March 25, 2025 • 51 mins
Welcome to Blood Trails, MeatEater's first venture into true crime. Follow our very own Jordan Sillars as he investigates an unsolved murder that took place over 20 years ago in the turkey woods of Virginia.
Connect with The MeatEater Podcast Network
MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube
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 (00:07):
In two thousand three, forty four year old David Stack
had everything a guy could want. A loving family, a
successful construction business, and his own piece of wilderness, a
sprawling one hundred ninety acres in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, a
place where he could disappear into the woods, hunt turkeys
and deer, or just relax and enjoy the sounds of
(00:29):
cicadas and cardinals. It was a place he should have
been safe. David, his son Brian, and his brother Jeff
were excited to hunt turkeys on opening day, April twelfth.
(00:50):
They'd scouted the night before they knew where the birds
would be, and at five thirty a m. They split up,
each heading to their own pre plant spots. Then the gunshot.
Jeff heard it first, too early, too close, something about
(01:10):
it didn't feel right.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
It was still dark.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
I don't think it was legal shooting.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
And I heard a gun shot, and as dust Zacky tell,
it came from over there where Dave was. And I
said to myself, Damn, Dave, I don't think that was
a legal shot.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Brian heard shots too, but the wind was up, the
sound bounced around the hills and trees. He couldn't be
sure where it had come from, so he shook it off.
Speaker 5 (01:42):
I dozed off and woke up to birds of my decoys.
I can hear him out there spitting and drummond. And
that was actually my first gobbler, you know. I shot
the bird that morning.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
I think it was eight.
Speaker 5 (01:55):
Fifty nine o'clock somewhere in there, and you know, I
was excited, fired up, and you know, I got my
stuff together and was heading back to the cabin. I
wanted to show it all.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
But David never came back. No texts, no radio calls, nothing.
By noon, concern turned to unease. By four pm, unease
became fear.
Speaker 5 (02:21):
Eventually started, you know, just whistling and call in, trying
to you know, get some kind of response. And this
went on until she probably, you know, four o'clock, and
then we really started getting worried. It turned from you know,
worried to panic.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
They searched the woods, called his name.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Nothing.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
By nightfall, the search intensified, neighbors, state troopers, a helicopter
circling overhead, but still no sign of David. Then early
the next morning they found him.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
I saw the Turkey decoys mars. I thought it was turkey,
but they were decoys. And then there was turkeys in
the trees right above them that we we spooked or
jumped or whatever you want to call, and they flew
out of the trees.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
That's about the time I then saw Day laying on
his back.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
I did I did not get of course, I was
very emotional, and uh, anyway, I checked.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
I think I checked the pulse, but.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
It was obvious she was dead.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
And the way his body was found, something was off.
Kenny Graff, a close friend of David's, was there when
they pulled his body from the woods after the crime
scene had been processed. He'd been in law enforcement for
nearly two decades. He knew what an accident looked like
and this was not that.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
And we go to pick him up and they get
blood on my hands. We rolled him over to one
side and you just got to pullet. A bullet hole
in his back. So that's when they say something's not right.
This isn't an accidental death.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
A bullet hole in his back, no sign of a struggle,
his gun untouched, his sandwich still in his vest.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
We get him out, and I mean, I'm just as
a human being, I'm just struggling. I mean, I am
fucking struggling. It's it's a bitch caring your best friend out,
a dead body out of the woods, you know what
I mean. It's just no fun at all.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
But what's the out the most? The face mask pulled
up and a single cigarette butt lying next to him.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
If you're familiar with turkey out, which I'm sure you are,
you know you wear the full face mask and this
and that for the spring God, where to keep the
reflection off your face and stuff? Dave's was pulled all
the way back over top of.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
His head, as if someone had pulled it up to
see his face. For twenty years, no one has answered
the one question that matters most. Who pulled that trigger?
The Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources says the case is
still open, but in all these years, no suspects have
(05:25):
been named, no grand jury has been convened, no arrests
have been made. Kenny, Jeff and Bryan believed the shooter
knew exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
What they had done.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
They stood over David, looked at him, and walked away.
But why was it a mistake, a moment of panic,
or was it something worse? I'm Jordan Sillers and this
is Blood Trails, a Turkey Woods cold case.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
Part one.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
The crime scene. Jeff, Brian, and Kenny all saw the
crime scene, but their descriptions don't always match up. Here's Kenny.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
You can see where Dave cleared out a little spot
to sit by a tree. He had a decoy set up,
his gun was leaning against the tree, and he's just
laying on his back. And I noticed it was a
cigarette butt put out right there. Now, Dave did smoke
once in a while, and he had part of a
pack in his backpack with this brand not on the ground.
(06:42):
Was a different brand than what they smoked.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Kenny was a detective for nineteen years with the Metropolitan
Washington Airport's Authority. He told me he's worked drug and
homicide cases with other federal agencies, so he's the kind
of guy who might notice the brand name of a
cigarette butt lying on the ground. Brian and Jeff don't
remember anything about a cigarette butt. Brian remembers the shotgun
leaning against the tree, and they both agree that someone
(07:08):
had walked up to the body.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Here's Brian.
Speaker 5 (07:12):
He was laying away from the tree somewhat. His face
mask was pulled down his glasses were pushed up, his
sandwich was still in his vest. The decoys were only
like like fifteen yards sixteen yards from him, which is unusual.
So I don't think that was his location. I don't
(07:33):
know if that's where he was setting up or what,
but it definitely seemed unusual with it how close he
was to the decoys with a gun sitting against the
tree there, and you know how his face mask was
pulled down and glasses were up.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Those glasses are more important than they might sound. David's wife, Tammy,
didn't see the crime scene herself, but her knowledge of
her husband gave her an important insight into what those
glasses might indicate.
Speaker 6 (08:02):
They said his glasses were up like he pushed his
classes up on top of his head. And he would
never ever ever do that. He would take him off
and hang him from a shirt or take him off
in some some place. He couldn't stand having them up
on his head. I just I just have this gut
(08:23):
feeling that whoever did it knows that they did it.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
I reached out to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources
to confirm some of these details, but they refused, citing
the ongoing investigation. Fortunately for US, the agency hasn't always
been so tight lipped. The incident gained tons of local
media attention after it happened, and one of the best
reports came in a May third edition of The Roanoak Times.
(08:49):
Here's what the Virginia DWR, then called the Virginia Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries, told reporters in the weeks
following the murder. The shooting occurred on a property near
the Saalville Hill section of Rockbridge County, between South Buffalo
Road and Bluegrass Trail. David was likely leaning against a
tree when he got shot. The bullet entered his body
(09:13):
from behind, cut his aorta, and lodged in his heart.
The terrain and angle at which the bullet struck David
indicate that the shooter fired at close range and would
have been able to tell what he'd hit. The hill
and brush in the area would have kept the bullet
from traveling very far. Kenny told me that the bullet
(09:34):
itself came from a twenty two caliber center fire cartridge,
such as a two two three Remington, two twenty two
Remington or twenty two two fifty. I wasn't able to
find any contemporaneous media reports with this information, and the
DWR refused to name the kind of bullet that killed David,
but I did speak with one of the neighbors, a
(09:56):
man named James Lava, who still owns one of the
adjacent par He declined to be recorded for this podcast,
but he told me he was also turkey hunting the
morning David was killed. Game Wardens knocked on his door
in the weeks after the incident and asked if he
owned any rifles chambered in a center fire twenty two
caliber cartridge.
Speaker 6 (10:15):
He did.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
In fact, he said he hunts turkeys during the fall
season with the rifle chambered in twenty two hornet, but
he was hunting with a shotgun on the morning of
the incident. Game Wardens apparently believed his story, because, according
to Lava, they sent his rifle to Richmond for ballistics
testing and returned it about a month later. Whatever they
found it either didn't point to Lava or was inconclusive,
(10:38):
but the suggests at least at the time, investigators believed
David was killed with a Centerfire twenty two Many states
do not allow turkey hunters to use rifles, but Virginia
is not one of them.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
To this day.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
The only restriction they put on a turkey hunter's gun
is that during the spring season they cannot use shot
larger than number two. Kenny, Jeff, and Ran all agree
that the shooting was most likely an accident. They don't
recall David having any ongoing conflicts with anyone or any
of the neighbors being upset about the recent purchase of
(11:11):
the land. Here's Brian.
Speaker 5 (11:15):
My haunt ya is it's either what's a young haunor
inexperience or older haunter that had poor vision. I don't
think it's anything in malice done in on purpose, but
I don't.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Know Part two the neighbors. Cases like this are difficult
to investigate. There are no witnesses, and what physical evidence
(11:45):
exists is hard to find in the leaves and dirt.
But if you're like me, your first thought goes to
the neighbors. It's easy to imagine a neighboring property owner
wanders onto the stacks land, sees what he thinks is
a turkey in the dimness of the morning, and pulls
the trigger. That's where Kenny's mind went to, even before
(12:09):
his friend's body had been found. While the rest of
the Stack family was still searching the woods. He paid
a visit to the neighbors.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
At daylight the next morning, which was the thirteenth, April thirteenth.
I'm thinking, well, maybe the neighbors know something.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Kenny told me the names of the people who lived there,
but we're going to bleep them out. None of them
still live on those properties as far as I've been
able to tell, and the Virginia d WR has never
named an official suspect. You'll see why that's relevant here
in a minute. The first house Kenny visited belonged to
someone we'll call Johnson.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
We had met him the previous fall because he came
over he was looked for his dog, and we talked
to him a little bit. He says, I don't I
don't allow not. I go to his house, played down
again who I was, and I was looking for David.
I wonder if he heard seeing anything. He said no,
(13:10):
And I remember thinking, when I was standing in his house,
he got all his turkey mounts, a deer mounts, and
I'm thinking, this guy told me he didn't hunt, so huh.
I didn't say anything about it then, but he pulls
out a map, and this could be coincidence. Don't get
me wrong, this could be coincidence. But he pulls out
a map and he points at the map and he says,
(13:33):
there's the property line where it is property George Dave's property.
He says, you should look great in this area here,
You should look great in this area here.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
Remember Kenny spoke to Johnson before they'd found David's body.
So I asked, Kenny, what you're thinking was the spot?
He pointed to the same spot they eventually found David.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
It was within feet, within feet.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Kenny admits that this could be explained in a non
nefarious way. Johnson wouldn't be the first hunter to hide
the fact that he's a hunter, and it doesn't make
much sense to lead investigators to the person you just
murdered the day before. Still, it's weird, but Kenny's interactions
with the neighbors got even stranger. Kenny stopped by another
(14:23):
house where an elderly man told him that while he
doesn't hunt, one of his friends had been hunting on
the morning David was killed. We'll call this friend Smith.
Smith lived down the road. So Kenny knocked on the door,
but nobody answered. Kenny left a message on Smith's answering machine,
using the phone number the elderly neighbor had given him.
(14:43):
Kenny went back to the Stacks cabin and the phone rang.
The woman on the line claimed to be Smith's wife.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
She says, uh, doesn't know anything. Did see anything?
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Did Aunt?
Speaker 3 (15:00):
And I said, told me? He told me his truck
was parked at his house. Oh yeah, Well, he hunted
opposite side of the road. And I'm thinking to myself,
how do you know what side of the road David
was on?
Speaker 2 (15:14):
You know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (15:16):
How do you know what's side of the road I'm
talking about.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
Kenny didn't think too much about it at the time,
and David's body was found not long after, But that's
not the last he heard of Smith. A year or
two after David's death, Jeff was walking the property and
he found something, something very out of place in the woods.
Speaker 4 (15:39):
I found the pillow bumble was.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
Same on it.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
It was right on the property line. It was a
prescription for one of you know, one of these comment
kind of anti depressant types.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
It was a feat.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Jeff said. The place he found the bottle near the
property line would have been less than a ten minute
walk from where they found David's body. He sent the
bottle to the lead investigator on the case at the time,
but never heard anything more. The investigator has since passed away,
and Kenny says they haven't heard anything from the DWR
for years. The shooter could have been a neighbor, but
(16:18):
it also could have been someone who didn't live in
the area. That would make the culprit even more difficult
to find, and it would help explain how this case
has gone unsolved. Neither Jeff Kenny or Brian ever mentioned
having a problem with trespassers, but Kenny did mention one
alternative theory. One of the original DWR investigators on this case,
(16:40):
a guy named Stephen Pike, knew a producer on the
television show America's Most Wanted. He wanted to give this
case as much exposure as possible, so he asked the
producer for a favor. It wasn't the kind of story
the program usually covered, but they decided to do it anyway.
The segment aired on November one, two thousand and three,
(17:01):
in episode seven thirty seven of the show. Younger listeners
might not remember, but America's Most Wanted was a hit
show back in the day at the time of its
cancelation by the Fox Television Network in June twenty eleven.
Its twenty four season run made it the longest running
program in the network's history, and each episode was watched
(17:22):
by thousands. The point is including David's story on amw
as its fans call it would have exposed the case
to a huge audience. The segment on David ended with
an appeal to that audience for tips. We don't know
exactly what kind of information came in, but Kenny claims
that two tips came in from people in Rockbridge County,
(17:42):
one of which pointed back to Johnson.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
The second tip stays, you should talk to he has
a hunting camp and he had hunters there that morning
and they left that morning.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
Kenny claims that Johnson was running an illegal hunting camp.
An investigator spoke with several of the people who had
hunted that morning.
Speaker 3 (18:04):
They talked to a couple of people that were there
that morning but had left around ten o'clock. And I'm
thinking to myself, it's opening day of Spring Gobbers season.
Why do you leave at ten am and go home?
Speaker 1 (18:20):
It's a good question. David may have been killed not
by a neighbor, but by someone who didn't live in
the area. That person could have been hunting legally, or
it could have been a poacher. In either case, the
randomness of that scenario could make it even more likely
that David's killer is never found. Part three The DWR
(18:55):
the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources says this case is
still considered active. Special agents are currently assigned, and they
said in an email of that quote, recent investigative measures
and evidence examinations have been explored. They've digitized the case files,
and they're collaborating with Virginia State Police to have the
case added to the state cold case database. So someone
(19:21):
is working on it. How much they're working on it
is a different question. Kenny says he hasn't heard from
the agency in the last four or five years. In
the meantime, his frustration has only increased.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
We had a very hard time for years just getting
them to communicate with us, to talk to us. I
don't want to say these guys screwed up, but somebody
screwed up, and it's a shame, it really is. Haven't
been a law enforcement officer myself, for twenty five years.
I don't understand to this day why this case wasn't
solved within a few days.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
I really don't.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
Kenny believes the agency failed to collect all the evidence
at the scene, and they failed to investigate the neighbors
closely enough, specifically Johnson and Smith. Remember that cigarette butt
I mentioned at the beginning of the episode, the one that,
according to Kenny, was a different brand than the one
David smoked.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
Believe it or not, they didn't collect it. They police
did not collect it. I was assumed they collected it.
And then a few months later I talked to I
was talking to DNR, and I said, well, what about
cigarette button? I'd like, what cigarette butt.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
It's possible Kenny was mistaken and that the cigarette butt
was actually David's. It's also possible whoever Kenny asked didn't
know or was lying, or it's possible Kenny just made
the whole thing up. But whatever the truth is, the
DWR isn't saying. I filed a public records request asking
(20:55):
for documents related to this case. The agency responded and
said that while they have one d ten pages of files,
they can't release any because they're part of an ongoing
criminal investigation fair enough. Then, on June seventh, twenty twenty four,
I sent an email to the agency's public information department
and asked to interview the agent in charge of the case.
(21:17):
The agency initially agreed to an interview, but wanted to
see and approve any questions prior to the interview being recorded,
so I sent a list of questions on July third,
twenty twenty four, asking about everything you've heard in this
episode cigarette butt, pillbottle, Johnson, and Smith. I even asked
for the agency to confirm a few of the details
(21:38):
that they had shared with the media in two thousand
and three, things like how far away the shooter was
and whether he likely knew what he'd done. On November fifteenth,
twenty twenty four, which was for those counting over four
months after I'd sent the list of questions, the DWR
backed out of the phone interview they'd previously agreed to.
(21:59):
Why well, here's what they said, Out of an abundance
of caution to protect the integrity of the investigation, the
department will not be available for any in person interviews
or discussions. Instead, they responded to my list of questions
with typed answers, but they refused to share any details
of the case beyond when and where it happened, they said,
(22:23):
quoting again DWR Conservation police officers spent a considerable amount
of time and effort to identify the person responsible for
mister Stack's death and followed all leads that were provided
and developed through the course of the investigation. Specifics about
their investigation are not available due to this being an
open investigation. The only new piece of information they offered
(22:47):
was about whether they ever identified a suspect, they said, quote,
several persons of interest have been identified. These persons have
been interviewed and declined a polygraph. Whoever those people were,
the agency didn't gather enough information to make an arrest.
(23:13):
Part four. An expert's opinion. I don't know about you,
but I have more questions than answers about this case.
I frankly don't understand why the Virginia d w R
hasn't been more helpful. I wonder how investigators knew what
kind of bullet killed David, and I wonder whether they
(23:34):
used every investigative technique at their disposal to help answer
some of these questions. I call up my buddy and
meat Eater's own Brent Reeves. You know Brent as the
host of This Country Life, where he dispenses down home
wisdom in a deep and melodious baritone. But Brent wasn't
always a world famous podcast host. In a previous life,
(23:55):
he served for thirty two years as a law enforcement
agent in Arkansas. He's investigated homicide cases himself, so I
knew he'd be the perfect person to help us break
down this case. Brent, thanks for being here.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
Yeah, man, thank you for inviting me only here.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
So I know that you were in law enforcement for
a long time, but could you fill in some of
those details. What agencies did you work for and what
kinds of things did you do well?
Speaker 7 (24:29):
I was a police officer, a law enforcement officer for
thirty two years and seven months. The first two thirds
of my career, I was actually doing police work what
people think of as police work, answering calls, working accidents,
investigating you know, robberies and thefts, crimes including homicides, and
(24:53):
with a large portion of that my career was dedicated
to undercovered narcotics and narcotics instigations. But when homicides would occur,
especially in a department limited by manpowered And I'm talking
about in the biggest department I worked in in South Arkansas,
(25:13):
I think we had probably forty maybe forty deputies sworn
officers that were working every day, and they would bring
the whole CID Investigation division into work a homicide, which
over the course of my career, you know, probably forty
(25:37):
five fifty homicides during that during that length of time.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
So if if you were assigned this case back in
two thousand and three, I'm curious what the first steps
are on the first in the first few days, the
first few weeks, what kinds of strategies would you use
to try to figure out who did this?
Speaker 7 (25:59):
Well, well, you know, the crime scene, that's that's important,
and limiting a crime scene, the parameters of where you're
operating is important anytime that you're working with something outdoor,
especially like this, and even.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
Add the fact that.
Speaker 7 (26:21):
Someone died as a result of a rifle shot, you're
there's no telling how big your crime scene is. The
cards are stacked against you to begin with in something
like this, so as as large a perimeter as you
can gather or that you can secure, and then it's
just the meticulous going through everything that is conceivably close
(26:51):
to where the incident occurred, because there's there's two places
here that are important, where the shot was fired from
and obviously where the shot was fired too, which you
know caused the death of the man. So and in
doing so, anytime that you approach or leave a crime scene,
(27:15):
you take something in and you take something out unwittingly,
You're you're stepping on leaves, you're making tracks, you're sweating,
you're dropping DNA. There is there's so many things to
consider that could either help or hinder the investigation. You know,
somebody maybe you stepped on something you didn't see, a
(27:37):
hull or a track or in this case, a cigarette.
But I think that was a kind of a controversial
part of the of what people saw there. So there's
to answer your question, how would I approach it? You
have to build as big a perimeter as you can
(27:57):
and slowly work your way from the outside.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
And then so once you've done that with the crime scene,
would you then be canvassing the neighbors and seeing if
they saw anything or heard anything.
Speaker 7 (28:11):
Absolutely, I mean, you got to talk to You've got
to run out every conceivable pathway, even if it's talking
to the garbage man that's or the mail carrier, anybody
that strip makes a regularly route through there, along with neighbors,
(28:31):
anybody within earshot, anybody within reason that could have possibly
saw something that morning that stood out of place, or
saw something that wasn't out of place but just saw something.
You got to exhaust every available opportunity to gather information
(28:52):
as quick as possible. There was an old TV show
the first forty eight.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Called I think it was on A and E. We
had a homicide that I worked.
Speaker 7 (29:05):
It actually was a focus of that, and it's true
the first forty eight hours are usually the most critical,
especially in something that's outside outdoors that you're affected by
all kinds of environment environmental.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
Conditions, rain, wind, temperatures, whatever.
Speaker 7 (29:26):
Like I said at the beginning, the deck is stacked
against you from the get go when you're dealing with
anything outside, and time is absolutely a crucial factor in
finding the correct path that you need to go from
there to lead to where you know the suspect is.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
So I know you haven't seen the files on this case.
I haven't seen the files on this case either, but
just based on what you know from what I've been told,
you've listened to the podcast. What jumps out at you
about this case, about the crime scene, about the investigation,
anything kind of seem out of the ordinary.
Speaker 7 (30:07):
The magnitude of it is what jumps out at me
is just the magnitude of the size of the crime scene.
There's a lot to take in there, there's a lot
to look at, and that, to me, through this whole
thing has been I guess one of the key features.
Another one being unfortunately, the gentleman was found by his friends,
(30:31):
and you put emotion into testimony, and you put emotion
into the things that were seen and observed, and sometimes.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
It affects what was saw.
Speaker 7 (30:46):
Now, I should have said this at the very beginning,
and my heart goes out to the gentleman's family and
his friends. But unfortunately, and I've said this before and
it has approved fact that if you want two different
eyewitnesses or two different statements to the same thing, get
(31:07):
two eyewitnesses to it because the other. Because people observe
and look at different things, different things stand out to them.
It's not saying that they're wrong, but if you've got
two people that saw the exact same thing, and when
they write their statement, their word for word verbatim, or
what's going on or what supposedly happened that it Sometimes
(31:31):
that would lead one to believe that the statements were
manufactured before you got there.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
This obviously was not there. That was not in this
case at all.
Speaker 7 (31:41):
But different people see different things, and some people, you know,
there's confirmation bias and everything, and you just have to
be very careful about taking statements from people who are
emotionally and physically and mentally involved with something and running
(32:01):
out the line of questions those folks to make sure
that they saw what they saw, give them every opportunity
to prove what they saw. The face mask was something
that stood out in the interior of this crime. Is
how the gentleman's turkey mask was pulled up and his
(32:22):
face was exposed.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Now, I want to think if I remember you correct
me if I'm wrong, Jordan, that was what.
Speaker 7 (32:37):
Led folks to believe that the shooter had approached the
person and to identify him. Is that?
Speaker 2 (32:43):
Am I correct in that assumption?
Speaker 1 (32:45):
Yeah, there was a face mask. And then also David's
wife Tammy said that glasses yeah, and she said he
never did that. He hated having his glasses kind of
pushed up on his face. So yeah, those of the
two things that made people think someone had done that
to see his face.
Speaker 7 (33:04):
Okay, I'm not going to say that that didn't happen.
I'm also going to say that there's a reasonable doubt
that that was done. I can't tell you how many
times I have left my truck going to a spot
to turkey hunt, knowing where I was going to sit
(33:25):
down and put my decoys out before daylight and getting
completely ready and camoed up before I shut the door
of my truck with my turkey mask flipped over it
on the top of my head and walking to where
I'm going. You know, a turkey mask, he's got holes
in it. You can see out of it, but when
it's dim outside or dark, it's absolutely in the way
(33:49):
and hinders your peripheral vision. So there's reasonable doubt. There's
a reason to think that just because that was done,
there's got to be other factors in there that that
that was correct. It's not a bad theory by any means,
but it's also not you know, one hundred percent, the
glasses on top of his head. His wife would know
(34:12):
him better than anyone, you know, that's obviously something that
that should have been looked at, or should be looked
at and considered as well in the totality of the
crime scene to what they saw there. But you know,
to say, and I don't want to sound you know,
unfeeling about this, but if he didn't die instantly, he
(34:34):
could have pushed his glasses up on top of his
head after he was hit accidentally, you know, just in
the course of.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
Being hit struck from the bullet.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
So yeah, and I think this is one of the
big questions about this case, and it matters a lot
to the family, is whether the shooter knew what he'd done.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Right.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
So it's one thing if it's a stray bullet they
have no idea. It's another thing, you know, even if
the shooter didn't walk up to the body, if they
were close enough to know something had happened and then
walked away and has never come forward, that matters a
lot to the family and friends. And this is a
point that the dw R. Initially in the months after
(35:17):
the murder, they said they think the shooter was aware
that he was close enough to know. And then when
I asked them, they they said, well, we can't speculate
on that. So, just from your experience investigating cases, what
kinds of evidence would they be looking at to indicate
(35:40):
that the shooter was close enough to know that they
that they had a knowledge of what they'd done and
just decided to walk away.
Speaker 7 (35:49):
Well, the caliber bullet uh it was used, the amount
of penetration into the victim's body, the angle that it was,
there's a lot a lot of things that can go
into that. You know, there's a if something is that
close range and close if there's what's called stippling around
the entrance the wound. It's always an indicator of something
(36:14):
being fired at close range, which which is gunpowder and
debris that gets absorbed into the skin from a close
contact wound. If that wasn't there, it obviously tells you
that the person the barrel of the of the weapon
that was used was not close to the body or
to the point of contact. So then you're going to
(36:35):
go by the amount of penetration and the force that
that the bullet retained from that from whatever distance it
was shot from, so that that could be clues as
to how far it was away, the time of day
and being able to see in that environment was something.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
You know.
Speaker 7 (37:00):
I think some of the guys that were hunting with
him testified that, you know, the shot was so early.
One guy thought, wow, is that legal. That leads me
to believe that, you know, it was just you know,
breaking day out there, that there was just enough light
to be able to see if he questioned one way
or the other, if that was legal to be shooting
(37:21):
that early, which also makes me think that or would
lead me has led me to believe that if he
was shot from uh, you know, a distance away, it
was after his decoys were set up and he was
moving around and someone thought it was a turkey already
(37:44):
on the ground and took a shot, which was you know,
that's a violation of the first rule of hunting, of
safe hunting is shooting not making sure you knew what
you were shooting at when you pull the trigger. But
that's what you know. I it's so hard to come
up with conjecture. It's purely conjecture on my part from
(38:09):
reading and listening to this podcast and having to come
up with some type of credible scenario in which it happened.
But from everything that I've taken at face value that's
been heard here, on this podcast, it would lead me
to believe, with no motive known motive of someone being
(38:31):
angry or having a problem with the victim, that this
was a hunting accident which resulted in the homicide of
a turkey hunter a man, and whoever it was, you know,
left the scene and didn't report it. That's everything from
(38:52):
that I can take it face value and come up
with in my mind.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
So next month, it'll be twenty two years. I'm doing
my math right, since this incident happened, what what can
be done at this point? If this was your case, now,
what kinds of things would you be doing to help
solve this?
Speaker 2 (39:14):
I would you know.
Speaker 7 (39:17):
All the evidence that was gathered from whatever evidence was
gathered from there, if there science has come a long way,
if if there was physical evidence gathered there other than
you know, I think there has been some miscommunication or
(39:38):
different stories about the cigarette, but the different cigarette brand
of cigarette, but that was found there. Somebody remembered it,
another person didn't, and did you I don't know, I
don't remember if you got a straight answer from the
DW or about if there was any of that gathered
there or did they say anything about any physical evidence.
Speaker 2 (39:59):
No, they didn't.
Speaker 1 (40:00):
They said to protect the integrity of the case, they
can't release that kind of information.
Speaker 7 (40:06):
I got you, Okay, and that's that's true obviously. So
but d angie, question, what would I do different? Anything
physical evidence wise that could have been submitted at that
time to a forensics lab could be resubmitted. You know,
testing has improved dramatically. Different tests have been developed and
(40:30):
invented since then, for as far as DNA and different
types of physical evidence that could be garnered from a
crime scene. So you know, a resubmission of evidence to
a forensics lab would be something that I would that
I would look at specifically.
Speaker 2 (40:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (40:53):
One of the things that surprised me a bit in
my interactions with the dw R is, like I said
in the podcast, initially they agreed to an interview and
then they backed out there. They didn't share a lot
of information about the evidence like the cigarette butt, and
they said that all of this was to protect the
(41:15):
integrity of the case. As a as a formal law
enforcement officer, can you break that down a little bit
for us, because for for a layman like myself, I
don't I don't quite understand why sharing a little bit
more information to help get the word out about this
case would would damage it, especially having not been solved
(41:38):
for so long. Could could you help me understand kind
of the the practical negative consequences of them sharing too
much information.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
In something like this. Knowledge is power.
Speaker 7 (41:51):
I can't tell you how many times, And there's been
some famous cases of people confessing two different things, different
crimes that were totally you know, uh, made up lies
from the beginning because that when asked certain details about
the case, they couldn't give them, or they gave the
wrong details. And it's just it's the It takes the
(42:16):
investigators priorities away from investigating something that could be legitimate,
to go down the rabbit hole of chasing ghost and
something that's that's incorrect. So keeping as much critical, critical
crucial evidence in a closed area it all or in
(42:41):
a box where it's not subject to public information, it
keeps the it keeps the the power I guess on
the side of the investigators to be able to go
after a certain if they laid everything out there, you know,
we've got fingerprints, or we've got DNA, or we've got
(43:03):
this or got that, anything that could be construed by
the suspect even you know, we've got a hole, we've
got the rifle hole that fired the shots. So as
soon as we find the right suspect, we're going to
match this hole with that rifle. Well, if that rifle
is gone forever, you know, he gets rid of that rifle,
(43:25):
there's no way to connect it. So and these are
very arbitrary and things that I'm that I'm giving you,
But to keep portions of the evidence and the.
Speaker 2 (43:38):
Things that they have in the.
Speaker 7 (43:39):
Investigation private is crucial a lot of times in solving
the case. That's why that they would play those cards
very close to their to their chest.
Speaker 1 (43:51):
Because maybe whoever did it, or the family of whoever
did it could take actions that would, like you say,
with the get rid of the rifle, that would undermine
the evidence that.
Speaker 2 (44:05):
They have absolutely m hmm.
Speaker 1 (44:08):
Can you tell me a little bit about because I
would have asked this to the d w R. But
I know you've had this experience of you're investigating a
case and you're being criticized by the family of the victim,
by the friends of the victim for not doing enough.
Can you tell me a little bit about what that's like.
Speaker 7 (44:30):
I've got one you know, you and I talked earlier
about this. I've got one unsolved homicide in my career.
It's the only copy of a case file that I
brought home from my career one and it haunts me
to this day. And I know who did it. We
(44:52):
know who did it. We just never got the physical
evidence to put them to get them arrested for it.
And here's the thing that you got to think about.
Once you arrest somebody, if you have enough to arrest
them but not enough to convict them, and you'd go
take them to trial on the chance that you might
(45:12):
get them convicted, and they get found guilty, that's it.
That was your swing. You don't get another chance. That's
the end of it. There are no other tribes, so.
Speaker 2 (45:24):
There is.
Speaker 7 (45:25):
In my thirty plus years of being a police officer,
I've never worked with any investigations, any investigation, or any
department where solving a case was not their number one goal.
Being closed mouth about how the investigation is going, and
the tactics that you have to use, and the pride
(45:50):
that you have to swallow when you're accused of not
doing enough. It's tough, man, It's tough, but you know,
we understand and I understand that that's coming from a
place of emotion because these people have had a great loss.
Speaker 2 (46:03):
And they want justice.
Speaker 7 (46:05):
In my experience, there has never been anyone that won't
adjust it for justice for a family anymore than the
folks investigating the case.
Speaker 2 (46:14):
And it's it's just it's part of it.
Speaker 7 (46:18):
It's part of the things that police officers deal with,
and I'm glad to talk about it now because it's
a struggle.
Speaker 2 (46:25):
It's a hard thing to do, it's a hard thing
to live with.
Speaker 7 (46:28):
It's not something that I could go to work for
eight or nine or ten hours a day and leave
at the office and go home, because when I went home,
I was with my wife and my family. Somebody wasn't
going home to their wife, the victim, or their husband,
or their father or mother. And that weighed on me heavily,
(46:52):
and it weighs on I'm sure it weighs on these folks.
And I can assure you that there's no great joy
than to be able to call someone or go and
see them and tell them, Look, it ain't gonna bring
the victim back, but we found who did it, and
they're gonna, you know, they're gonna pay so it's a.
Speaker 2 (47:16):
It's a job that I volunteered for. I wasn't made
to do it.
Speaker 7 (47:19):
I'm not asking for sympthy and I'm not giving sympty
to these guys. But I can understand where they're coming from,
and it's just a it's just another It's a pretty
tough road to hoe until you get somebody arrested and
get them gone.
Speaker 2 (47:31):
But that's that's their job, and that's what they're there for.
Speaker 1 (47:34):
Thanks, Brent, I really appreciate you coming on and answering
some of these questions for us.
Speaker 2 (47:38):
You bet man.
Speaker 7 (47:39):
Good luck to these guys, and I appreciate what you're doing,
bringing bringing light to something. Maybe another obviously deserves another look,
and I hope we get this thing to fruition. I'll
be I'll be right here with you when you do it.
Speaker 2 (48:00):
Part five. What's next?
Speaker 1 (48:04):
As with many cold cases, David's death may not be
solved unless someone who knows something comes forward. At least
that's what a DWR agent told Kenny.
Speaker 3 (48:17):
He says, just gonna have to wait for somebody's wife
to get mayn.
Speaker 1 (48:22):
In the interest of keeping this show semi family friendly,
we can't air Kenny's response to that comment. But you
can imagine it's a frustrating place for the family to be,
especially when you think the DWR hasn't done enough. But
it may be true that the only way this case
(48:43):
will ever be solved is if someone's wife gets mad,
or someone's grandchild learns the truth, or someone's neighbor finally
does the right thing. There isn't any more physical evidence
that can be collected from the crime scene. It's been
nearly twenty two years since David was murdered, and while
time might heal all wounds, it also cloud's memory and
(49:06):
dulls whatever moral compass the killer may have once had.
There was at one point at thirty six thousand dollars
reward for information leading to the conviction of the killer,
but that's no longer on the table. David's kids say
their father always encouraged them to follow their consciences, to
(49:27):
tell the truth. Those three kids are now grown with
kids of their own, but they've had to live for
the last twenty years wondering what happened to their dad. Now,
their only request is that whoever did this, or whoever
knows who did this, follow their dad's advice. Listen to
(49:50):
your conscience.
Speaker 2 (49:52):
Do what's right.
Speaker 1 (49:54):
That's what Tammy said too, when I asked her what
she'd say to the person responsible for killing her husband.
Speaker 6 (50:01):
I just wish that they would come forward say something.
I mean, they've put us through hell. Have a soul
man come out and say something. I don't think they
did it on purpose, but come forward and say something.
Don't put the family through all this in all these
years just not knowing. You know, I hope nobody ever
(50:23):
has to go through what we had to go through.
Speaker 1 (50:26):
If you, or anyone you know has any information about
this incident, the DWR asks that you call their anonymous
tip line at one eight hundred two three seven five
seven one two. You can also text your tip to
eight four seven four one one, or send an email
to wild Crime at DWR dot Virginia dot gov. The
(50:49):
murder took place in Virginia's Rockbridge County on April twelfth,
two thousand and three, the opening day of spring gobbler season.
In two thousand three, forty four year old David Stack
had everything a guy could want. A loving family, a
successful construction business, and his own piece of wilderness, a
sprawling one hundred ninety acres in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, a
place where he could disappear into the woods, hunt turkeys
and deer, or just relax and enjoy the sounds of
(00:29):
cicadas and cardinals. It was a place he should have
been safe. David, his son Brian, and his brother Jeff
were excited to hunt turkeys on opening day, April twelfth.
(00:50):
They'd scouted the night before they knew where the birds
would be, and at five thirty a m. They split up,
each heading to their own pre plant spots. Then the gunshot.
Jeff heard it first, too early, too close, something about
(01:10):
it didn't feel right.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
It was still dark.
Speaker 3 (01:16):
I don't think it was legal shooting.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
And I heard a gun shot, and as dust Zacky tell,
it came from over there where Dave was. And I
said to myself, Damn, Dave, I don't think that was
a legal shot.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Brian heard shots too, but the wind was up, the
sound bounced around the hills and trees. He couldn't be
sure where it had come from, so he shook it off.
Speaker 5 (01:42):
I dozed off and woke up to birds of my decoys.
I can hear him out there spitting and drummond. And
that was actually my first gobbler, you know. I shot
the bird that morning.
Speaker 3 (01:54):
I think it was eight.
Speaker 5 (01:55):
Fifty nine o'clock somewhere in there, and you know, I
was excited, fired up, and you know, I got my
stuff together and was heading back to the cabin. I
wanted to show it all.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
But David never came back. No texts, no radio calls, nothing.
By noon, concern turned to unease. By four pm, unease
became fear.
Speaker 5 (02:21):
Eventually started, you know, just whistling and call in, trying
to you know, get some kind of response. And this
went on until she probably, you know, four o'clock, and
then we really started getting worried. It turned from you know,
worried to panic.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
They searched the woods, called his name.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
Nothing.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
By nightfall, the search intensified, neighbors, state troopers, a helicopter
circling overhead, but still no sign of David. Then early
the next morning they found him.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
I saw the Turkey decoys mars. I thought it was turkey,
but they were decoys. And then there was turkeys in
the trees right above them that we we spooked or
jumped or whatever you want to call, and they flew
out of the trees.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
That's about the time I then saw Day laying on
his back.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
I did I did not get of course, I was
very emotional, and uh, anyway, I checked.
Speaker 3 (03:27):
I think I checked the pulse, but.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
It was obvious she was dead.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
And the way his body was found, something was off.
Kenny Graff, a close friend of David's, was there when
they pulled his body from the woods after the crime
scene had been processed. He'd been in law enforcement for
nearly two decades. He knew what an accident looked like
and this was not that.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
And we go to pick him up and they get
blood on my hands. We rolled him over to one
side and you just got to pullet. A bullet hole
in his back. So that's when they say something's not right.
This isn't an accidental death.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
A bullet hole in his back, no sign of a struggle,
his gun untouched, his sandwich still in his vest.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
We get him out, and I mean, I'm just as
a human being, I'm just struggling. I mean, I am
fucking struggling. It's it's a bitch caring your best friend out,
a dead body out of the woods, you know what
I mean. It's just no fun at all.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
But what's the out the most? The face mask pulled
up and a single cigarette butt lying next to him.
Speaker 3 (04:51):
If you're familiar with turkey out, which I'm sure you are,
you know you wear the full face mask and this
and that for the spring God, where to keep the
reflection off your face and stuff? Dave's was pulled all
the way back over top of.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
His head, as if someone had pulled it up to
see his face. For twenty years, no one has answered
the one question that matters most. Who pulled that trigger?
The Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources says the case is
still open, but in all these years, no suspects have
(05:25):
been named, no grand jury has been convened, no arrests
have been made. Kenny, Jeff and Bryan believed the shooter
knew exactly.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
What they had done.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
They stood over David, looked at him, and walked away.
But why was it a mistake, a moment of panic,
or was it something worse? I'm Jordan Sillers and this
is Blood Trails, a Turkey Woods cold case.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
Part one.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
The crime scene. Jeff, Brian, and Kenny all saw the
crime scene, but their descriptions don't always match up. Here's Kenny.
Speaker 3 (06:19):
You can see where Dave cleared out a little spot
to sit by a tree. He had a decoy set up,
his gun was leaning against the tree, and he's just
laying on his back. And I noticed it was a
cigarette butt put out right there. Now, Dave did smoke
once in a while, and he had part of a
pack in his backpack with this brand not on the ground.
(06:42):
Was a different brand than what they smoked.
Speaker 1 (06:45):
Kenny was a detective for nineteen years with the Metropolitan
Washington Airport's Authority. He told me he's worked drug and
homicide cases with other federal agencies, so he's the kind
of guy who might notice the brand name of a
cigarette butt lying on the ground. Brian and Jeff don't
remember anything about a cigarette butt. Brian remembers the shotgun
leaning against the tree, and they both agree that someone
(07:08):
had walked up to the body.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Here's Brian.
Speaker 5 (07:12):
He was laying away from the tree somewhat. His face
mask was pulled down his glasses were pushed up, his
sandwich was still in his vest. The decoys were only
like like fifteen yards sixteen yards from him, which is unusual.
So I don't think that was his location. I don't
(07:33):
know if that's where he was setting up or what,
but it definitely seemed unusual with it how close he
was to the decoys with a gun sitting against the
tree there, and you know how his face mask was
pulled down and glasses were up.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Those glasses are more important than they might sound. David's wife, Tammy,
didn't see the crime scene herself, but her knowledge of
her husband gave her an important insight into what those
glasses might indicate.
Speaker 6 (08:02):
They said his glasses were up like he pushed his
classes up on top of his head. And he would
never ever ever do that. He would take him off
and hang him from a shirt or take him off
in some some place. He couldn't stand having them up
on his head. I just I just have this gut
(08:23):
feeling that whoever did it knows that they did it.
Speaker 1 (08:27):
I reached out to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources
to confirm some of these details, but they refused, citing
the ongoing investigation. Fortunately for US, the agency hasn't always
been so tight lipped. The incident gained tons of local
media attention after it happened, and one of the best
reports came in a May third edition of The Roanoak Times.
(08:49):
Here's what the Virginia DWR, then called the Virginia Department
of Game and Inland Fisheries, told reporters in the weeks
following the murder. The shooting occurred on a property near
the Saalville Hill section of Rockbridge County, between South Buffalo
Road and Bluegrass Trail. David was likely leaning against a
tree when he got shot. The bullet entered his body
(09:13):
from behind, cut his aorta, and lodged in his heart.
The terrain and angle at which the bullet struck David
indicate that the shooter fired at close range and would
have been able to tell what he'd hit. The hill
and brush in the area would have kept the bullet
from traveling very far. Kenny told me that the bullet
(09:34):
itself came from a twenty two caliber center fire cartridge,
such as a two two three Remington, two twenty two
Remington or twenty two two fifty. I wasn't able to
find any contemporaneous media reports with this information, and the
DWR refused to name the kind of bullet that killed David,
but I did speak with one of the neighbors, a
(09:56):
man named James Lava, who still owns one of the
adjacent par He declined to be recorded for this podcast,
but he told me he was also turkey hunting the
morning David was killed. Game Wardens knocked on his door
in the weeks after the incident and asked if he
owned any rifles chambered in a center fire twenty two
caliber cartridge.
Speaker 6 (10:15):
He did.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
In fact, he said he hunts turkeys during the fall
season with the rifle chambered in twenty two hornet, but
he was hunting with a shotgun on the morning of
the incident. Game Wardens apparently believed his story, because, according
to Lava, they sent his rifle to Richmond for ballistics
testing and returned it about a month later. Whatever they
found it either didn't point to Lava or was inconclusive,
(10:38):
but the suggests at least at the time, investigators believed
David was killed with a Centerfire twenty two Many states
do not allow turkey hunters to use rifles, but Virginia
is not one of them.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
To this day.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
The only restriction they put on a turkey hunter's gun
is that during the spring season they cannot use shot
larger than number two. Kenny, Jeff, and Ran all agree
that the shooting was most likely an accident. They don't
recall David having any ongoing conflicts with anyone or any
of the neighbors being upset about the recent purchase of
(11:11):
the land. Here's Brian.
Speaker 5 (11:15):
My haunt ya is it's either what's a young haunor
inexperience or older haunter that had poor vision. I don't
think it's anything in malice done in on purpose, but
I don't.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Know Part two the neighbors. Cases like this are difficult
to investigate. There are no witnesses, and what physical evidence
(11:45):
exists is hard to find in the leaves and dirt.
But if you're like me, your first thought goes to
the neighbors. It's easy to imagine a neighboring property owner
wanders onto the stacks land, sees what he thinks is
a turkey in the dimness of the morning, and pulls
the trigger. That's where Kenny's mind went to, even before
(12:09):
his friend's body had been found. While the rest of
the Stack family was still searching the woods. He paid
a visit to the neighbors.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
At daylight the next morning, which was the thirteenth, April thirteenth.
I'm thinking, well, maybe the neighbors know something.
Speaker 1 (12:27):
Kenny told me the names of the people who lived there,
but we're going to bleep them out. None of them
still live on those properties as far as I've been
able to tell, and the Virginia d WR has never
named an official suspect. You'll see why that's relevant here
in a minute. The first house Kenny visited belonged to
someone we'll call Johnson.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
We had met him the previous fall because he came
over he was looked for his dog, and we talked
to him a little bit. He says, I don't I
don't allow not. I go to his house, played down
again who I was, and I was looking for David.
I wonder if he heard seeing anything. He said no,
(13:10):
And I remember thinking, when I was standing in his house,
he got all his turkey mounts, a deer mounts, and
I'm thinking, this guy told me he didn't hunt, so huh.
I didn't say anything about it then, but he pulls
out a map, and this could be coincidence. Don't get
me wrong, this could be coincidence. But he pulls out
a map and he points at the map and he says,
(13:33):
there's the property line where it is property George Dave's property.
He says, you should look great in this area here,
You should look great in this area here.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
Remember Kenny spoke to Johnson before they'd found David's body.
So I asked, Kenny, what you're thinking was the spot?
He pointed to the same spot they eventually found David.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
It was within feet, within feet.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Kenny admits that this could be explained in a non
nefarious way. Johnson wouldn't be the first hunter to hide
the fact that he's a hunter, and it doesn't make
much sense to lead investigators to the person you just
murdered the day before. Still, it's weird, but Kenny's interactions
with the neighbors got even stranger. Kenny stopped by another
(14:23):
house where an elderly man told him that while he
doesn't hunt, one of his friends had been hunting on
the morning David was killed. We'll call this friend Smith.
Smith lived down the road. So Kenny knocked on the door,
but nobody answered. Kenny left a message on Smith's answering machine,
using the phone number the elderly neighbor had given him.
(14:43):
Kenny went back to the Stacks cabin and the phone rang.
The woman on the line claimed to be Smith's wife.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
She says, uh, doesn't know anything. Did see anything?
Speaker 2 (14:57):
Did Aunt?
Speaker 3 (15:00):
And I said, told me? He told me his truck
was parked at his house. Oh yeah, Well, he hunted
opposite side of the road. And I'm thinking to myself,
how do you know what side of the road David
was on?
Speaker 2 (15:14):
You know what I mean?
Speaker 3 (15:16):
How do you know what's side of the road I'm
talking about.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
Kenny didn't think too much about it at the time,
and David's body was found not long after, But that's
not the last he heard of Smith. A year or
two after David's death, Jeff was walking the property and
he found something, something very out of place in the woods.
Speaker 4 (15:39):
I found the pillow bumble was.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
Same on it.
Speaker 4 (15:44):
It was right on the property line. It was a
prescription for one of you know, one of these comment
kind of anti depressant types.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
It was a feat.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Jeff said. The place he found the bottle near the
property line would have been less than a ten minute
walk from where they found David's body. He sent the
bottle to the lead investigator on the case at the time,
but never heard anything more. The investigator has since passed away,
and Kenny says they haven't heard anything from the DWR
for years. The shooter could have been a neighbor, but
(16:18):
it also could have been someone who didn't live in
the area. That would make the culprit even more difficult
to find, and it would help explain how this case
has gone unsolved. Neither Jeff Kenny or Brian ever mentioned
having a problem with trespassers, but Kenny did mention one
alternative theory. One of the original DWR investigators on this case,
(16:40):
a guy named Stephen Pike, knew a producer on the
television show America's Most Wanted. He wanted to give this
case as much exposure as possible, so he asked the
producer for a favor. It wasn't the kind of story
the program usually covered, but they decided to do it anyway.
The segment aired on November one, two thousand and three,
(17:01):
in episode seven thirty seven of the show. Younger listeners
might not remember, but America's Most Wanted was a hit
show back in the day at the time of its
cancelation by the Fox Television Network in June twenty eleven.
Its twenty four season run made it the longest running
program in the network's history, and each episode was watched
(17:22):
by thousands. The point is including David's story on amw
as its fans call it would have exposed the case
to a huge audience. The segment on David ended with
an appeal to that audience for tips. We don't know
exactly what kind of information came in, but Kenny claims
that two tips came in from people in Rockbridge County,
(17:42):
one of which pointed back to Johnson.
Speaker 3 (17:46):
The second tip stays, you should talk to he has
a hunting camp and he had hunters there that morning
and they left that morning.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
Kenny claims that Johnson was running an illegal hunting camp.
An investigator spoke with several of the people who had
hunted that morning.
Speaker 3 (18:04):
They talked to a couple of people that were there
that morning but had left around ten o'clock. And I'm
thinking to myself, it's opening day of Spring Gobbers season.
Why do you leave at ten am and go home?
Speaker 1 (18:20):
It's a good question. David may have been killed not
by a neighbor, but by someone who didn't live in
the area. That person could have been hunting legally, or
it could have been a poacher. In either case, the
randomness of that scenario could make it even more likely
that David's killer is never found. Part three The DWR
(18:55):
the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources says this case is
still considered active. Special agents are currently assigned, and they
said in an email of that quote, recent investigative measures
and evidence examinations have been explored. They've digitized the case files,
and they're collaborating with Virginia State Police to have the
case added to the state cold case database. So someone
(19:21):
is working on it. How much they're working on it
is a different question. Kenny says he hasn't heard from
the agency in the last four or five years. In
the meantime, his frustration has only increased.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
We had a very hard time for years just getting
them to communicate with us, to talk to us. I
don't want to say these guys screwed up, but somebody
screwed up, and it's a shame, it really is. Haven't
been a law enforcement officer myself, for twenty five years.
I don't understand to this day why this case wasn't
solved within a few days.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
I really don't.
Speaker 1 (19:58):
Kenny believes the agency failed to collect all the evidence
at the scene, and they failed to investigate the neighbors
closely enough, specifically Johnson and Smith. Remember that cigarette butt
I mentioned at the beginning of the episode, the one that,
according to Kenny, was a different brand than the one
David smoked.
Speaker 3 (20:17):
Believe it or not, they didn't collect it. They police
did not collect it. I was assumed they collected it.
And then a few months later I talked to I
was talking to DNR, and I said, well, what about
cigarette button? I'd like, what cigarette butt.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
It's possible Kenny was mistaken and that the cigarette butt
was actually David's. It's also possible whoever Kenny asked didn't
know or was lying, or it's possible Kenny just made
the whole thing up. But whatever the truth is, the
DWR isn't saying. I filed a public records request asking
(20:55):
for documents related to this case. The agency responded and
said that while they have one d ten pages of files,
they can't release any because they're part of an ongoing
criminal investigation fair enough. Then, on June seventh, twenty twenty four,
I sent an email to the agency's public information department
and asked to interview the agent in charge of the case.
(21:17):
The agency initially agreed to an interview, but wanted to
see and approve any questions prior to the interview being recorded,
so I sent a list of questions on July third,
twenty twenty four, asking about everything you've heard in this
episode cigarette butt, pillbottle, Johnson, and Smith. I even asked
for the agency to confirm a few of the details
(21:38):
that they had shared with the media in two thousand
and three, things like how far away the shooter was
and whether he likely knew what he'd done. On November fifteenth,
twenty twenty four, which was for those counting over four
months after I'd sent the list of questions, the DWR
backed out of the phone interview they'd previously agreed to.
(21:59):
Why well, here's what they said, Out of an abundance
of caution to protect the integrity of the investigation, the
department will not be available for any in person interviews
or discussions. Instead, they responded to my list of questions
with typed answers, but they refused to share any details
of the case beyond when and where it happened, they said,
(22:23):
quoting again DWR Conservation police officers spent a considerable amount
of time and effort to identify the person responsible for
mister Stack's death and followed all leads that were provided
and developed through the course of the investigation. Specifics about
their investigation are not available due to this being an
open investigation. The only new piece of information they offered
(22:47):
was about whether they ever identified a suspect, they said, quote,
several persons of interest have been identified. These persons have
been interviewed and declined a polygraph. Whoever those people were,
the agency didn't gather enough information to make an arrest.
(23:13):
Part four. An expert's opinion. I don't know about you,
but I have more questions than answers about this case.
I frankly don't understand why the Virginia d w R
hasn't been more helpful. I wonder how investigators knew what
kind of bullet killed David, and I wonder whether they
(23:34):
used every investigative technique at their disposal to help answer
some of these questions. I call up my buddy and
meat Eater's own Brent Reeves. You know Brent as the
host of This Country Life, where he dispenses down home
wisdom in a deep and melodious baritone. But Brent wasn't
always a world famous podcast host. In a previous life,
(23:55):
he served for thirty two years as a law enforcement
agent in Arkansas. He's investigated homicide cases himself, so I
knew he'd be the perfect person to help us break
down this case. Brent, thanks for being here.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
Yeah, man, thank you for inviting me only here.
Speaker 1 (24:19):
So I know that you were in law enforcement for
a long time, but could you fill in some of
those details. What agencies did you work for and what
kinds of things did you do well?
Speaker 7 (24:29):
I was a police officer, a law enforcement officer for
thirty two years and seven months. The first two thirds
of my career, I was actually doing police work what
people think of as police work, answering calls, working accidents,
investigating you know, robberies and thefts, crimes including homicides, and
(24:53):
with a large portion of that my career was dedicated
to undercovered narcotics and narcotics instigations. But when homicides would occur,
especially in a department limited by manpowered And I'm talking
about in the biggest department I worked in in South Arkansas,
(25:13):
I think we had probably forty maybe forty deputies sworn
officers that were working every day, and they would bring
the whole CID Investigation division into work a homicide, which
over the course of my career, you know, probably forty
(25:37):
five fifty homicides during that during that length of time.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
So if if you were assigned this case back in
two thousand and three, I'm curious what the first steps
are on the first in the first few days, the
first few weeks, what kinds of strategies would you use
to try to figure out who did this?
Speaker 7 (25:59):
Well, well, you know, the crime scene, that's that's important,
and limiting a crime scene, the parameters of where you're
operating is important anytime that you're working with something outdoor,
especially like this, and even.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
Add the fact that.
Speaker 7 (26:21):
Someone died as a result of a rifle shot, you're
there's no telling how big your crime scene is. The
cards are stacked against you to begin with in something
like this, so as as large a perimeter as you
can gather or that you can secure, and then it's
just the meticulous going through everything that is conceivably close
(26:51):
to where the incident occurred, because there's there's two places
here that are important, where the shot was fired from
and obviously where the shot was fired too, which you
know caused the death of the man. So and in
doing so, anytime that you approach or leave a crime scene,
(27:15):
you take something in and you take something out unwittingly,
You're you're stepping on leaves, you're making tracks, you're sweating,
you're dropping DNA. There is there's so many things to
consider that could either help or hinder the investigation. You know,
somebody maybe you stepped on something you didn't see, a
(27:37):
hull or a track or in this case, a cigarette.
But I think that was a kind of a controversial
part of the of what people saw there. So there's
to answer your question, how would I approach it? You
have to build as big a perimeter as you can
(27:57):
and slowly work your way from the outside.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
And then so once you've done that with the crime scene,
would you then be canvassing the neighbors and seeing if
they saw anything or heard anything.
Speaker 7 (28:11):
Absolutely, I mean, you got to talk to You've got
to run out every conceivable pathway, even if it's talking
to the garbage man that's or the mail carrier, anybody
that strip makes a regularly route through there, along with neighbors,
(28:31):
anybody within earshot, anybody within reason that could have possibly
saw something that morning that stood out of place, or
saw something that wasn't out of place but just saw something.
You got to exhaust every available opportunity to gather information
(28:52):
as quick as possible. There was an old TV show
the first forty eight.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
Called I think it was on A and E. We
had a homicide that I worked.
Speaker 7 (29:05):
It actually was a focus of that, and it's true
the first forty eight hours are usually the most critical,
especially in something that's outside outdoors that you're affected by
all kinds of environment environmental.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
Conditions, rain, wind, temperatures, whatever.
Speaker 7 (29:26):
Like I said at the beginning, the deck is stacked
against you from the get go when you're dealing with
anything outside, and time is absolutely a crucial factor in
finding the correct path that you need to go from
there to lead to where you know the suspect is.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
So I know you haven't seen the files on this case.
I haven't seen the files on this case either, but
just based on what you know from what I've been told,
you've listened to the podcast. What jumps out at you
about this case, about the crime scene, about the investigation,
anything kind of seem out of the ordinary.
Speaker 7 (30:07):
The magnitude of it is what jumps out at me
is just the magnitude of the size of the crime scene.
There's a lot to take in there, there's a lot
to look at, and that, to me, through this whole
thing has been I guess one of the key features.
Another one being unfortunately, the gentleman was found by his friends,
(30:31):
and you put emotion into testimony, and you put emotion
into the things that were seen and observed, and sometimes.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
It affects what was saw.
Speaker 7 (30:46):
Now, I should have said this at the very beginning,
and my heart goes out to the gentleman's family and
his friends. But unfortunately, and I've said this before and
it has approved fact that if you want two different
eyewitnesses or two different statements to the same thing, get
(31:07):
two eyewitnesses to it because the other. Because people observe
and look at different things, different things stand out to them.
It's not saying that they're wrong, but if you've got
two people that saw the exact same thing, and when
they write their statement, their word for word verbatim, or
what's going on or what supposedly happened that it Sometimes
(31:31):
that would lead one to believe that the statements were
manufactured before you got there.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
This obviously was not there. That was not in this
case at all.
Speaker 7 (31:41):
But different people see different things, and some people, you know,
there's confirmation bias and everything, and you just have to
be very careful about taking statements from people who are
emotionally and physically and mentally involved with something and running
(32:01):
out the line of questions those folks to make sure
that they saw what they saw, give them every opportunity
to prove what they saw. The face mask was something
that stood out in the interior of this crime. Is
how the gentleman's turkey mask was pulled up and his
(32:22):
face was exposed.
Speaker 2 (32:32):
Now, I want to think if I remember you correct
me if I'm wrong, Jordan, that was what.
Speaker 7 (32:37):
Led folks to believe that the shooter had approached the
person and to identify him. Is that?
Speaker 2 (32:43):
Am I correct in that assumption?
Speaker 1 (32:45):
Yeah, there was a face mask. And then also David's
wife Tammy said that glasses yeah, and she said he
never did that. He hated having his glasses kind of
pushed up on his face. So yeah, those of the
two things that made people think someone had done that
to see his face.
Speaker 7 (33:04):
Okay, I'm not going to say that that didn't happen.
I'm also going to say that there's a reasonable doubt
that that was done. I can't tell you how many
times I have left my truck going to a spot
to turkey hunt, knowing where I was going to sit
(33:25):
down and put my decoys out before daylight and getting
completely ready and camoed up before I shut the door
of my truck with my turkey mask flipped over it
on the top of my head and walking to where
I'm going. You know, a turkey mask, he's got holes
in it. You can see out of it, but when
it's dim outside or dark, it's absolutely in the way
(33:49):
and hinders your peripheral vision. So there's reasonable doubt. There's
a reason to think that just because that was done,
there's got to be other factors in there that that
that was correct. It's not a bad theory by any means,
but it's also not you know, one hundred percent, the
glasses on top of his head. His wife would know
(34:12):
him better than anyone, you know, that's obviously something that
that should have been looked at, or should be looked
at and considered as well in the totality of the
crime scene to what they saw there. But you know,
to say, and I don't want to sound you know,
unfeeling about this, but if he didn't die instantly, he
(34:34):
could have pushed his glasses up on top of his
head after he was hit accidentally, you know, just in
the course of.
Speaker 2 (34:42):
Being hit struck from the bullet.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
So yeah, and I think this is one of the
big questions about this case, and it matters a lot
to the family, is whether the shooter knew what he'd done.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Right.
Speaker 1 (34:56):
So it's one thing if it's a stray bullet they
have no idea. It's another thing, you know, even if
the shooter didn't walk up to the body, if they
were close enough to know something had happened and then
walked away and has never come forward, that matters a
lot to the family and friends. And this is a
point that the dw R. Initially in the months after
(35:17):
the murder, they said they think the shooter was aware
that he was close enough to know. And then when
I asked them, they they said, well, we can't speculate
on that. So, just from your experience investigating cases, what
kinds of evidence would they be looking at to indicate
(35:40):
that the shooter was close enough to know that they
that they had a knowledge of what they'd done and
just decided to walk away.
Speaker 7 (35:49):
Well, the caliber bullet uh it was used, the amount
of penetration into the victim's body, the angle that it was,
there's a lot a lot of things that can go
into that. You know, there's a if something is that
close range and close if there's what's called stippling around
the entrance the wound. It's always an indicator of something
(36:14):
being fired at close range, which which is gunpowder and
debris that gets absorbed into the skin from a close
contact wound. If that wasn't there, it obviously tells you
that the person the barrel of the of the weapon
that was used was not close to the body or
to the point of contact. So then you're going to
(36:35):
go by the amount of penetration and the force that
that the bullet retained from that from whatever distance it
was shot from, so that that could be clues as
to how far it was away, the time of day
and being able to see in that environment was something.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
You know.
Speaker 7 (37:00):
I think some of the guys that were hunting with
him testified that, you know, the shot was so early.
One guy thought, wow, is that legal. That leads me
to believe that, you know, it was just you know,
breaking day out there, that there was just enough light
to be able to see if he questioned one way
or the other, if that was legal to be shooting
(37:21):
that early, which also makes me think that or would
lead me has led me to believe that if he
was shot from uh, you know, a distance away, it
was after his decoys were set up and he was
moving around and someone thought it was a turkey already
(37:44):
on the ground and took a shot, which was you know,
that's a violation of the first rule of hunting, of
safe hunting is shooting not making sure you knew what
you were shooting at when you pull the trigger. But
that's what you know. I it's so hard to come
up with conjecture. It's purely conjecture on my part from
(38:09):
reading and listening to this podcast and having to come
up with some type of credible scenario in which it happened.
But from everything that I've taken at face value that's
been heard here, on this podcast, it would lead me
to believe, with no motive known motive of someone being
(38:31):
angry or having a problem with the victim, that this
was a hunting accident which resulted in the homicide of
a turkey hunter a man, and whoever it was, you know,
left the scene and didn't report it. That's everything from
(38:52):
that I can take it face value and come up
with in my mind.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
So next month, it'll be twenty two years. I'm doing
my math right, since this incident happened, what what can
be done at this point? If this was your case, now,
what kinds of things would you be doing to help
solve this?
Speaker 2 (39:14):
I would you know.
Speaker 7 (39:17):
All the evidence that was gathered from whatever evidence was
gathered from there, if there science has come a long way,
if if there was physical evidence gathered there other than
you know, I think there has been some miscommunication or
(39:38):
different stories about the cigarette, but the different cigarette brand
of cigarette, but that was found there. Somebody remembered it,
another person didn't, and did you I don't know, I
don't remember if you got a straight answer from the
DW or about if there was any of that gathered
there or did they say anything about any physical evidence.
Speaker 2 (39:59):
No, they didn't.
Speaker 1 (40:00):
They said to protect the integrity of the case, they
can't release that kind of information.
Speaker 7 (40:06):
I got you, Okay, and that's that's true obviously. So
but d angie, question, what would I do different? Anything
physical evidence wise that could have been submitted at that
time to a forensics lab could be resubmitted. You know,
testing has improved dramatically. Different tests have been developed and
(40:30):
invented since then, for as far as DNA and different
types of physical evidence that could be garnered from a
crime scene. So you know, a resubmission of evidence to
a forensics lab would be something that I would that
I would look at specifically.
Speaker 2 (40:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (40:53):
One of the things that surprised me a bit in
my interactions with the dw R is, like I said
in the podcast, initially they agreed to an interview and
then they backed out there. They didn't share a lot
of information about the evidence like the cigarette butt, and
they said that all of this was to protect the
(41:15):
integrity of the case. As a as a formal law
enforcement officer, can you break that down a little bit
for us, because for for a layman like myself, I
don't I don't quite understand why sharing a little bit
more information to help get the word out about this
case would would damage it, especially having not been solved
(41:38):
for so long. Could could you help me understand kind
of the the practical negative consequences of them sharing too
much information.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
In something like this. Knowledge is power.
Speaker 7 (41:51):
I can't tell you how many times, And there's been
some famous cases of people confessing two different things, different
crimes that were totally you know, uh, made up lies
from the beginning because that when asked certain details about
the case, they couldn't give them, or they gave the
wrong details. And it's just it's the It takes the
(42:16):
investigators priorities away from investigating something that could be legitimate,
to go down the rabbit hole of chasing ghost and
something that's that's incorrect. So keeping as much critical, critical
crucial evidence in a closed area it all or in
(42:41):
a box where it's not subject to public information, it
keeps the it keeps the the power I guess on
the side of the investigators to be able to go
after a certain if they laid everything out there, you know,
we've got fingerprints, or we've got DNA, or we've got
(43:03):
this or got that, anything that could be construed by
the suspect even you know, we've got a hole, we've
got the rifle hole that fired the shots. So as
soon as we find the right suspect, we're going to
match this hole with that rifle. Well, if that rifle
is gone forever, you know, he gets rid of that rifle,
(43:25):
there's no way to connect it. So and these are
very arbitrary and things that I'm that I'm giving you,
But to keep portions of the evidence and the.
Speaker 2 (43:38):
Things that they have in the.
Speaker 7 (43:39):
Investigation private is crucial a lot of times in solving
the case. That's why that they would play those cards
very close to their to their chest.
Speaker 1 (43:51):
Because maybe whoever did it, or the family of whoever
did it could take actions that would, like you say,
with the get rid of the rifle, that would undermine
the evidence that.
Speaker 2 (44:05):
They have absolutely m hmm.
Speaker 1 (44:08):
Can you tell me a little bit about because I
would have asked this to the d w R. But
I know you've had this experience of you're investigating a
case and you're being criticized by the family of the victim,
by the friends of the victim for not doing enough.
Can you tell me a little bit about what that's like.
Speaker 7 (44:30):
I've got one you know, you and I talked earlier
about this. I've got one unsolved homicide in my career.
It's the only copy of a case file that I
brought home from my career one and it haunts me
to this day. And I know who did it. We
(44:52):
know who did it. We just never got the physical
evidence to put them to get them arrested for it.
And here's the thing that you got to think about.
Once you arrest somebody, if you have enough to arrest
them but not enough to convict them, and you'd go
take them to trial on the chance that you might
(45:12):
get them convicted, and they get found guilty, that's it.
That was your swing. You don't get another chance. That's
the end of it. There are no other tribes, so.
Speaker 2 (45:24):
There is.
Speaker 7 (45:25):
In my thirty plus years of being a police officer,
I've never worked with any investigations, any investigation, or any
department where solving a case was not their number one goal.
Being closed mouth about how the investigation is going, and
the tactics that you have to use, and the pride
(45:50):
that you have to swallow when you're accused of not
doing enough. It's tough, man, It's tough, but you know,
we understand and I understand that that's coming from a
place of emotion because these people have had a great loss.
Speaker 2 (46:03):
And they want justice.
Speaker 7 (46:05):
In my experience, there has never been anyone that won't
adjust it for justice for a family anymore than the
folks investigating the case.
Speaker 2 (46:14):
And it's it's just it's part of it.
Speaker 7 (46:18):
It's part of the things that police officers deal with,
and I'm glad to talk about it now because it's
a struggle.
Speaker 2 (46:25):
It's a hard thing to do, it's a hard thing
to live with.
Speaker 7 (46:28):
It's not something that I could go to work for
eight or nine or ten hours a day and leave
at the office and go home, because when I went home,
I was with my wife and my family. Somebody wasn't
going home to their wife, the victim, or their husband,
or their father or mother. And that weighed on me heavily,
(46:52):
and it weighs on I'm sure it weighs on these folks.
And I can assure you that there's no great joy
than to be able to call someone or go and
see them and tell them, Look, it ain't gonna bring
the victim back, but we found who did it, and
they're gonna, you know, they're gonna pay so it's a.
Speaker 2 (47:16):
It's a job that I volunteered for. I wasn't made
to do it.
Speaker 7 (47:19):
I'm not asking for sympthy and I'm not giving sympty
to these guys. But I can understand where they're coming from,
and it's just a it's just another It's a pretty
tough road to hoe until you get somebody arrested and
get them gone.
Speaker 2 (47:31):
But that's that's their job, and that's what they're there for.
Speaker 1 (47:34):
Thanks, Brent, I really appreciate you coming on and answering
some of these questions for us.
Speaker 2 (47:38):
You bet man.
Speaker 7 (47:39):
Good luck to these guys, and I appreciate what you're doing,
bringing bringing light to something. Maybe another obviously deserves another look,
and I hope we get this thing to fruition. I'll
be I'll be right here with you when you do it.
Speaker 2 (48:00):
Part five. What's next?
Speaker 1 (48:04):
As with many cold cases, David's death may not be
solved unless someone who knows something comes forward. At least
that's what a DWR agent told Kenny.
Speaker 3 (48:17):
He says, just gonna have to wait for somebody's wife
to get mayn.
Speaker 1 (48:22):
In the interest of keeping this show semi family friendly,
we can't air Kenny's response to that comment. But you
can imagine it's a frustrating place for the family to be,
especially when you think the DWR hasn't done enough. But
it may be true that the only way this case
(48:43):
will ever be solved is if someone's wife gets mad,
or someone's grandchild learns the truth, or someone's neighbor finally
does the right thing. There isn't any more physical evidence
that can be collected from the crime scene. It's been
nearly twenty two years since David was murdered, and while
time might heal all wounds, it also cloud's memory and
(49:06):
dulls whatever moral compass the killer may have once had.
There was at one point at thirty six thousand dollars
reward for information leading to the conviction of the killer,
but that's no longer on the table. David's kids say
their father always encouraged them to follow their consciences, to
(49:27):
tell the truth. Those three kids are now grown with
kids of their own, but they've had to live for
the last twenty years wondering what happened to their dad. Now,
their only request is that whoever did this, or whoever
knows who did this, follow their dad's advice. Listen to
(49:50):
your conscience.
Speaker 2 (49:52):
Do what's right.
Speaker 1 (49:54):
That's what Tammy said too, when I asked her what
she'd say to the person responsible for killing her husband.
Speaker 6 (50:01):
I just wish that they would come forward say something.
I mean, they've put us through hell. Have a soul
man come out and say something. I don't think they
did it on purpose, but come forward and say something.
Don't put the family through all this in all these
years just not knowing. You know, I hope nobody ever
(50:23):
has to go through what we had to go through.
Speaker 1 (50:26):
If you, or anyone you know has any information about
this incident, the DWR asks that you call their anonymous
tip line at one eight hundred two three seven five
seven one two. You can also text your tip to
eight four seven four one one, or send an email
to wild Crime at DWR dot Virginia dot gov. The
(50:49):
murder took place in Virginia's Rockbridge County on April twelfth,
two thousand and three, the opening day of spring gobbler season.
Host
Steven Rinella
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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