):
Well, I think for a lot of us, as we
go throughout the world and life, we assume that the
government protects us and takes cases of like missing persons
or of bodies that are found, remains that are found,
and says we're going to at least figure out who
this is. Like, let's for a second, forget even solving
(52:49):
the murder if it's a murder, Like, let's just figure
out who this person is who has passed away and
their bodies found. But the reality is that there are
tens of thousands of remains existing in the US that
are simply unidentified. And for each one of those people,
you know, there's a family, a community, friends who have
(53:11):
lost that person and just have no idea what happened
to them. And so some of the cases we discuss
on our podcast are people that have simply been identified,
and the huge implications of that are how that potentially
opens a murder investigation from there, and what it's like
for families to hear. Oh, I lost my dad when
I was little, and I never knew what happened to him.
(53:32):
I thought he left me and never wanted to speak
to me again, but oh, it turns out he died
in this very dramatic way. I think it helps people
to just know what happened. Even if they you know,
it's still a huge loss, probably still traumatic for them,
but to just have some kind of knowledge is so important.
And it's funny we think of basic things like medical
(53:55):
care being something that everybody should have, you know, But
it's like I would hope that if if I died
and my body was left somewhere, that someone would try
to find out who I was. And so luckily it's
a lot more to get into than really for right now,
but AUTHROAM is partnering with other forensic anthropologists and partnering
(54:17):
with different communities to try to identify a lot of
these remains, and I think they're also working on legislation
to try to get more remains identified and soon.
Speaker 1 (54:31):
That's amazing, Yeah, so amazing. Yeah, it's important, I think. Yeah,
not something I had spent a lot of time thinking about,
but yeah, I think it's important as well yeah wow,
I mean we could talk to you forever. But Alen,
thank you so much for coming on The Knife and
talking to us. We love your podcast and we hope
that everyone goes and listens to it. America's Crime Lab.
(54:52):
Thank you so much, Thank you.
Speaker 3 (54:54):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 2 (54:59):
If you have a store sorry for us, we would
love to hear it. Our email is The Knife at
exactlyrightmedia dot com, or you can follow us on Instagram
at the Knife Podcast or Blue Sky at the Knife Podcast.
Speaker 1 (55:09):
This has been an Exactly Right production hosted and produced
by me Hannah Smith and.
Speaker 2 (55:14):
Me paysha Eton. Our producers are Tom Bryfogel and Alexis Samarosi.
Speaker 1 (55:18):
This episode was mixed by Tom Bryfogel. Our associate producer
is Christina Chamberlain. Our theme music is by Birds in
the Airport.
Speaker 2 (55:26):
Artwork by Vanessa Lilac.
Speaker 1 (55:27):
Executive produced by Karen Kilgarriff, Georgia Hardstark and Danielle Kramer.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.