Over the next four days, four inmates in four states are scheduled to be executed. Travis Decker, wanted for his daughters’ murders, was reportedly spotted in The Enchantments earlier today.
Emmy and DuPont-Columbia Award-winning journalist Robert Rand discusses the Menendez Brothers. Rand has covered the case since the day after Jose and Kitty Menendez were killed and continues to follow the story daily. Veteran true crime executive producer, director, and writer Brian Knappmiller also joins to discuss the Zizians cult. Tune in for all the details.
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 program features the individual opinions of the hosts, guests,
and callers, and not necessarily those of the producer, the station,
its affiliates, or sponsors. This is True Crime Tonight.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Welcome to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio, where we talk
true crime all the time. It's Tuesday, June tenth, and
Karen Reid's defense team calls their final witness. We are
approaching the end, and we're also going to be joined
today by award winning author Robert rand to talk to
us about all things the Menandaz Brothers. Then another body
(00:40):
found in Massachusetts. It's reigniting a huge fear in the
area that there might be a serial killer on the loose.
And later we're going to have a special guest of
the show, Brian natt Miller, and he's going to talk
to us all about a very scary cult called the
Sissian Cult. So all that and more stay with us.
We're so happy here. I'm Stephanie Leidecker. I head up
(01:02):
KT Studios where we make open investigation true crime documentaries
and podcasts and the best part is I get to
do it every day with producer and host Courtney Armstrong
and producer and analyst.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Ore, body move in. So, ladies, we made it to Tuesday.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
We did.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
We're here in one piece.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
We are here in one piece, and there's so much
to talk about today. I don't even know that we'll
get it all in. And just as a quick reminder,
we're here Sunday through Thursday, two hours live. So again,
tune in anytime and if you miss any of the show,
you can always catch it right after as a podcast.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
So, Boddy, where we made Karen Reid? Right?
Speaker 5 (01:39):
I mean, obviously that's going to be the top of
what we're talking about today. Today was day thirty and
the testimony is expected to end tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
How is that possible? So tomorrow is today? Tomorrow? Well,
they're expecting.
Speaker 5 (01:53):
I can't imagine that this last witness will go any
further than tomorrow, but it's supposed to be end. You know.
We learned also Karen is not taking the stand. I
thought that was super big news. Listen, she speaks for herself.
She should, right, She did speak in her documentary. If
you haven't seen that on Discovery Idea, it's very interesting
because it really does track her experience during the first trial.
(02:15):
So maybe that's her testimony there.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
She literally said, quote doing this film is my testimony
in reference to the docuseries A Body in the Snow
Trial of Karen Reid.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
And I'm shaking my head and rolling my eyes. Is
that so?
Speaker 5 (02:28):
Why because you don't get cross examined in a documentary?
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Thank you? That's true?
Speaker 5 (02:33):
Right. The reason, the reason people, the reason people don't
testify usually on their own behalf, is because of that
cross Right, you're opening yourself up to the basically the
state to be questioned, and you're under oath and you
have to tell the truth supposedly allegedly, allegedly allegedly right.
And Karen Reid was able to have this documentary not
(02:55):
really ask her any of the tough questions that the
state would ask her.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
That's a fair point of a documentaries and not having crossed,
that's obviously a fair point. But it's also important to
remember in this in every trial, whether a defendant takes
the stand or not is really not supposed to be
used for someone to say, oh, they didn't take the stand,
they must be guilty.
Speaker 5 (03:15):
Well, it's really worth right that they do. Right, Like,
you don't really see it that often at all.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
Well, at we risk.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Management, so you could get to a certain point and
all of a sudden, they're a wild card and they're emotional,
and they've witnessed so much testimony that they either do
or do not agree with. Yeah, you might have a
hot wire on your hand, and in the eleventh hour
they say just the wrong thing and the trial is lost.
She seems very well spoken, though maybe that would help.
Speaker 5 (03:42):
I don't know, well, and I don't think that Dury
is gonna like dislike her.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
You know.
Speaker 5 (03:47):
We kind of talk about how sometimes like she she
looks kind of like an ice queen, you know. But
I think that's just a very Bostonian thing, right, I
think so too.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
I actually I liked the documentary so much. I did too.
Speaker 6 (03:58):
I liked it.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
It was exciting to be like in the car with
her going to this harrowing trial. Whether we agree with
her or not, we could all agree that must be
very stressful and sort of being in that mode the
entire time.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
It gave me some empathy for her. I thought it
sort of.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
I mean, frankly, I guess that's the intention, right, But
it did show her in a light that I thought
made her very human. Again, this has not changed the
fact that John O'Keefe. The victim has lost his life
and his family suffers.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
DP.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
It's very evident, even just based on his mother's testimony.
But man, is this divisive. I can't believe we're in
the final stretch of it.
Speaker 5 (04:34):
Right, And the judge said that we could have the
jury could have this by Friday or Monday. But then
the prosecutor said likely Friday. So the judge is the
judge and the prosecutor both kind of agree. You know,
this could be in the jury's hands by Friday. You know,
so testimony will probably wrap up tomorrow and then maybe
paperwork and whatnot Thursday. Well, what about closing, Well, closing
(04:55):
will probably happen Thursday. I forgot about that.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Yeah, that's uh, closing. I mean it's a big one.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
Kind of sums the whole thing up, right, that's the
boat on the package.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
I assume, yeah, you're you're absolutely right. Well, today we
heard from Elizabeth Lapasoda. She's a forensic pathologist, and she
said she believes O'Keefe died from blunt force trauma after
falling backwards and hitting his head on a hard surface
like stairs or a floor. She believes some of the
injuries on his arm could be from a dog bite.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
That's interesting.
Speaker 7 (05:28):
She was.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
No joke on the stand too. It was hard to
not believe her in my opinion. Right, she was pretty
steadfast on what was and wasn't and she was pretty
clear that it wasn't a car that hit him, right.
Speaker 5 (05:43):
And she's the former medical examiner for a Rhode Island
so she's pretty accredited, right, She's pretty accredited. And then
we heard from this is the last witness, the last
one that's being called, Andrew Wrenchler. And Andrew is an
accident rec instructionists and biomechanist. I don't even know what
that is. Very smart, very smart, that's all I know.
(06:06):
They're very smart. And he testified that O'Keefe's head and
arm injuries are not consistent with being struck by a
backing SUV.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
That's very interesting.
Speaker 5 (06:16):
But you know, he had like a PowerPoint that the
judge wanted like some notes removed from and I don't
that was a last I kind of saw of the trial.
So I'm not sure what ended up happening with their
But Andrew is expected to be the defense's last witness,
so we won't hear from anyone else.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
Wow, yeah, more to come. So what did you guys
think of ending on him for the last witness on
Andrew Wrenschler.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
It didn't I question, bang, big bang ending. Yeah, I
heard the prosecution side. I would put Mom, you know,
John O'Keeffe's beloved mother, who you know, really sets the
stage for the feelings of it all.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
And just what a loss to me.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
If I'm the defense, no, no, if I'm the prosecution,
forgive me, I'm putting Mom on the stand in the
eleventh hour last thing. I thought it was like a
little not big finish.
Speaker 5 (07:15):
Yeah, but you know, speaking of mom, this is kind
of an interesting tidbit. They showed some like particularly gruesome
photos today in the hearing and in the past his mom, Peggy,
John O'Keefe's mom, the victim in this case that often
gets overshadowed. She usually leaves the room, but today she
stayed in the room. She kind of just hang her
(07:36):
She hung her head down, and I thought that was
worth noting that she she was in the front row
and she was kind of hanging her head down. And
I'm not sure I didn't catch if she like looked
up at all to look at the photos, but she did.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
Stay in the room this time. I thought that was interesting.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
And she's very anti Karen, right, so you know she's
been I mean, obviously she's grieving. It seems like their
relationship was far from ect but also not here nor there.
Maybe you know what, there didn't seem to be a
super contentious backstory to the both of them, but it
certainly is now. And you know, again, she's grieving so
deeply if there's the same question.
Speaker 5 (08:12):
So as a reminder, the defense is arguing that John
O'Keeffe's death was a cover up, like there's this big
conspiracy going on, and that John O'Keefe was killed inside
that house by his like cop buddies and then staged
to sort of frame Karen Reid, and that she backed up.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
She did not back up and hit him with her car.
You know, they broke the tail light.
Speaker 5 (08:33):
They did all this stuff to kind of cover their butts, right,
That's basically the argument, and there is support for this.
Now again, this is all the defense's strategy. They say
the tail light damage on her SUV does not match
the trauma to John O'Keeffe's body, which you know, the
supporting witnesses testified today that's true. That's according to the defense.
(08:54):
The Commonwealth says otherwise, right. They also say that the
cuts on John O'Keeffe's arm are more insistent with being
bit by a dog, not scraped by a broken tail light,
and they also say the timeline is off. The prosecutors
say that Karen Reid dropped him off at approximately like
twelve thirty and accidentally hit him while backing up. Well
Read's SUV black box showed a backup of twenty four
(09:16):
miles per hour at twelve thirty, which is interesting. The
defense is arguing that there wasn't enough time for her
to hit him and drive away all in one minute,
so they're saying the timing is off. I'm saying, what
do you think of that?
Speaker 2 (09:29):
As our analysts, like, I feel like I know this
info so well, what does that mean to me?
Speaker 5 (09:35):
It shows me that she's guilty, and I you know,
I believe she's guilty, But I will say that the
investigation was so shoddy and terribly done that I don't
know that the Commonwealth is going to be able to
prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Right, Like, even if that happened, just the shady shenanigans.
You know that clearly went on because we're seeing these
text messages within law enforcement. John o'keef, the victim, as
we've talked about before, was you know, he was a
part of the Canton police and it was it's a
big job and that you know air quotes brotherhood is real.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
His buddies.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
They were all members of either the you know ATF
or of you know, the local police with him or
retired like this was his crew. So either they framed
Karen Reid or they wanted to pile a lawn to
Karen Reid. I don't think it's it's ass able to
dispute the fact that there wasn't some shenanigans and I
(10:30):
hate to see.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
Well.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
The other thing too, is that the defense has pointed
out missing or white data from phones with the people
inside the house that night.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Well everybody, the cops, they all were like, oh our
phone went dead. Oh my goodness, did I delete all
of those tags?
Speaker 3 (10:43):
That is fishy.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
I will say, it's very fish It's so far past
fishy dog and I know, weird the dog and the
dog is gone. And the forensic pathologist says that he
had to have hit a hard surface like stairs or
a floor. You know, I don't contend that anything intentional
(11:04):
happened to end John O'Keeffe's life.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
That is my thought. You think it was like an
accident inside, I.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
Absolutely do think it was like they're too day, like panic,
they're drunk, You fall back and then you have to
you know, cover up and assess they're police officers.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
This is not a good look.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Everyone's partying, drinking and driving by that is the takeaway.
There amount of alcohol and driving in a blizzard, regardless
off your law enforcement and otherwise, that could have been
a very different night had those traces been different.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
I'm not grand stating.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
We'll be staying with this through the end of the trial. Later,
award winning journalist Robert rand is joining us to talk
all things Menendez Brothers and a body was found last
week in Massachusetts, reigniting fear of a possible serial killer
in the Northeast. Keep it here on True Crime tonight.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
We have a very special guest.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
It's just literally the man that wrote the book about
the Menendez brothers. So we have some very insight sourcing
here because he was the guy that actually received the
letter or knows about the letter between one of the
Menendez brothers and his cousin that really has shaped this
entire resentencing hearing and all of the things about the
Menendez Real Times Courtney, Where should we begin with the
(12:33):
Menendez brothers.
Speaker 4 (12:35):
Well, let's start with the headline that just happened, and
it happened on a legislative level. On Sunday, it was
reported that California Senate Minority leader, it's a guy named
Brian Jones, that he's warning that public interest in the
Menendez brother case menandaz brother's case is fueling support for
a bill that could lead to the early release of
thousands of convicted murderers. So what this bill does do
(12:58):
is allow people who canmitted serious crimes before they turned
twenty six years old ask for a new sentencing after
serving fifteen years. And I gotta be honest, I mean,
I oh, okay, body, you're making a face. Yeah, listen.
The brain does it continues developing through your mid to
late twenties, specifically especially men, and the prefrontal cortex, which
(13:23):
controls judgment and planning.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
So in consequences right and co gas on what happens
when that's right?
Speaker 4 (13:32):
So this bill, Jones claims that the bill kind of
came back when the public interest in the Menendez brothers
were surfaced. So that's his.
Speaker 5 (13:42):
Contention with it, and it's a I think that's a
reasonable concern, you know, but I'm just not sure how
I feel about it yet.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
Yeah. Fair And for anyone who's not super familiar. Back
in nineteen eighty nine, brothers Lyle and Eric Menendez were
convicted of murdering their parents, who were wealthy and high profile,
particularly father Jose Menendez, and also their mother, Kitty Menendez,
was also murdered. The brothers shot their parents in Beverly Hills,
(14:11):
and the defense claimed that it was it happened after
years of sexual and emotional abuse by their father.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
And that's it's a tough one, right because listen, we
have the guy, right, we have the person who literally
wrote the book. So joining us is going to be
guest Robert rand And you know, he wrote the award
winning book that really covered the Menendez case from right
after the murders. Literally he was there one day after
those murders in nineteen eighty nine, and he covered it
(14:40):
as a journalist the entire time. And he really has
been visiting them as well and is following it so
closely to this day. So we have a guy I
I you know, let's bring him in and you know,
ask away. And again, if anybody wants to join the conversation,
just call us eight eight eight three to one crime Robert,
can you hear us?
Speaker 7 (15:00):
I can hear you, lot and clear.
Speaker 3 (15:01):
Welcome. We're so happy to have.
Speaker 7 (15:02):
You, thank you, and it's good to be here.
Speaker 3 (15:05):
Listen.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
We're so happy to have you number one, because you really,
your information has kind of cracked this case open and
really has led to part of this resentencing conversation for
the Menendez brothers because of two things, right, the he
you know, the claim now from the Menudo band member.
I don't know if any of our listeners remember the
(15:26):
Menudo Brothers or Menudo the band. You know, one of
those band members has also filed a claim against Jose
Menendez under the same circumstances of you know, sexual abuse.
And then additionally a letter written that really does claim
that you know, this abuse was documented long long ago,
which has really shaped the opinion of really all of
(15:49):
America in terms of sentencing for the Menandez brothers.
Speaker 7 (15:52):
Well back in twenty eighteen, I was on deadline from
my original Menndos book release, and I was visiting the
brother's aunt, Mark Kenno, in West Palm Beach, Florida, and
she let me go through the room of her son,
who sadly passed away from an accidental swedging Hill overdose
in two thousand and three. And his name was Andy Canoe.
(16:16):
He was very close to Eric Menendus. They exchanged a
lot of letters, they had a lot of phone calls,
and Andy was actually a key witness at the first
Monendous trial in the summer of ninety nineteen ninety three,
and he testified that Eric had told him about the
molestation when Eric was twelve and Andy was ten, but
(16:39):
he Andy immediately wanted to go to his mother. He
really was having a difficult time processing the information as
a ten year old, and Eric made him swear on
a pinkey promised that he would never reveal to anybody
what Eric had told him. And that is typical of
(17:00):
station survivors sexual abuse survivors that their abuser threatens them
if you tell anybody, I will kill you. And so
this letter was so I started going through the room
of Andy Cano that had been untouched since he passed
away fifteen years earlier, and within fifteen minutes I found
(17:24):
opened a door full of papers, and I found this
letter from Eric Menande's that he had written to his
cousin Andy in late nineteen eighty eight, about nine months
before the killing them Jose and kady Banandos and in
a letter. Most of it was just kind of like
a routine letter between two teenagers, but at one point
(17:46):
in the letter, Eric complains about the ongoing sexual abuse
by his father, and he says that he's afraid every
night that his father will come down the hall. And
so as soon as I saw that letter, I realized,
you know, that could be potentially a major piece of evidence,
(18:06):
and I called up Cliff Gardner, the appellant attorney who
has represented the brothers so in the past twenty years,
and I know, you know what I just found. And
then I ran over to a UPS tour and scanned
the letter and emailed that over Cliff. And now that letter,
along with the information in a documentary I was executive
(18:31):
producer of two years ago on Peacock called Menendez plus
Menudo Voice Betrayed. And in that documentary other new evidence
were survealed, and that was that Jose Menendez was accused
by a former member of the Latin boy band Menudo,
of raping him when he was fourteen years old.
Speaker 5 (18:53):
Yeah, that was really big news when it came out.
Was a great documentary, and that was like that broke
it open for me in my mind, right, oh wow,
another victim is coming forward.
Speaker 8 (19:02):
Well to me, that was us to have a new
victim who is completely independent of the brothers, you know,
was really startling information.
Speaker 7 (19:15):
Although actually it was a story that I started hearing
rumors about thirty years ago during the first trial.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
So there were rumors about this prior.
Speaker 7 (19:25):
There were and actually I made a dozen reporting trips
to Puerto Rico in the nineteen nineties and two thousands
trying to chase down the story. And actually I was
initially tipped off to the story by a man named
John Paduo, who was an elderly man at the time
(19:45):
I started talking to them. He had been Jose Menanda's
personal assistant at HRTZ Rennakar and also at Arcia Records
when Menandez was head of RCA Records and signed Menudo
in nineteen eight three to a thirty million dollar contract,
which was really a lot of money for that time.
(20:06):
And also Menudo had never recorded one song in English before,
They'd only recorded in Spanish, and so I knew. I
knew that there was somebody out there. The problem I
had was that in all my recording trips, nobody would
ever go on the record who was a former member
of the group. I had plenty of jeuralists that were
(20:28):
talking to me, and they heard all the rulers that
there were stories going around, but I couldn't actually get
anybody to come forward who had been in the group,
because it's just a shameful secret, and some people take
these secrets to their grave and they never tell anybody.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
Well, luckily you were able to kind of shed light
or help shed light on the secret. And you know
how pivotal do you think it was the combination of
the other allegation and and the letter in moving things
forward in the judicial system.
Speaker 7 (21:05):
That new evidence, which is summarized in a harevieous corpus
petition that was filed the day after Menanda's Manu Boys
trade came out. I think that new evidence is really
what god the brothers back in court twenty years later.
They had not been in court. They had exhausted all
their appeals, and I am grateful to Ryan Murphy. I'm
(21:28):
grateful to Netflix for the series Monsters me Menda's I'm
grateful to Netflix for releasing a documentary which I'm interviewed
in last October, and they the three hundred million subscribers
of Netflix certainly helped raise the awareness of the case.
But the reality is that higher evidence is what gets
(21:53):
you released our years of incarceration, not a buzzy TV show.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
That's true, that's fair. But it did draw attention, right,
so we all feel and it's pressure, I think though
too right. I think the pressure probably had something to
do with the district attorney, Yeah, because I feel like
the Ryan Murphy thing really pushed things forward as well.
Like there were the social media presence of the Ryan
Murphy Show was so huge, and people were making videos
(22:23):
for this resentencing to happen, you know, they were really
calling for it in you know, on social media, and
I think the DA who was you know, up for reelection,
kind of ran with it.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
It was a great stage.
Speaker 7 (22:35):
It's a great stage, right, But actually the whole social
media movement began in the fall of twenty twenty. My son,
who was fourteen at the time, came to me one
afternoon and they said, Dad, you won't believe it. TikTok
is full of men Brothers videos. That's true. I laugh
and rabbit hole. Yeah for three hours.
Speaker 5 (22:57):
Well, Robert rand is with us right now. He literally
wrote the book on the Menanda's brothers, and he's going
to stick with us for the next segment too. So
stick around in the eleven o'clock hour, we're going to
be discussing an alled serial killer in the Northeast. Last week,
a thirteenth body was found. Could all these be connected?
Stay right here True Crime tonight.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
Back to the Menandaz Brothers. You know, we have the guy,
the author who really wrote the.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Book, and you know the book is called The Menendaz Brothers,
The shocking, untold story of the Menenda's family and the
killings that stunned the nation. And Robert, welcome back. Thank
you for sticking with us for another segment.
Speaker 7 (23:45):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 5 (23:46):
I mean, this is the guy, right, this is like guy,
this is Robert. You did more than just write a book,
right like, I feel like you really kind of potentially
assisted in breaking this investigation and resentencing hearing wide open.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
How do you feel about that?
Speaker 7 (24:01):
Well, actually, I'm the only reporter who covered the investigation
in the fall of nineteen eighty nine. There were seven
months between the crime and the rest of the others
in March of ninety and I also covered each six
month long trial in ninety three, ninety four, and in
ninety five ninety six, and so I have done a
(24:22):
few other stories. I was working at the CBS local
station in la as part of the investigative unit for
many years, but I kept coming back to the Uned
States because I felt that the second trial was a
complete miscarriage of justice. The judge reversed all its evidence
rulings from the first trial. He did not allow the
(24:45):
defense to present most of their abuse evidence. That the
first trial there were two juries, and half of those
jurors actually voted for manslaughter, not murder. Manslaughter. The brothers
still would have served twenty two years if they've been
convictions of manslaughter. But here we are, and they've been
incarcerated for thirty five years now, and now they go
(25:08):
up in front of the California pro Board August twenty
first and twenty second, now that they were re sentenced.
A couple of weeks ago and they actually have a
chance of getting out. I believe they will eventually get out.
It might be the end of this year, it might
leave till next year, but I believe they will get out.
And they shared it out.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
There was so much chatter at the time. You know,
Mark Geragos, the Menanda's brothers lawyer. You know, he was
doing such a press tour, and you know he's a
very magnanimous attorney. And you know, the idea was that
they would be home for Thanksgiving, right that the Menendaz
brothers were packing their bags in prison and they'd be
home for the holidays. And that really didn't happen. And
you know, we've talked about this before. I would have
(25:49):
to imagine that this final stretch is hard. Is this
delay must be, you know, kind of brutal when you're
counting the days to go home.
Speaker 7 (25:57):
Well, actually, I'm going to write one or My original
menens book came out in September twenty eighteen. We re
released it last September, a week before Monster's premier with
new information about Menendus and Minudo that's not in the documentary.
And my publisher wants to do a final edition of
(26:18):
the book when the brothers are released from jail, which
I just told you I believe will happen. And there's
quite a story going on right now behind the scenes
with all the movement and backstage things that are going on,
and it's quite a story, but that's still coming.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
Can I make sure I just understand it completely. In
their first trial, they obviously had it. They were sentenced,
but they were sentenced for murder, but the sex abuse
was not allowed in their trial, and that's why they
were mis sentenced.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
Is that the whole argument here.
Speaker 7 (26:55):
So in the first trial it ended in two mistrials.
There were two juries for each brother because some of
the evidence only applied to one brother or the other brother,
and neither of the two juries could reach a verdict.
So the trial judge Stanley Weisberg declared two mistrials at
the end of the first trial in January ninety four.
(27:15):
And then normally, if this had not been a high
profile case that was heavily covered by the media, there
would have been a plea bar garden and you never
would have heard of this case again. But since it
was carried gabble gavel on cour TV. Bill Garcetti, who
was the da of La Kelly at that time said
within a half an hour he was going on TV
(27:37):
and he said, we are going to retry this case.
This is first to be murder, and we are going
after the votes again. And they did. And in the
second trial, that's where the judge completely reversed most of
his evidence rulings, and the evidence rulings that he didn't reverse,
(27:57):
he severely limited what the defense this is could say.
And so the jury, a single jury in a second trial,
they heard a completely different set of evidence than the
first trial juris. And then the second trial ended with
a first screen murder commission in March of ninety six.
And then after that guild phase, there was what's called
(28:20):
a pedally phase where the jury had two choices, life
without parole or the deacons. And in that pedally phase,
the jurors heard all of that abuse of evidence, and
the jury voted for life without parole. And several of
the jurors told me off the record, if they had
heard that evidence in the guild phase of the second trial,
(28:42):
they wouldn't have voted for murder.
Speaker 5 (28:44):
I believe that. I believe that's true. Yeah, I believe
that to be true.
Speaker 7 (28:49):
This is a miscarriage of justice that should should be correct.
Speaker 5 (28:53):
Yeah, and I think it will be so. Robert, you
you believe that that they're going to get out. Do
you think it could happen by the end of this year?
Speaker 7 (29:00):
Possibly it could happen. What will happen is that the
brothers appear before the California pro Board. They will have
two separate hearings because they are two separate cases. Even
though we think of them as one unit, they are
two individual cases. And if the pro Board recommends that
(29:23):
they be released, actually they will announce that the same
day as the hearing for each brother, and so then
there's a waiting period of four months that will take place,
and then it lands on the desk of Governor Kavin Newsom,
and Governor Newsom could either agree with the pro Board
(29:44):
and you know if they recommend the brother's release, or
he could veto the recommendation of the pro Board and
you just won't know. If they are turned down initially
at the initial prole hearing, they could reapply after a
certain amount of time. But the most important thing is
they've never been eligible parole before. So this is really
(30:07):
a remarkable development. And as former LA County DA George
Gascon said last October when he announced that he was
initiating a resentsing potential for Eric and Lyolmanendez. And Gascon said,
Eric and Lyomanendez were sentenced to life without parole. They
(30:29):
thought they would never get out of prison, and yet
they chose a path of redemption. They chose to be
of service to their inmate community and developed programs that
help their fellow inmates, that helped the prison and I
think that says a lot about who they are. And
one of the key things that I think we have
(30:52):
to look at is what is the purpose of prison?
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Is?
Speaker 7 (30:57):
Are we trying to lock people up and throw away
the key or have Eric Lyle Menendas been punished enough
after thirty five years, Because.
Speaker 5 (31:06):
The purpose of prison is rehabilitation, right, It's not to
lock somebody away, it's to make them better. And it's punishment.
Of course, you do a bad thing, you have to
take the pain right that goes along with it. But
you know, what do you say to the criticism which
has been widely said that maybe the Menanda's brothers are
getting a leg up in this resentencing of it all
(31:27):
because of their documentary and because there has been a
scripted Ryan Murphy film about them. Does that mean that
we're cherry picking the justice system? Given their origin story,
it obviously shapes so much. But I would imagine many
people have an origin story that's painful.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
Do they get resentenced too?
Speaker 7 (31:48):
I believe that eric Lyle Menendez, again, if fish were
not a high profile media case heavily covered by the media,
that this would just be another case. There are three
In the year that eric A llioman Ands went on trial,
there were three thousand cases of parents who killed their children.
(32:13):
There were three hundred cases of kids who killed their parents.
And so, wow, that's an interesting statistic out of way.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Interesting too, like it's the media that maybe put them
behind bars in the narrative of that, and frankly, maybe
it's a media that will get them out. It's kind
of a full circle.
Speaker 7 (32:33):
Interesting because for three years after eric A llioman Anders
were rushed, there were legal issues involving their therapists. They
contested that went all the way to the California Supreme Court,
and so the only story that people were told was
coming from the DA's office that we're talking about two
grite richids that killed Ozzie and Harriet of Sunday Night
(32:56):
in Beverly Hills, and the defense made what I consider
a taxayer. They didn't come out with anything of their
defense until two weeks before the first trial, and then
they talked about debuse in what the brothers had experienced
in their family.
Speaker 4 (33:12):
We are unfortunately running out of time. I feel like
we could talk to you for about six or more hours.
I really hope you come back and listen. You can
get a newly updated version of Robert Rand's book The
Menendez Murders, The shocking, untold story of the Menandez family
and the killings that stunned the nation. Get it on
Amazon wherever you get your books. Also follow him on
(33:32):
Instagram at I Am Robert Rand, where he blogs daily
about the Menendez case. Also, his website is rife with information.
It's so fascinating Menendez Murders dot com and you can
also catch this brilliant man on x at Menendez Rand.
Speaker 2 (33:49):
Thank you again for being here, and please call us
at eight eight eight three to one Crime, or you
could always call us on our socials at True Crime
Tonight's show for Instagram and TikTok. We're at True Crime
Tonight on Facebook. But First, we have a talkback, so
let's throw to that right now.
Speaker 9 (34:06):
Hi, my name is Kelly. I'm calling in or hitting
the little voice button in to ask you guys, if
you're getting a little deja vu with Travis Decker and
Brian Laundry and if you think the same results will occur,
do you think he's no longer with us or do
you think he's on the run.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
Such a good question.
Speaker 5 (34:28):
Last night I would have answered, and I did actually
answer on a TikTok live last night that I thought,
you know, maybe Travis Decker, you know, took his own life.
But now we have breaking news, right, we have breaking
news that we're going to be talking about that he
may have been spotted and the law enforcement is talking
(34:49):
about being alert and looking through you know, social media
posts that have taken place where they think they spotted him, right, Courtney, like,
that's the breaking news today.
Speaker 4 (34:58):
That's right. And just to catch people up, Travis Decker,
he is the man who is wanted for the death
of his three young daughters. And just breaking it is
believed that he was spotted in the Enchantments and that
is up in near the Canadian border. Authorities say they
believe they spotted Decker, who is an ex soldier, and
(35:21):
he was near a remote alpine lake in Washington State.
And this was after receiving a tip from hikers who
said they saw a lone person who appeared to be
ill prepared for the conditions. So it goes to show
you how important tips are and listening and having your
eyes in ears open are.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
And I guess that's the connection, right, that's the callback
to the tragedy of Gabby Patito's death and Brian Laundry,
who's the person you know who took her life and
then later took his because there was this national search, right,
and again he had been kind of in and around
a wooded area had been spotted. Everybody was being asked
(35:59):
to check their photographs and you know, sometimes you might
just be taking a picture of your loved one and
little do you know, the person in the background of
that photo is America's most wanted And I think that's
the connection here is, Yeah, this man is on the
loose and authorities are honing in on a very specific section.
Speaker 5 (36:19):
The headline said that there was a helicopter, like a
law enforcement helicopter like looking in this area and they
saw this loan hiker. And when this loan hiker realized
there was a helicopter up above, he like hid. So
they really think this is somebody that's trying to avoid
being detected, right, which leads them to believe it is
(36:40):
you know, it's this Travis Decker guy.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (36:43):
So God willing you know there might be breaking news
as we're live tonight.
Speaker 3 (36:47):
Yeah, and I hope it please be safe and then
around that area.
Speaker 4 (36:51):
Yes, great question, Kelly, Thank you, Thank you, Kelly.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
All that to be said, we are going to continue
to follow this real time just in case there are
some new deves. We'll be sharing it with you right
away and again be on the lookout. More on this
to come, because we are just getting started. This is
true crime tonight, talking true crime all the time. An
(37:21):
alleged serial killer potentially on the loose in New England.
So Courtney, what is happening?
Speaker 4 (37:27):
Well, listen, The body of twenty one year old Adriana
Suazo was found in the woods. This was in Milton,
Massachusetts last week. It is stoking the online rumor of
a New England serial killer. So this is the thirteenth
body found in a really small area where Connecticut Rhode
(37:47):
Island and Massachusetts meets and this is all within three months.
Speaker 3 (37:51):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (37:51):
So these killings have sparked a region wide public fear
of this potential serial killer law enforcement. This is really
pivotal to know. Law enforcement continues to deny these rumors
and just if anyone's hearing this and having some sort
of deja vu. We actually spoke about this case back
on June second, and at that point there were only
(38:12):
twelve victims. Wow, and now there's a thirteenth body and
some of.
Speaker 2 (38:17):
The mos don't appear to be similar. Right, So law
enforcement is essentially saying, look, these are individual horrors, right, like,
no death is you know, anything less than terrible beyond measure.
But there doesn't seem to be a real pattern per se.
But again, law enforcement of course needs to hold their
information close and really can't release too many details about
(38:40):
the manner of death, etc. Because they don't want people
saying crazy stuff or pretending like this actually happens. We've
covered this many times that people make fake confessions because
they see a little something in the news and they're like, oh, yeah,
there was strangulation. Can you imagine, Well, people, I mean,
the craving for no variety or whatever. I mean that
(39:01):
that's got to be some pathology that.
Speaker 3 (39:03):
Yeah, we should unpack that.
Speaker 4 (39:05):
We really should have an expert in who's you know,
got some letters behind their name. But yeah, there's got
to be there's got to be something to it. But yeah,
you're right about the emos being you know, a little
bit different for these bodies, so.
Speaker 3 (39:18):
Just as normal.
Speaker 5 (39:19):
Right, that's not normal for a serial killer to have
usually differ signature, right, Usually there's some kind of commonality,
and the police are saying there's been no commonality that
they've noticed, you know, but again, you guys, this is
happening in three different states, right, how well are those
agencies intercommunicating with one another, you know, because sometimes.
Speaker 3 (39:38):
They don't do that, right, Yeah, so true.
Speaker 5 (39:41):
So I mean that's another thing that's adding you know,
fuel to this speculation, is that you know, there's three
different investigative agencies covering you know, these three different states,
and how well are they communicating these emos and whatnot.
So all this is just adding fuel to the fire.
And you know, additionally, a serial killer is.
Speaker 3 (39:59):
A big deal.
Speaker 5 (40:00):
We we haven't had one in a while because there's so
much more rare today than they were, you know, back
in the Ted Bundy era, right yep. And there's a
lot of different reasons for that. Well, you know, one
thing is like the advancement in sciences, you know DNA now,
you know, usually it used to be that they could say, well,
this probably came from this person's head, this strand of hair, right,
(40:24):
because it's the same hair type, it's the same color,
things like that. But now they have like DNA that
they can pull from, you know, specific types of hair,
and they didn't used to be able to do that. Additionally,
the technology just in general, there's cameras everywhere. There's ring cameras,
atm cameras, there's you know, traffic stop cameras. You know,
(40:45):
there's all kinds of different ways to be seen. So
also something that's not talked about a whole lot is
the prison population has exploded, right, you know, the crimes
have been hit harder, like if you commit a crime now,
like for instance, California has a three strike law, and
there are people who applying that these serial killers are
(41:08):
already in jail for lesser crimes. So yeah, no, that's
an actual theory by like legit criminologists that you know,
serial killers. Potential serial killers might already be in jail
for maybe abusing someone or you know, torturing an animal
or arson any number of you know, predicates to serial killing.
(41:28):
So because crimes are being prosecuted harder, they're already in prison,
so they can't commit those those crimes.
Speaker 3 (41:36):
You know, We'll have to see. But I don't know there.
Speaker 4 (41:41):
Yeah, in the eighties and nineties my understanding, and actually
I want to talk about this later in the week.
I'm fairly certain there was a crazy uptick in incarceration
at that time, so that would also make sense in
addition to all of you know, the technological advance.
Speaker 2 (42:00):
How does anybody get away with anything these days? That is,
honestly get away with anything? My TV talks to me sometimes.
I don't know if you guys have ever had that experience.
I'm also a complete dummy, so let's just be clear.
But like, I go get to my coffee and I
was like morning and my TV starts talking to me.
Speaker 3 (42:15):
So it's been listening all night.
Speaker 2 (42:17):
It's been listening all morning, Like, we have no assumed
privacy at this point, and how did we get away
with anything?
Speaker 3 (42:23):
Like, how does a serial killer get away period.
Speaker 4 (42:27):
This is a creer. This is quite an aside. But
have either of you guys, Stephanie, I'm pretty sure you
did watch the HBO. It's a scripted It was a
scripted series called The Night of.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
Oh, it's so scary. I love it, love very.
Speaker 4 (42:43):
I think it's very I've watched episode one maybe four times.
I think it's maybe the most beautiful episode. I need
to watch it.
Speaker 3 (42:49):
I totally forgot all about that. YEA so good.
Speaker 4 (42:52):
And I bring it up because of the importance all
of these cameras at the bodega, at the traffic line,
when you're in the toll in your car, and stories
are just so much easier to timestamp.
Speaker 2 (43:07):
And that's why the Karen Read thing got back to
go back in time to an earlier segment. But Karen Read,
how do we have the timeline still messy? How is
that possible in today's day and age with phones and
technology and ring cameras and Lexus cars? I mean, how
are we not able to sort this stuff out?
Speaker 4 (43:24):
Right? And was it a headlight or a dog who'd
been chewing on a pig here? How is that?
Speaker 3 (43:30):
How is that so complicated?
Speaker 2 (43:31):
I think you solved it just a couple of days
ago court, Like, I thought that was brilliant. Your your
theory about the dog toy having you know, pig Hinde
in it, that was brilliant, And like, why are we not?
Speaker 3 (43:43):
Am I not seeing that everywhere totally?
Speaker 4 (43:45):
And credit where credits due? That was bodies. I was
the one enthusiastically nodding my head saying, yes, my dog
has bully sticks.
Speaker 3 (43:52):
You don't tell anybody, it's all you.
Speaker 4 (43:54):
If you want to weigh in on any of what
we've spoken about this evening, give us a call. We're
at eight to eighty three to one crime or send
us a talkback message. And speaking of talkbacks, we have
a new one now that we'd love to hear.
Speaker 2 (44:10):
Well.
Speaker 3 (44:10):
I love it talking.
Speaker 5 (44:11):
Hi.
Speaker 6 (44:11):
My name is Eva. I'm calling from Connecticut, really close
to where one of the victim's bodies of this potential
New England serial killer was found. Personally, I didn't think
that there was one, but after the thirteenth body, I'm
starting to entertain the possibility that there is a serial
killer on the loose. But I'm curious, what do you
guys think? Do you think that people are trying to
(44:32):
make something out of nothing? Just for the excitement of it,
or do you think there's a chance there actually is
a serial killer in New England.
Speaker 3 (44:39):
I'm right with you. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (44:41):
And by the way, serial killers, if this brings eva
any comfort, they are very rare. So we all kind
of obsess about serial killers because it is kind of
like a great white shark, right there's there's not many
of them. And it should also be comforting because we've
heard this from Scott Bond, who's an extraordinary expert in
serial killers.
Speaker 3 (45:00):
He told me once and it's stuck with me that.
Speaker 2 (45:03):
We are more likely to die from a vending machine
falling on us and killing us than we are from
a serial killer. So the good news is New England
it's rare. Just you know, we all have to be
vigilant and keep an eye out and trust your spidey sense.
Speaker 5 (45:19):
And I kind of am with the talkback person. I
kind of feel at first like people are kind of
making a mountain out of molehill, and you know, there's
no shared modus operandi with any of these bodies and whatnot.
Speaker 3 (45:32):
But now I'm kind of with her.
Speaker 5 (45:35):
I kind of feel like maybe there might be something
to this, so I'm keeping I'm in that big Facebook
group of seventy thousand, and I'm checking it every day,
and I find that I'm like kind of getting maybe
a little convinced, and maybe that's just you.
Speaker 4 (45:50):
Know, you're gonna have you, but you're gonna have a
tough job convincing me because given the information we have,
which is not all that much, I'm choosing in this
moment to sort of trust the experts and who knows
what is being withheld Stephanie to your earlier point, there
may be a lot of the investigations we don't know.
But there's a criminologist at Northwestern excuse me, Northeastern University
(46:13):
named James Allen Fox, and you know he flat out
said there's no pattern to the dump sites. Allegedly, some
of the deaths are being ruled a homicide, others there
is no sign of trauma. The connection is that these
bodies have been discovered by passers by in the woods
or remote areas, which is scary enough.
Speaker 3 (46:34):
A lot of body, right, it's a lot of bodies.
Speaker 2 (46:37):
It's a lot of random people that are killing I
don't know which. Never bet a serial killer or thirteen
random killers individual killers on the lease.
Speaker 4 (46:46):
Well, but I don't mean to laugh, but keep in
mind what authorities said, some of these have not been
rule homicides.
Speaker 3 (46:56):
Well, I mean, but they're all found in like remote
wooded areas, right, Yes, I am never in a remote
wooded area, thank you. We are not dying in a
position where.
Speaker 5 (47:06):
I'm dying like this can't be. No, what I'm trying
to say is, and I'm not trying to be glib,
but what I'm trying.
Speaker 3 (47:11):
To say is like this just seems.
Speaker 5 (47:14):
Like a lot like one or two okay, find they're
hiking or whatever. Thirteen that seems in a very short
period of time.
Speaker 4 (47:22):
In short, it's very short.
Speaker 5 (47:23):
And and let me be clear too, with serial killers,
usually there's a longer cooling off period, right, because let's
let's define what a serial killer is for everybody.
Speaker 3 (47:32):
Is that okay?
Speaker 7 (47:32):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (47:33):
And this is kind of interesting too. A serial killer
is somebody who has killed three or more people, three
or more people, and there's a cooling off period. And
a cooling off period can be you know, a week,
a month, a decade, you know, like with BTK there
was a massive puling off while, but it could even
(47:54):
be a day, right, it could even be a day.
So is this is this fit a serial killer? And
it does because there's three or more. There's a really
short cooling off period though that's the only thing like
it's I haven't run into very many serial killers that
have a day of cooling off. Usually it's a month
(48:14):
or longer. So the fact that this is all condensed
in a really short timeframe does kind of make me
think that it's not. So I'm I go back and forth.
I'm just gonna be honest, I go back and forth.
Speaker 2 (48:25):
Can I ask a question, just for a layman's question,
So if a person, if a serial killer, or if
a killer I should say, takes the lives of four
different people back to back Monday through Thursday, does that
make them a serial killer or that just makes them.
Speaker 3 (48:42):
A mass murderer?
Speaker 5 (48:43):
Now, a mass murderer is somebody who takes more than
one life in a in one geographical location.
Speaker 3 (48:50):
Right, So like one.
Speaker 5 (48:52):
Area life club, for example, puls Las Vegas shoot the
Las Vegas shootings that my brother was at. Actually he's okay,
he's good. But that's a mass that's a mass killing.
And what you just described like day day one, day two,
day three, day four, that would be a mass killing.
Speaker 2 (49:08):
Wow, we have our Kati friend of the family and
producer Brian natt Miller, who's been following an insane case.
I shouldn't say insane, we should reserve judgment. Is following
a very interesting case. I've got a cult. This is
in cult and it's a mixed bag of a lot.
So Brian, welcome.
Speaker 10 (49:29):
Well, thanks for having me. Courty body. You know I'm
fans of all three of you, so thanks for having
me on the show. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (49:35):
We're so happy to have you here.
Speaker 5 (49:37):
You're here to talk about my favorite subject, Brian.
Speaker 3 (49:40):
Cults.
Speaker 10 (49:42):
You yeah, culture, one of my favorite two, and this
one in particular is I don't know how to say.
It's just bananas. It's not at all. It is like
a typical cult.
Speaker 3 (49:53):
It is. Tell us about it, Yeah, tell us everything.
Speaker 10 (49:56):
I mean, I think most people think about cults. I
think religious cults. You know someone who is charismatic leader
and they're the next community Jesus or they tell people
they can take them to the Promised Land or whatever
it is. And this is not that. This is a
group called the Zizians that sort of are They're a
fringe group from the Bay Area, like that are largely
(50:16):
made up for the most part, fairly smart people. They
are people who are in the Silicon Valley world and
the tech world, had big degrees and computer science and whatnot,
and they are this fringe group that developed this really
radical set of beliefs that blends everything from things called
radical veganism and very unique transgender identity beliefs and some
(50:39):
pretty out there dystopian AI theories that have sort of
made up the core of what their sort of belief
system is that has led them down some pretty bizarro
paths and have led now to multiple homicides as well
as a litany of other charges across four different states.
Speaker 2 (50:59):
Wait, pack that. So you said, let's go one at
a time. Radical veganism. I'm gluten free, Please you not judge.
So radical veganism sounds right at my alley.
Speaker 3 (51:10):
What is that?
Speaker 10 (51:11):
First and foremost, Well, let's start with the AI think first,
because the AA beliefs of theirs lead into the veganism.
So to simplify it, they really believe in something called
the singularity that we're going to hit a point at
some point when AI is going to surpass human intelligence
and suddenly be essentially take over the world and the
(51:32):
computers are going to rule the people, and they believe that.
You know, look, there's a lot of talk about AI
good and bad in the other but they really believe
AI is going to take over the world. We're going
to become like enslaved to it. And part of their
belief was that AI was going to use meat industry
the blueprint for how society works, so that would get
AIS the tools that needed to sort of like figure
(51:54):
out how to control humanity. So part of what they
believed was not only should everyone be vegan, but they
have to convince all the people who create AI to
be vegan and convince them to embed withinn AI. That's
belief that animals are important beans that should be respected.
Otherwise AI is not going to respect animals, therefore won't
respect us, and we're all going to die.
Speaker 2 (52:15):
Oh okay, this is a loop because we were talking
about AI last night, Brian, and it was very, very scary,
So you know, that is a thing. But regardless, so
they believe that if you don't eat meat, and that
will inform AI to also be conscientious about meat eating,
(52:36):
and therefore they would be more conscientious about human life.
Speaker 3 (52:40):
Is that accurate.
Speaker 10 (52:41):
That is, yeah, just to sort of what one of
their core beliefs were that it is Wow. Yeah, it's
like I said, it's pretty out there. It's not it's
Nike any other cult I've looked into, which is what
drew me into this in the first place, because it
is just fascinating how they have all these different beliefs
have come together to sort of like if I sort
(53:02):
of informed their mantra as they move forward, I mean
they but at our court, they believed that they were
the only people on the planet who were really doing good,
Like they felt like this was the only way to
save humanity. The zizz Lesota, who was the sort of
like La Soda, who was sort of like the figurehead
of this group, actually had said at one point, I'm
(53:24):
actually willing to die to advance good and thought that
like this, like she was on the righteous path. At
one point, Alfo said that you know, you shouldn't trust
anyone over thirty who had to kill count of zero
because they believe it it's perfectly acceptable to take out
people if that means helping the animals and helping the
heralding off becoming apocalypse with Apocalypse with Ai.
Speaker 4 (53:46):
So Brian, don't trust anyone over thirty with a kill
count of zero.
Speaker 10 (53:54):
That was one of the fine quotes that I had read. Yes, wow, that's.
Speaker 3 (53:59):
Pretty and they're super smart too.
Speaker 10 (54:02):
Yeah, that's the thing they you know, the Ziz let's
know that actually interned at NASA, and multiple other members
within the group had different jobs at places like Google
and other big tech and engineering firms. Like these were
not you know, these actors that were well educated, that
(54:22):
most of them came from fairly well to do families.
And again like when they started out, they started sort
of following what was called like the rationalist movement, which
is something that's you know, is a lot of people
in Silicon Valley sort of like are part of, and
at its core, rationalist is someone who believes that they
need to take and engage in important conversations to come
(54:47):
up with ways of thinking clearly for the sake of
humanity's future, to sort of double check themselves into the
Silicon Valley like because they are going to help the
thrower going too far, you know, And it's they have
different rationalist conferences and different groups that try to spur
healthy dialogue and conversation because technology is growing so fast, I.
Speaker 4 (55:05):
Might be conflating something I've read I have been reading
up on the Zizians. Is there some aspect that has
to do with people having two separate brains and to
the point where one half of your brain can be
completely asleep while the other half is completely conscious.
Speaker 10 (55:23):
That is another thing they believe that they developed sort
of late in their formation of their group, if you will.
They believe that you could that all brains have two hemispheres,
and that your different hemispheres can possess completely different everything,
different moral values, you can have different feelings, you can
have even different genders, like you can be male and
(55:46):
female at the same time. And they believe your brain
can be good, but your brain can be bad, and
that you can actually, yeah, have half your brain be
asleep while the rest of you is awakened conscious, And
they had this very unique sort of dual hemispheric what
everyone calls sort of theory about brain chemistry, which is
worth noting there is no scientific evidence in any different
(56:09):
scientific world that says that there's any validity to this.
Speaker 5 (56:13):
So all this is like super interesting, like their beliefs
and whatnot in who they are at their core, but
it's not illegal.
Speaker 3 (56:20):
Like, what had they done? What crimes have they committed?
Speaker 10 (56:23):
That's where it gets Yeah, that's sort of interesting. They've
done a lot of interesting crimes as interesting as the
wrong words they've They've been a part of a variety
of crimes. I should say that started with a protest
that they were added a rationalist movement that got out
of hand. That led to their being arrested for various
small charges of you know, issues with resisting arrest and
(56:46):
things like that. But that was the first time they
sort of got on the map with some press back
and I was actually in twenty nineteen. That led to
all kinds of interesting courtroom drama that then a couple
of years later, twenty two they're you.
Speaker 7 (57:02):
Know, head of the group.
Speaker 10 (57:03):
Viz Lasoda faked her own death and faked drowning in
the bay in San Francisco, which you know, faking on
death is a belony, and they spent something like almost
a whole day with coast guard and helicopters, all kinds
of stuff trying to find her too. She eventually was
declared dead, only to turn up later and believe that
(57:24):
she faked on death to get out of issues resulting
around this protest they were at. But you get a
you know, further down the line here and suddenly they
are involved in an attempted murder. They're involved in a
actual and a murder of a landlord of a club
where some of their members were staying. They are persons
(57:44):
of interest in the murder of two parents of one
of their members, and they are they also were in
a gun shootout with the US Border Patrol that sadly
took the life of a Border Patrol agents. And then
they yeah, yes they did. They killed They shot a
one of their members, shot a boarder or court is
(58:06):
still coming, so allegedly shot a Border Patrol agents, right,
and then a litany of other various state and federal
charges for gun possession and all kinds of other small crimes.
Speaker 3 (58:19):
So it's alleged.
Speaker 5 (58:20):
It's alleged that they killed one of the member's parents.
Speaker 10 (58:25):
Yes, there are one of the members. Her parents were
found shot in their home. This was uh, yeah, this
was Richard and Rita Jaco. Their daughter, Michelle is one
of the members of the group. And they were found
shot in Michelle's actual childhood bedroom a neighbor's ring. Cam
(58:49):
uh picked up two people entering the house, not clear
enough that they were able to make an idea of them,
but the neighbors ring cam did pick up some interesting audio.
They picked up a calling out mom before hearing another
voice calling out, oh my god, oh my god.
Speaker 5 (59:06):
Oh my god, oh my god.
Speaker 4 (59:09):
That's wicked.
Speaker 10 (59:12):
And so Michelle is currently named as a person of
interest in their killings. And there's lots of weird gun stuff.
So there's other arrest at a hotel and other different
times members got arrested. They always had guns on them
and always had were always arms at a teeth ready
to fight. And one of the guns that was found
at one of these other arrests massed the serial number
(59:35):
to a gun that was owned by Michelle, the same
caliber of gun that was involved in the shooting of
her parents, and it is strongly speculated that that is
the murder weapon, but are not officially but announced by police.
Yet police just got that gun in custody just earlier
this year.
Speaker 4 (59:53):
So are all these.
Speaker 5 (59:54):
People just walking the streets or has any of this
been adjudicated or has anybody been charged officially?
Speaker 10 (01:00:00):
Best thing, there's been a lot of people have been charged. Interestingly,
the biggest murder here that of the or the biggest
killing that of Michelle's parents. No one's officially been charged
with that yet. Michelle has just been named as a
person of interest. A member has been charged with murder
and the shooting of the border patrol agent. A member
has been charged with murder in the killing of their
(01:00:21):
landlord in California. And I think one of the interesting
things about this, this whole case is that these crimes
took place spanning over three years across four states. So
you have a lot of charges of both state charges
and federal all in the mix here, and.
Speaker 4 (01:00:37):
A lot that we will continue following and hopefully you
will be back with us. Brian, thank you so much
for you know, explaining all of that to us. Come back.
We are going to dive into four execution cases that
are happening, and don't forget to give us a call
eighty to eight thirty one Crime, keep it here, True
Crime Tonight.
Speaker 2 (01:01:10):
Lots of discuss in terms of executions. You know, we've
been covering the Brian Coburger case for a while now.
He's the accused in the Idaho college murders, looking at
a potential death sentence, and you know it kind of
occurred to us that in Idaho, if in fact he
is found guilty and sentenced to death, he may be
put to death by a firing squad, right, which just
(01:01:31):
seemed like very archaic, And I just got us thinking
about just this type of sentencing in general, and there
seemed to be quite a few happening in the United
States real time, frankly at the same time.
Speaker 4 (01:01:43):
At the same time.
Speaker 3 (01:01:44):
Yeah, we have like four by four by four.
Speaker 5 (01:01:46):
Right, So there's over the next four days, four inmates
in four states are scheduled to be put to death,
and that's pretty unusual. I mean, certainly there's been strings
of executions, but I don't I don't recall they're usually
pretty rare, right, I don't recall like four happening in
four days across four states.
Speaker 4 (01:02:06):
Yeah, this is unusual and completely note and newsworthy.
Speaker 5 (01:02:10):
Right, right, So there's one today in Alabama and Florida.
Speaker 3 (01:02:16):
Wow, And then another in Oklahoma.
Speaker 5 (01:02:18):
Is going to occur on Thursday, and a final one
is slated for Friday in South Carolina.
Speaker 4 (01:02:24):
You know.
Speaker 5 (01:02:25):
And again, a string of executions is fairly normal, but
I just this back to back to back seems kind
of unusual, which you know, of course raised kind of
alarm bells with us, right, So today in Alabama, Gregor,
I kind of want to get into them just a
little bit if it's okay, but yeah, sure. So today
in Alabama, Gregory Hunt will be executed for the nineteen
(01:02:47):
eighty eight murder and sexual assault of his girlfriend, twenty
nine year old Karen Lane on August twelfth, Lane, nineteen
eighty eight. This happened many years ago. Lane was found
beaten to death. She suffered sixty injuries, including twenty to
the head, in her own apartment.
Speaker 3 (01:03:03):
He was convicted.
Speaker 5 (01:03:04):
Gregory Hunt was convicted two years later in nineteen ninety
and sentenced to death. So he's been on death row
since nineteen ninety, which is going thirty five years, right,
and that we're going to speak about that later and
discuss why this is an issue, right And then also
today in Florida. In Florida, though Anthony Wainwright will be
(01:03:24):
executed for the nineteen ninety three murder, kidnapping, and sexual
battery of twenty three year old Carmen Gayheart. In April
of ninety four, Wainwright and a friend both they both
escaped from prison. By the way in North Carolina abducted
Gayheart from a supermarket parking lot in Florida. They forcibly
raped her then shot her twice in the back of
(01:03:45):
the head. I mean, listen, if there's any kind of
cases that deserve the death penalty, right, I mean these
are He was sentenced to death in nineteen ninety five
and he will be executed with nitrogen gas. Florida is
one of the states that allows you to choose how
you get executed, and he chose nitrogen gas.
Speaker 3 (01:04:03):
Yeah, I can't even think about it. It makes me.
Speaker 4 (01:04:06):
And he chose nitrogen gas? Is that over electrocution?
Speaker 1 (01:04:11):
Right?
Speaker 3 (01:04:11):
And why is that?
Speaker 2 (01:04:12):
There has been a lot of conversation about execution generally speaking,
or the electric chair is inhumane?
Speaker 5 (01:04:19):
Right, So there's well, even even the nitrogen gases, you know,
according to the UN.
Speaker 3 (01:04:25):
Right, the UN says that this is in humane as well.
Speaker 5 (01:04:29):
And you know, listen, a lot can be said to that, right,
There's an argument to be made, like, you know, he
didn't care about her life when he took her life,
so why should we care.
Speaker 3 (01:04:37):
About I don't know.
Speaker 5 (01:04:39):
Yeah, I know, Like it's listen, we're the United States
of America. I believe we're supposed to be a shining beacon, right,
We're supposed to set the exist. This is just my
belief allegedly, you know, this is all just my opinion.
I believe we're supposed to be a shining beacon of
moral right and you know, being the best people life right.
(01:05:00):
And I just feel like if we're being criticized by
what we consider to be third world countries in how
we handle things in the death penalty being inhumane, then
maybe there's something that we should examine.
Speaker 3 (01:05:13):
I do. It would be very difficult. It is that
we're going out advice.
Speaker 2 (01:05:17):
If it was my family member, I know, you don't
get me started, right, I am not embarrassed to say
what I would think. The love of life, I can't
even imagine in that spot, so thank God, but it
would be very difficult to be on it.
Speaker 3 (01:05:31):
It was trial too, you know.
Speaker 5 (01:05:33):
I But you know, we have to think too though,
like people who are family members of these victims. When
you have a death penalty sentence on you, you get
appeal after appeal after appeal like automatic they and as
a family member, I would want to go to those
appeals and be like no, you know, so you're being
tortured constantly as a family member, right, having to constantly
(01:05:56):
fight for your family member, whereas in prison maybe without
the possibility of parroll like the Menentaz brothers for instance,
you don't have that. And so is it easier on
the family, I don't know.
Speaker 4 (01:06:07):
Well, I think that depends very much on each individual family.
You know, some it may be their guiding force, their
guiding force in light to be pursuing the death penalty
for someone taking their loved one.
Speaker 3 (01:06:20):
I always so. Yeah, I was going to.
Speaker 4 (01:06:22):
Say, so four are slated, as you said, body, but
I feel like it's a very high percentage where last
minute interventions happen on the day, So even for the
executions that are slated for Luckily you said Thursday and Friday.
Speaker 5 (01:06:39):
Right, So, speaking of what you just said, on Thursday,
in Oklahoma, John Hansen will be executed for the nineteen
ninety nine murder and kidnapping of seventy seven year old
Mary Bowels.
Speaker 3 (01:06:50):
Now, oh, Mary, I know it's horrible.
Speaker 7 (01:06:53):
Right.
Speaker 5 (01:06:53):
He is set to be executed by lethal injection on Thursday. However,
the execution is on hold. Do it do a temporary
stay due to legal concerns about alleged bias during a
clemency hearing. So that one, we're not really sure if
that one is actually going to happen or not. So
that's one that might be pulled last minute, right because
it's scheduled to happen in two days. On Friday, in
(01:07:17):
South Carolina, Stephen Stanko will be executed for the two
thousand and five murder of his girlfriend, forty three year
old Linda Ling and his friend seventy four year old
Henry Lee Turner. And that happened in April of two
thousand and five. Stanko strangled Ling in her room in
her home, raped her, and slit the throat of her daughter,
who survived.
Speaker 3 (01:07:38):
Oh come up.
Speaker 5 (01:07:39):
He then drove to Henry Turner's house and fatally shot him.
So yeah, I mean, these are heinous, heinous, heinous crimes
and terrible people, Like, by no stretch of the imagination,
these people are terrible. But you know, again, if you're
a family member, I can I can absolutely understand I
for an eye and like wanting some kind of revenge,
Like I absolutely absolutely understand that I have an aunt
(01:08:04):
who was murdered when I you know, was little. I
absolutely understand that I just don't know. I just don't
know if it's the right thing to do. And that's
just like my own personal belief because it's not. A
death penalty has never been proven to be a deterrent.
If it was, there would never be a homicide in Texas, Like, right,
(01:08:25):
do you know what I mean? Like, there would never
be another if you're worried about if you're worried about
the death penalty, like I better not do this because
I'm going to get the death penalty. There would never
be another crime, right, another murder? There would never be one.
Speaker 2 (01:08:37):
It's interesting too, because we always I've always heard the argument,
and I say always in air quotes. But you know,
people say, look, you know, why should we pay to
keep somebody in prison till the end of days? It's
you know, eye for an eye. And by the way,
I don't know where I stand on this. I haven't
been in this situation, thankfully. I don't know how I
would feel if someone, you know, took the life of
(01:08:59):
my my mother or a brother. You know, God forbid
your child, you know. So this is an observation. I
genuinely don't know where to sit with this. I do
find it fascinating when you see a parent of somebody
whose life has been taken at some of these death
sentence trials and they give forgiveness. That takes a lot
(01:09:20):
of really takes your breath away. When someone stands there
and says, I forgive, I forgive you, and I don't
want there to be a death sentence.
Speaker 9 (01:09:28):
Wow?
Speaker 2 (01:09:28):
Is that powerful? I don't know if I'm as I
don't know if I could.
Speaker 3 (01:09:31):
Pull that off.
Speaker 4 (01:09:32):
And Stephanie, you know you mentioned people making the argument
of oh, why pay to keep someone alive all of
these years in prison? But largely life in prison is
less expensive than actually the death penalty, and that's because
there are so many more trials and appeals. Body, as
(01:09:54):
you mentioned, the legal processes in these capital cases are
so much more complex. And you know, we've had the
luxury of speaking to Kirk Nurmi, who is a defense
attorney and defended Jody Arius in a death sentenced trial,
(01:10:15):
and it's really interesting to truly appreciate the complexities of
how everything every word that you say is going to
be looked at for at least a decade and tried
and retried. And the lawyer ring is it simply is
more expensive because the lawyers have many more qualifications. It
(01:10:37):
is not a simple task to be a death penalty
certified right.
Speaker 5 (01:10:42):
Well, we learned that like with Brian Coberger, right, and
Taylor is like one of only one, like two accredited
death penalty lawyers in the county.
Speaker 2 (01:10:55):
In kurtnermy to Courtney's point, this defense attorney, he made
it very clear. I mean, imagine you're defending a person's life.
It is life and death. There's no room for error.
This is like you don't just throw a clown in
the cockpit of an airplane.
Speaker 3 (01:11:10):
Right.
Speaker 2 (01:11:10):
This has to be highly regarded, highly sought through to
avoid endless amounts of appeals, right, which is the first
thing anybody does after sentencing, seemingly so it is high
stake stuff. And you bring up Brian Coberger and the
Idaho College murders. So much has been made about his
defense team and the cost of them, And frankly I
(01:11:30):
thought the same thing. I was like, expensive, this is
like costing the state of Idaho so much money. But
Milani Nurmi was very clear to say, look, what's the alternative.
Speaker 3 (01:11:39):
What if he's innocent?
Speaker 4 (01:11:41):
That's right? And further, if you don't you know, dot
every eye and cross every tee along the way, it's
almost a guaranteed complete retrial and having to start the
process and pay for it all over again. It's really
complicated stuff. And guys, I'm actually I'm getting a signal
that we have a talk back.
Speaker 3 (01:12:01):
Maybe we go to that first.
Speaker 11 (01:12:03):
Hi, ladies, this is Velma. I'm calling from Philly. I
just have a question in general, what are your feelings
on the role that social media plays when it comes
to these cases? And I also wanted to say I
love the show and you guys are doing a great job.
Speaker 3 (01:12:20):
Oh, Belma, nice, so nice.
Speaker 5 (01:12:23):
And that's a great question, right, So what kind of
impact does social media have on cases like That's something
that I could probably do a whole segment on.
Speaker 3 (01:12:30):
By the way, we should.
Speaker 5 (01:12:32):
I think it's god, you know, it's where do I begin?
So open cases, right, so cases that haven't been adjudicated
or there hasn't been any charges. I think social media
has a tremendous impact on you know, people believe something
and you know, they have the access to the Internet,
(01:12:52):
They're going to be able to espouse their opinion very loudly,
potentially to a large number of people. Every single day,
and you know, maybe whip the public up into a
frenzy over something maybe that's not even true, right, something
that maybe they sleuthed on that they they've can you know,
confirmed their own bias about something, and now they have.
Speaker 3 (01:13:13):
A microphone and hours to talk about it.
Speaker 5 (01:13:15):
And I think that could be potentially dangerous in you know.
Speaker 3 (01:13:19):
Polluting a jury pool. And is that algorithm, you know, right?
Is that algorithm fair? You know?
Speaker 2 (01:13:25):
Sometimes I'll see stuff online and we'll flag it amongst
each other when we're talking and we have to fact checked,
you know, just because somebody says it doesn't make it
so right.
Speaker 5 (01:13:36):
And but there's so many people who believe, you know,
maybe maybe it's a somebody you follow on X or
YouTube that you've maybe been watching or listening to for years,
and so you kind of believe everything that comes out
of their mouth, and they say X is responsible for
this crime, and you believe it, and they you know,
(01:13:57):
I've even seen cases where they're literally making evidence up
and presenting it or putting it.
Speaker 2 (01:14:03):
On social media as facts so that they could regurgitate
it in court.
Speaker 3 (01:14:07):
Right. Scary.
Speaker 4 (01:14:09):
I think it can be really yeah, I think it
can be really dangerous and even in the Brian Kolberger case,
which you just mentioned that we'll be coming up, it
was social media that really spread the utter lie that
the poor guy who was doing his job at the
food truck the night that these four college students, you know,
(01:14:30):
had their lives ended, and it can create absolute witch
hunts that are dangerous and body to your point, absolutely
contained a jury.
Speaker 3 (01:14:40):
Right, It's so true.
Speaker 2 (01:14:41):
I always say, when in doubt, let's put that person
in front of Courtney Armstrong herself, because she's a human
lie detector. Is she sometimes oh yeah, I'm a supersucker
and then leave something.
Speaker 3 (01:14:52):
I'll be like, oh yeah, they seem amazing, and.
Speaker 2 (01:14:53):
Courtney's like and by the way, she's always right and
always wrong.
Speaker 5 (01:15:01):
I need to take the Courtney with me out on
my social Literally, she can sniff it out pretty well.
Speaker 2 (01:15:07):
You know how I'm not in a cult is pretty extraordinary.
But listen, we're gonna cover all that and more so. Obviously,
Brian Coburger, the trial is upon us. He's looking for
a delay, so we'll have some new information tomorrow. And also,
Karen Reid watching we are standing by, definitely want to
hear from you all. So make sure you wait in
(01:15:29):
eight eight eight three one crime, True Crime, Tonight, good Night,
This program features the individual opinions of the hosts, guests,
and callers, and not necessarily those of the producer, the station,
its affiliates, or sponsors. This is True Crime Tonight.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Welcome to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio, where we talk
true crime all the time. It's Tuesday, June tenth, and
Karen Reid's defense team calls their final witness. We are
approaching the end, and we're also going to be joined
today by award winning author Robert rand to talk to
us about all things the Menandaz Brothers. Then another body
(00:40):
found in Massachusetts. It's reigniting a huge fear in the
area that there might be a serial killer on the loose.
And later we're going to have a special guest of
the show, Brian natt Miller, and he's going to talk
to us all about a very scary cult called the
Sissian Cult. So all that and more stay with us.
We're so happy here. I'm Stephanie Leidecker. I head up
(01:02):
KT Studios where we make open investigation true crime documentaries
and podcasts and the best part is I get to
do it every day with producer and host Courtney Armstrong
and producer and analyst.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Ore, body move in. So, ladies, we made it to Tuesday.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
We did.
Speaker 3 (01:19):
We're here in one piece.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
We are here in one piece, and there's so much
to talk about today. I don't even know that we'll
get it all in. And just as a quick reminder,
we're here Sunday through Thursday, two hours live. So again,
tune in anytime and if you miss any of the show,
you can always catch it right after as a podcast.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
So, Boddy, where we made Karen Reid? Right?
Speaker 5 (01:39):
I mean, obviously that's going to be the top of
what we're talking about today. Today was day thirty and
the testimony is expected to end tomorrow.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
How is that possible? So tomorrow is today? Tomorrow? Well,
they're expecting.
Speaker 5 (01:53):
I can't imagine that this last witness will go any
further than tomorrow, but it's supposed to be end. You know.
We learned also Karen is not taking the stand. I
thought that was super big news. Listen, she speaks for herself.
She should, right, She did speak in her documentary. If
you haven't seen that on Discovery Idea, it's very interesting
because it really does track her experience during the first trial.
(02:15):
So maybe that's her testimony there.
Speaker 4 (02:17):
She literally said, quote doing this film is my testimony
in reference to the docuseries A Body in the Snow
Trial of Karen Reid.
Speaker 3 (02:25):
And I'm shaking my head and rolling my eyes. Is
that so?
Speaker 5 (02:28):
Why because you don't get cross examined in a documentary?
Speaker 3 (02:32):
Thank you? That's true?
Speaker 5 (02:33):
Right. The reason, the reason people, the reason people don't
testify usually on their own behalf, is because of that
cross Right, you're opening yourself up to the basically the
state to be questioned, and you're under oath and you
have to tell the truth supposedly allegedly, allegedly allegedly right.
And Karen Reid was able to have this documentary not
(02:55):
really ask her any of the tough questions that the
state would ask her.
Speaker 4 (02:59):
That's a fair point of a documentaries and not having crossed,
that's obviously a fair point. But it's also important to
remember in this in every trial, whether a defendant takes
the stand or not is really not supposed to be
used for someone to say, oh, they didn't take the stand,
they must be guilty.
Speaker 5 (03:15):
Well, it's really worth right that they do. Right, Like,
you don't really see it that often at all.
Speaker 3 (03:21):
Well, at we risk.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
Management, so you could get to a certain point and
all of a sudden, they're a wild card and they're emotional,
and they've witnessed so much testimony that they either do
or do not agree with. Yeah, you might have a
hot wire on your hand, and in the eleventh hour
they say just the wrong thing and the trial is lost.
She seems very well spoken, though maybe that would help.
Speaker 5 (03:42):
I don't know, well, and I don't think that Dury
is gonna like dislike her.
Speaker 4 (03:46):
You know.
Speaker 5 (03:47):
We kind of talk about how sometimes like she she
looks kind of like an ice queen, you know. But
I think that's just a very Bostonian thing, right, I
think so too.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
I actually I liked the documentary so much. I did too.
Speaker 6 (03:58):
I liked it.
Speaker 2 (03:59):
It was exciting to be like in the car with
her going to this harrowing trial. Whether we agree with
her or not, we could all agree that must be
very stressful and sort of being in that mode the
entire time.
Speaker 3 (04:12):
It gave me some empathy for her. I thought it
sort of.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
I mean, frankly, I guess that's the intention, right, But
it did show her in a light that I thought
made her very human. Again, this has not changed the
fact that John O'Keefe. The victim has lost his life
and his family suffers.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
DP.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
It's very evident, even just based on his mother's testimony.
But man, is this divisive. I can't believe we're in
the final stretch of it.
Speaker 5 (04:34):
Right, And the judge said that we could have the
jury could have this by Friday or Monday. But then
the prosecutor said likely Friday. So the judge is the
judge and the prosecutor both kind of agree. You know,
this could be in the jury's hands by Friday. You know,
so testimony will probably wrap up tomorrow and then maybe
paperwork and whatnot Thursday. Well, what about closing, Well, closing
(04:55):
will probably happen Thursday. I forgot about that.
Speaker 3 (04:58):
Yeah, that's uh, closing. I mean it's a big one.
Speaker 2 (05:02):
Kind of sums the whole thing up, right, that's the
boat on the package.
Speaker 5 (05:06):
I assume, yeah, you're you're absolutely right. Well, today we
heard from Elizabeth Lapasoda. She's a forensic pathologist, and she
said she believes O'Keefe died from blunt force trauma after
falling backwards and hitting his head on a hard surface
like stairs or a floor. She believes some of the
injuries on his arm could be from a dog bite.
Speaker 3 (05:27):
That's interesting.
Speaker 7 (05:28):
She was.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
No joke on the stand too. It was hard to
not believe her in my opinion. Right, she was pretty
steadfast on what was and wasn't and she was pretty
clear that it wasn't a car that hit him, right.
Speaker 5 (05:43):
And she's the former medical examiner for a Rhode Island
so she's pretty accredited, right, She's pretty accredited. And then
we heard from this is the last witness, the last
one that's being called, Andrew Wrenchler. And Andrew is an
accident rec instructionists and biomechanist. I don't even know what
that is. Very smart, very smart, that's all I know.
(06:06):
They're very smart. And he testified that O'Keefe's head and
arm injuries are not consistent with being struck by a
backing SUV.
Speaker 3 (06:15):
That's very interesting.
Speaker 5 (06:16):
But you know, he had like a PowerPoint that the
judge wanted like some notes removed from and I don't
that was a last I kind of saw of the trial.
So I'm not sure what ended up happening with their
But Andrew is expected to be the defense's last witness,
so we won't hear from anyone else.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
Wow, yeah, more to come. So what did you guys
think of ending on him for the last witness on
Andrew Wrenschler.
Speaker 2 (06:44):
It didn't I question, bang, big bang ending. Yeah, I
heard the prosecution side. I would put Mom, you know,
John O'Keeffe's beloved mother, who you know, really sets the
stage for the feelings of it all.
Speaker 3 (06:59):
And just what a loss to me.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
If I'm the defense, no, no, if I'm the prosecution,
forgive me, I'm putting Mom on the stand in the
eleventh hour last thing. I thought it was like a
little not big finish.
Speaker 5 (07:15):
Yeah, but you know, speaking of mom, this is kind
of an interesting tidbit. They showed some like particularly gruesome
photos today in the hearing and in the past his mom, Peggy,
John O'Keefe's mom, the victim in this case that often
gets overshadowed. She usually leaves the room, but today she
stayed in the room. She kind of just hang her
(07:36):
She hung her head down, and I thought that was
worth noting that she she was in the front row
and she was kind of hanging her head down. And
I'm not sure I didn't catch if she like looked
up at all to look at the photos, but she did.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
Stay in the room this time. I thought that was interesting.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
And she's very anti Karen, right, so you know she's
been I mean, obviously she's grieving. It seems like their
relationship was far from ect but also not here nor there.
Maybe you know what, there didn't seem to be a
super contentious backstory to the both of them, but it
certainly is now. And you know, again, she's grieving so
deeply if there's the same question.
Speaker 5 (08:12):
So as a reminder, the defense is arguing that John
O'Keeffe's death was a cover up, like there's this big
conspiracy going on, and that John O'Keefe was killed inside
that house by his like cop buddies and then staged
to sort of frame Karen Reid, and that she backed up.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
She did not back up and hit him with her car.
You know, they broke the tail light.
Speaker 5 (08:33):
They did all this stuff to kind of cover their butts, right,
That's basically the argument, and there is support for this.
Now again, this is all the defense's strategy. They say
the tail light damage on her SUV does not match
the trauma to John O'Keeffe's body, which you know, the
supporting witnesses testified today that's true. That's according to the defense.
(08:54):
The Commonwealth says otherwise, right. They also say that the
cuts on John O'Keeffe's arm are more insistent with being
bit by a dog, not scraped by a broken tail light,
and they also say the timeline is off. The prosecutors
say that Karen Reid dropped him off at approximately like
twelve thirty and accidentally hit him while backing up. Well
Read's SUV black box showed a backup of twenty four
(09:16):
miles per hour at twelve thirty, which is interesting. The
defense is arguing that there wasn't enough time for her
to hit him and drive away all in one minute,
so they're saying the timing is off. I'm saying, what
do you think of that?
Speaker 2 (09:29):
As our analysts, like, I feel like I know this
info so well, what does that mean to me?
Speaker 5 (09:35):
It shows me that she's guilty, and I you know,
I believe she's guilty, But I will say that the
investigation was so shoddy and terribly done that I don't
know that the Commonwealth is going to be able to
prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Right, Like, even if that happened, just the shady shenanigans.
You know that clearly went on because we're seeing these
text messages within law enforcement. John o'keef, the victim, as
we've talked about before, was you know, he was a
part of the Canton police and it was it's a
big job and that you know air quotes brotherhood is real.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
His buddies.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
They were all members of either the you know ATF
or of you know, the local police with him or
retired like this was his crew. So either they framed
Karen Reid or they wanted to pile a lawn to
Karen Reid. I don't think it's it's ass able to
dispute the fact that there wasn't some shenanigans and I
(10:30):
hate to see.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
Well.
Speaker 5 (10:32):
The other thing too, is that the defense has pointed
out missing or white data from phones with the people
inside the house that night.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Well everybody, the cops, they all were like, oh our
phone went dead. Oh my goodness, did I delete all
of those tags?
Speaker 3 (10:43):
That is fishy.
Speaker 4 (10:44):
I will say, it's very fish It's so far past
fishy dog and I know, weird the dog and the
dog is gone. And the forensic pathologist says that he
had to have hit a hard surface like stairs or
a floor. You know, I don't contend that anything intentional
(11:04):
happened to end John O'Keeffe's life.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
That is my thought. You think it was like an
accident inside, I.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
Absolutely do think it was like they're too day, like panic,
they're drunk, You fall back and then you have to
you know, cover up and assess they're police officers.
Speaker 3 (11:20):
This is not a good look.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Everyone's partying, drinking and driving by that is the takeaway.
There amount of alcohol and driving in a blizzard, regardless
off your law enforcement and otherwise, that could have been
a very different night had those traces been different.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
I'm not grand stating.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
We'll be staying with this through the end of the trial. Later,
award winning journalist Robert rand is joining us to talk
all things Menendez Brothers and a body was found last
week in Massachusetts, reigniting fear of a possible serial killer
in the Northeast. Keep it here on True Crime tonight.
Speaker 3 (12:08):
We have a very special guest.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
It's just literally the man that wrote the book about
the Menendez brothers. So we have some very insight sourcing
here because he was the guy that actually received the
letter or knows about the letter between one of the
Menendez brothers and his cousin that really has shaped this
entire resentencing hearing and all of the things about the
Menendez Real Times Courtney, Where should we begin with the
(12:33):
Menendez brothers.
Speaker 4 (12:35):
Well, let's start with the headline that just happened, and
it happened on a legislative level. On Sunday, it was
reported that California Senate Minority leader, it's a guy named
Brian Jones, that he's warning that public interest in the
Menendez brother case menandaz brother's case is fueling support for
a bill that could lead to the early release of
thousands of convicted murderers. So what this bill does do
(12:58):
is allow people who canmitted serious crimes before they turned
twenty six years old ask for a new sentencing after
serving fifteen years. And I gotta be honest, I mean,
I oh, okay, body, you're making a face. Yeah, listen.
The brain does it continues developing through your mid to
late twenties, specifically especially men, and the prefrontal cortex, which
(13:23):
controls judgment and planning.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
So in consequences right and co gas on what happens
when that's right?
Speaker 4 (13:32):
So this bill, Jones claims that the bill kind of
came back when the public interest in the Menendez brothers
were surfaced. So that's his.
Speaker 5 (13:42):
Contention with it, and it's a I think that's a
reasonable concern, you know, but I'm just not sure how
I feel about it yet.
Speaker 4 (13:49):
Yeah. Fair And for anyone who's not super familiar. Back
in nineteen eighty nine, brothers Lyle and Eric Menendez were
convicted of murdering their parents, who were wealthy and high profile,
particularly father Jose Menendez, and also their mother, Kitty Menendez,
was also murdered. The brothers shot their parents in Beverly Hills,
(14:11):
and the defense claimed that it was it happened after
years of sexual and emotional abuse by their father.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
And that's it's a tough one, right because listen, we
have the guy, right, we have the person who literally
wrote the book. So joining us is going to be
guest Robert rand And you know, he wrote the award
winning book that really covered the Menendez case from right
after the murders. Literally he was there one day after
those murders in nineteen eighty nine, and he covered it
(14:40):
as a journalist the entire time. And he really has
been visiting them as well and is following it so
closely to this day. So we have a guy I
I you know, let's bring him in and you know,
ask away. And again, if anybody wants to join the conversation,
just call us eight eight eight three to one crime Robert,
can you hear us?
Speaker 7 (15:00):
I can hear you, lot and clear.
Speaker 3 (15:01):
Welcome. We're so happy to have.
Speaker 7 (15:02):
You, thank you, and it's good to be here.
Speaker 3 (15:05):
Listen.
Speaker 2 (15:06):
We're so happy to have you number one, because you really,
your information has kind of cracked this case open and
really has led to part of this resentencing conversation for
the Menendez brothers because of two things, right, the he
you know, the claim now from the Menudo band member.
I don't know if any of our listeners remember the
(15:26):
Menudo Brothers or Menudo the band. You know, one of
those band members has also filed a claim against Jose
Menendez under the same circumstances of you know, sexual abuse.
And then additionally a letter written that really does claim
that you know, this abuse was documented long long ago,
which has really shaped the opinion of really all of
(15:49):
America in terms of sentencing for the Menandez brothers.
Speaker 7 (15:52):
Well back in twenty eighteen, I was on deadline from
my original Menndos book release, and I was visiting the
brother's aunt, Mark Kenno, in West Palm Beach, Florida, and
she let me go through the room of her son,
who sadly passed away from an accidental swedging Hill overdose
in two thousand and three. And his name was Andy Canoe.
(16:16):
He was very close to Eric Menendus. They exchanged a
lot of letters, they had a lot of phone calls,
and Andy was actually a key witness at the first
Monendous trial in the summer of ninety nineteen ninety three,
and he testified that Eric had told him about the
molestation when Eric was twelve and Andy was ten, but
(16:39):
he Andy immediately wanted to go to his mother. He
really was having a difficult time processing the information as
a ten year old, and Eric made him swear on
a pinkey promised that he would never reveal to anybody
what Eric had told him. And that is typical of
(17:00):
station survivors sexual abuse survivors that their abuser threatens them
if you tell anybody, I will kill you. And so
this letter was so I started going through the room
of Andy Cano that had been untouched since he passed
away fifteen years earlier, and within fifteen minutes I found
(17:24):
opened a door full of papers, and I found this
letter from Eric Menande's that he had written to his
cousin Andy in late nineteen eighty eight, about nine months
before the killing them Jose and kady Banandos and in
a letter. Most of it was just kind of like
a routine letter between two teenagers, but at one point
(17:46):
in the letter, Eric complains about the ongoing sexual abuse
by his father, and he says that he's afraid every
night that his father will come down the hall. And
so as soon as I saw that letter, I realized,
you know, that could be potentially a major piece of evidence,
(18:06):
and I called up Cliff Gardner, the appellant attorney who
has represented the brothers so in the past twenty years,
and I know, you know what I just found. And
then I ran over to a UPS tour and scanned
the letter and emailed that over Cliff. And now that letter,
along with the information in a documentary I was executive
(18:31):
producer of two years ago on Peacock called Menendez plus
Menudo Voice Betrayed. And in that documentary other new evidence
were survealed, and that was that Jose Menendez was accused
by a former member of the Latin boy band Menudo,
of raping him when he was fourteen years old.
Speaker 5 (18:53):
Yeah, that was really big news when it came out.
Was a great documentary, and that was like that broke
it open for me in my mind, right, oh wow,
another victim is coming forward.
Speaker 8 (19:02):
Well to me, that was us to have a new
victim who is completely independent of the brothers, you know,
was really startling information.
Speaker 7 (19:15):
Although actually it was a story that I started hearing
rumors about thirty years ago during the first trial.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
So there were rumors about this prior.
Speaker 7 (19:25):
There were and actually I made a dozen reporting trips
to Puerto Rico in the nineteen nineties and two thousands
trying to chase down the story. And actually I was
initially tipped off to the story by a man named
John Paduo, who was an elderly man at the time
(19:45):
I started talking to them. He had been Jose Menanda's
personal assistant at HRTZ Rennakar and also at Arcia Records
when Menandez was head of RCA Records and signed Menudo
in nineteen eight three to a thirty million dollar contract,
which was really a lot of money for that time.
(20:06):
And also Menudo had never recorded one song in English before,
They'd only recorded in Spanish, and so I knew. I
knew that there was somebody out there. The problem I
had was that in all my recording trips, nobody would
ever go on the record who was a former member
of the group. I had plenty of jeuralists that were
(20:28):
talking to me, and they heard all the rulers that
there were stories going around, but I couldn't actually get
anybody to come forward who had been in the group,
because it's just a shameful secret, and some people take
these secrets to their grave and they never tell anybody.
Speaker 4 (20:48):
Well, luckily you were able to kind of shed light
or help shed light on the secret. And you know
how pivotal do you think it was the combination of
the other allegation and and the letter in moving things
forward in the judicial system.
Speaker 7 (21:05):
That new evidence, which is summarized in a harevieous corpus
petition that was filed the day after Menanda's Manu Boys
trade came out. I think that new evidence is really
what god the brothers back in court twenty years later.
They had not been in court. They had exhausted all
their appeals, and I am grateful to Ryan Murphy. I'm
(21:28):
grateful to Netflix for the series Monsters me Menda's I'm
grateful to Netflix for releasing a documentary which I'm interviewed
in last October, and they the three hundred million subscribers
of Netflix certainly helped raise the awareness of the case.
But the reality is that higher evidence is what gets
(21:53):
you released our years of incarceration, not a buzzy TV show.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
That's true, that's fair. But it did draw attention, right,
so we all feel and it's pressure, I think though
too right. I think the pressure probably had something to
do with the district attorney, Yeah, because I feel like
the Ryan Murphy thing really pushed things forward as well.
Like there were the social media presence of the Ryan
Murphy Show was so huge, and people were making videos
(22:23):
for this resentencing to happen, you know, they were really
calling for it in you know, on social media, and
I think the DA who was you know, up for reelection,
kind of ran with it.
Speaker 3 (22:34):
It was a great stage.
Speaker 7 (22:35):
It's a great stage, right, But actually the whole social
media movement began in the fall of twenty twenty. My son,
who was fourteen at the time, came to me one
afternoon and they said, Dad, you won't believe it. TikTok
is full of men Brothers videos. That's true. I laugh
and rabbit hole. Yeah for three hours.
Speaker 5 (22:57):
Well, Robert rand is with us right now. He literally
wrote the book on the Menanda's brothers, and he's going
to stick with us for the next segment too. So
stick around in the eleven o'clock hour, we're going to
be discussing an alled serial killer in the Northeast. Last week,
a thirteenth body was found. Could all these be connected?
Stay right here True Crime tonight.
Speaker 3 (23:26):
Back to the Menandaz Brothers. You know, we have the guy,
the author who really wrote the.
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Book, and you know the book is called The Menendaz Brothers,
The shocking, untold story of the Menenda's family and the
killings that stunned the nation. And Robert, welcome back. Thank
you for sticking with us for another segment.
Speaker 7 (23:45):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 5 (23:46):
I mean, this is the guy, right, this is like guy,
this is Robert. You did more than just write a book,
right like, I feel like you really kind of potentially
assisted in breaking this investigation and resentencing hearing wide open.
Speaker 3 (24:00):
How do you feel about that?
Speaker 7 (24:01):
Well, actually, I'm the only reporter who covered the investigation
in the fall of nineteen eighty nine. There were seven
months between the crime and the rest of the others
in March of ninety and I also covered each six
month long trial in ninety three, ninety four, and in
ninety five ninety six, and so I have done a
(24:22):
few other stories. I was working at the CBS local
station in la as part of the investigative unit for
many years, but I kept coming back to the Uned
States because I felt that the second trial was a
complete miscarriage of justice. The judge reversed all its evidence
rulings from the first trial. He did not allow the
(24:45):
defense to present most of their abuse evidence. That the
first trial there were two juries, and half of those
jurors actually voted for manslaughter, not murder. Manslaughter. The brothers
still would have served twenty two years if they've been
convictions of manslaughter. But here we are, and they've been
incarcerated for thirty five years now, and now they go
(25:08):
up in front of the California pro Board August twenty
first and twenty second, now that they were re sentenced.
A couple of weeks ago and they actually have a
chance of getting out. I believe they will eventually get out.
It might be the end of this year, it might
leave till next year, but I believe they will get out.
And they shared it out.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
There was so much chatter at the time. You know,
Mark Geragos, the Menanda's brothers lawyer. You know, he was
doing such a press tour, and you know he's a
very magnanimous attorney. And you know, the idea was that
they would be home for Thanksgiving, right that the Menendaz
brothers were packing their bags in prison and they'd be
home for the holidays. And that really didn't happen. And
you know, we've talked about this before. I would have
(25:49):
to imagine that this final stretch is hard. Is this
delay must be, you know, kind of brutal when you're
counting the days to go home.
Speaker 7 (25:57):
Well, actually, I'm going to write one or My original
menens book came out in September twenty eighteen. We re
released it last September, a week before Monster's premier with
new information about Menendus and Minudo that's not in the documentary.
And my publisher wants to do a final edition of
(26:18):
the book when the brothers are released from jail, which
I just told you I believe will happen. And there's
quite a story going on right now behind the scenes
with all the movement and backstage things that are going on,
and it's quite a story, but that's still coming.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
Can I make sure I just understand it completely. In
their first trial, they obviously had it. They were sentenced,
but they were sentenced for murder, but the sex abuse
was not allowed in their trial, and that's why they
were mis sentenced.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
Is that the whole argument here.
Speaker 7 (26:55):
So in the first trial it ended in two mistrials.
There were two juries for each brother because some of
the evidence only applied to one brother or the other brother,
and neither of the two juries could reach a verdict.
So the trial judge Stanley Weisberg declared two mistrials at
the end of the first trial in January ninety four.
(27:15):
And then normally, if this had not been a high
profile case that was heavily covered by the media, there
would have been a plea bar garden and you never
would have heard of this case again. But since it
was carried gabble gavel on cour TV. Bill Garcetti, who
was the da of La Kelly at that time said
within a half an hour he was going on TV
(27:37):
and he said, we are going to retry this case.
This is first to be murder, and we are going
after the votes again. And they did. And in the
second trial, that's where the judge completely reversed most of
his evidence rulings, and the evidence rulings that he didn't reverse,
(27:57):
he severely limited what the defense this is could say.
And so the jury, a single jury in a second trial,
they heard a completely different set of evidence than the
first trial juris. And then the second trial ended with
a first screen murder commission in March of ninety six.
And then after that guild phase, there was what's called
(28:20):
a pedally phase where the jury had two choices, life
without parole or the deacons. And in that pedally phase,
the jurors heard all of that abuse of evidence, and
the jury voted for life without parole. And several of
the jurors told me off the record, if they had
heard that evidence in the guild phase of the second trial,
(28:42):
they wouldn't have voted for murder.
Speaker 5 (28:44):
I believe that. I believe that's true. Yeah, I believe
that to be true.
Speaker 7 (28:49):
This is a miscarriage of justice that should should be correct.
Speaker 5 (28:53):
Yeah, and I think it will be so. Robert, you
you believe that that they're going to get out. Do
you think it could happen by the end of this year?
Speaker 7 (29:00):
Possibly it could happen. What will happen is that the
brothers appear before the California pro Board. They will have
two separate hearings because they are two separate cases. Even
though we think of them as one unit, they are
two individual cases. And if the pro Board recommends that
(29:23):
they be released, actually they will announce that the same
day as the hearing for each brother, and so then
there's a waiting period of four months that will take place,
and then it lands on the desk of Governor Kavin Newsom,
and Governor Newsom could either agree with the pro Board
(29:44):
and you know if they recommend the brother's release, or
he could veto the recommendation of the pro Board and
you just won't know. If they are turned down initially
at the initial prole hearing, they could reapply after a
certain amount of time. But the most important thing is
they've never been eligible parole before. So this is really
(30:07):
a remarkable development. And as former LA County DA George
Gascon said last October when he announced that he was
initiating a resentsing potential for Eric and Lyolmanendez. And Gascon said,
Eric and Lyomanendez were sentenced to life without parole. They
(30:29):
thought they would never get out of prison, and yet
they chose a path of redemption. They chose to be
of service to their inmate community and developed programs that
help their fellow inmates, that helped the prison and I
think that says a lot about who they are. And
one of the key things that I think we have
(30:52):
to look at is what is the purpose of prison?
Speaker 2 (30:56):
Is?
Speaker 7 (30:57):
Are we trying to lock people up and throw away
the key or have Eric Lyle Menendas been punished enough
after thirty five years, Because.
Speaker 5 (31:06):
The purpose of prison is rehabilitation, right, It's not to
lock somebody away, it's to make them better. And it's punishment.
Of course, you do a bad thing, you have to
take the pain right that goes along with it. But
you know, what do you say to the criticism which
has been widely said that maybe the Menanda's brothers are
getting a leg up in this resentencing of it all
(31:27):
because of their documentary and because there has been a
scripted Ryan Murphy film about them. Does that mean that
we're cherry picking the justice system? Given their origin story,
it obviously shapes so much. But I would imagine many
people have an origin story that's painful.
Speaker 3 (31:46):
Do they get resentenced too?
Speaker 7 (31:48):
I believe that eric Lyle Menendez, again, if fish were
not a high profile media case heavily covered by the media,
that this would just be another case. There are three
In the year that eric A llioman Ands went on trial,
there were three thousand cases of parents who killed their children.
(32:13):
There were three hundred cases of kids who killed their parents.
And so, wow, that's an interesting statistic out of way.
Speaker 2 (32:22):
Interesting too, like it's the media that maybe put them
behind bars in the narrative of that, and frankly, maybe
it's a media that will get them out. It's kind
of a full circle.
Speaker 7 (32:33):
Interesting because for three years after eric A llioman Anders
were rushed, there were legal issues involving their therapists. They
contested that went all the way to the California Supreme Court,
and so the only story that people were told was
coming from the DA's office that we're talking about two
grite richids that killed Ozzie and Harriet of Sunday Night
(32:56):
in Beverly Hills, and the defense made what I consider
a taxayer. They didn't come out with anything of their
defense until two weeks before the first trial, and then
they talked about debuse in what the brothers had experienced
in their family.
Speaker 4 (33:12):
We are unfortunately running out of time. I feel like
we could talk to you for about six or more hours.
I really hope you come back and listen. You can
get a newly updated version of Robert Rand's book The
Menendez Murders, The shocking, untold story of the Menandez family
and the killings that stunned the nation. Get it on
Amazon wherever you get your books. Also follow him on
(33:32):
Instagram at I Am Robert Rand, where he blogs daily
about the Menendez case. Also, his website is rife with information.
It's so fascinating Menendez Murders dot com and you can
also catch this brilliant man on x at Menendez Rand.
Speaker 2 (33:49):
Thank you again for being here, and please call us
at eight eight eight three to one Crime, or you
could always call us on our socials at True Crime
Tonight's show for Instagram and TikTok. We're at True Crime
Tonight on Facebook. But First, we have a talkback, so
let's throw to that right now.
Speaker 9 (34:06):
Hi, my name is Kelly. I'm calling in or hitting
the little voice button in to ask you guys, if
you're getting a little deja vu with Travis Decker and
Brian Laundry and if you think the same results will occur,
do you think he's no longer with us or do
you think he's on the run.
Speaker 3 (34:27):
Such a good question.
Speaker 5 (34:28):
Last night I would have answered, and I did actually
answer on a TikTok live last night that I thought,
you know, maybe Travis Decker, you know, took his own life.
But now we have breaking news, right, we have breaking
news that we're going to be talking about that he
may have been spotted and the law enforcement is talking
(34:49):
about being alert and looking through you know, social media
posts that have taken place where they think they spotted him, right, Courtney, like,
that's the breaking news today.
Speaker 4 (34:58):
That's right. And just to catch people up, Travis Decker,
he is the man who is wanted for the death
of his three young daughters. And just breaking it is
believed that he was spotted in the Enchantments and that
is up in near the Canadian border. Authorities say they
believe they spotted Decker, who is an ex soldier, and
(35:21):
he was near a remote alpine lake in Washington State.
And this was after receiving a tip from hikers who
said they saw a lone person who appeared to be
ill prepared for the conditions. So it goes to show
you how important tips are and listening and having your
eyes in ears open are.
Speaker 2 (35:38):
And I guess that's the connection, right, that's the callback
to the tragedy of Gabby Patito's death and Brian Laundry,
who's the person you know who took her life and
then later took his because there was this national search, right,
and again he had been kind of in and around
a wooded area had been spotted. Everybody was being asked
(35:59):
to check their photographs and you know, sometimes you might
just be taking a picture of your loved one and
little do you know, the person in the background of
that photo is America's most wanted And I think that's
the connection here is, Yeah, this man is on the
loose and authorities are honing in on a very specific section.
Speaker 5 (36:19):
The headline said that there was a helicopter, like a
law enforcement helicopter like looking in this area and they
saw this loan hiker. And when this loan hiker realized
there was a helicopter up above, he like hid. So
they really think this is somebody that's trying to avoid
being detected, right, which leads them to believe it is
(36:40):
you know, it's this Travis Decker guy.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (36:43):
So God willing you know there might be breaking news
as we're live tonight.
Speaker 3 (36:47):
Yeah, and I hope it please be safe and then
around that area.
Speaker 4 (36:51):
Yes, great question, Kelly, Thank you, Thank you, Kelly.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
All that to be said, we are going to continue
to follow this real time just in case there are
some new deves. We'll be sharing it with you right
away and again be on the lookout. More on this
to come, because we are just getting started. This is
true crime tonight, talking true crime all the time. An
(37:21):
alleged serial killer potentially on the loose in New England.
So Courtney, what is happening?
Speaker 4 (37:27):
Well, listen, The body of twenty one year old Adriana
Suazo was found in the woods. This was in Milton,
Massachusetts last week. It is stoking the online rumor of
a New England serial killer. So this is the thirteenth
body found in a really small area where Connecticut Rhode
(37:47):
Island and Massachusetts meets and this is all within three months.
Speaker 3 (37:51):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (37:51):
So these killings have sparked a region wide public fear
of this potential serial killer law enforcement. This is really
pivotal to know. Law enforcement continues to deny these rumors
and just if anyone's hearing this and having some sort
of deja vu. We actually spoke about this case back
on June second, and at that point there were only
(38:12):
twelve victims. Wow, and now there's a thirteenth body and
some of.
Speaker 2 (38:17):
The mos don't appear to be similar. Right, So law
enforcement is essentially saying, look, these are individual horrors, right, like,
no death is you know, anything less than terrible beyond measure.
But there doesn't seem to be a real pattern per se.
But again, law enforcement of course needs to hold their
information close and really can't release too many details about
(38:40):
the manner of death, etc. Because they don't want people
saying crazy stuff or pretending like this actually happens. We've
covered this many times that people make fake confessions because
they see a little something in the news and they're like, oh, yeah,
there was strangulation. Can you imagine, Well, people, I mean,
the craving for no variety or whatever. I mean that
(39:01):
that's got to be some pathology that.
Speaker 3 (39:03):
Yeah, we should unpack that.
Speaker 4 (39:05):
We really should have an expert in who's you know,
got some letters behind their name. But yeah, there's got
to be there's got to be something to it. But yeah,
you're right about the emos being you know, a little
bit different for these bodies, so.
Speaker 3 (39:18):
Just as normal.
Speaker 5 (39:19):
Right, that's not normal for a serial killer to have
usually differ signature, right, Usually there's some kind of commonality,
and the police are saying there's been no commonality that
they've noticed, you know, but again, you guys, this is
happening in three different states, right, how well are those
agencies intercommunicating with one another, you know, because sometimes.
Speaker 3 (39:38):
They don't do that, right, Yeah, so true.
Speaker 5 (39:41):
So I mean that's another thing that's adding you know,
fuel to this speculation, is that you know, there's three
different investigative agencies covering you know, these three different states,
and how well are they communicating these emos and whatnot.
So all this is just adding fuel to the fire.
And you know, additionally, a serial killer is.
Speaker 3 (39:59):
A big deal.
Speaker 5 (40:00):
We we haven't had one in a while because there's so
much more rare today than they were, you know, back
in the Ted Bundy era, right yep. And there's a
lot of different reasons for that. Well, you know, one
thing is like the advancement in sciences, you know DNA now,
you know, usually it used to be that they could say, well,
this probably came from this person's head, this strand of hair, right,
(40:24):
because it's the same hair type, it's the same color,
things like that. But now they have like DNA that
they can pull from, you know, specific types of hair,
and they didn't used to be able to do that. Additionally,
the technology just in general, there's cameras everywhere. There's ring cameras,
atm cameras, there's you know, traffic stop cameras. You know,
(40:45):
there's all kinds of different ways to be seen. So
also something that's not talked about a whole lot is
the prison population has exploded, right, you know, the crimes
have been hit harder, like if you commit a crime now,
like for instance, California has a three strike law, and
there are people who applying that these serial killers are
(41:08):
already in jail for lesser crimes. So yeah, no, that's
an actual theory by like legit criminologists that you know,
serial killers. Potential serial killers might already be in jail
for maybe abusing someone or you know, torturing an animal
or arson any number of you know, predicates to serial killing.
(41:28):
So because crimes are being prosecuted harder, they're already in prison,
so they can't commit those those crimes.
Speaker 3 (41:36):
You know, We'll have to see. But I don't know there.
Speaker 4 (41:41):
Yeah, in the eighties and nineties my understanding, and actually
I want to talk about this later in the week.
I'm fairly certain there was a crazy uptick in incarceration
at that time, so that would also make sense in
addition to all of you know, the technological advance.
Speaker 2 (42:00):
How does anybody get away with anything these days? That is,
honestly get away with anything? My TV talks to me sometimes.
I don't know if you guys have ever had that experience.
I'm also a complete dummy, so let's just be clear.
But like, I go get to my coffee and I
was like morning and my TV starts talking to me.
Speaker 3 (42:15):
So it's been listening all night.
Speaker 2 (42:17):
It's been listening all morning, Like, we have no assumed
privacy at this point, and how did we get away
with anything?
Speaker 3 (42:23):
Like, how does a serial killer get away period.
Speaker 4 (42:27):
This is a creer. This is quite an aside. But
have either of you guys, Stephanie, I'm pretty sure you
did watch the HBO. It's a scripted It was a
scripted series called The Night of.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
Oh, it's so scary. I love it, love very.
Speaker 4 (42:43):
I think it's very I've watched episode one maybe four times.
I think it's maybe the most beautiful episode. I need
to watch it.
Speaker 3 (42:49):
I totally forgot all about that. YEA so good.
Speaker 4 (42:52):
And I bring it up because of the importance all
of these cameras at the bodega, at the traffic line,
when you're in the toll in your car, and stories
are just so much easier to timestamp.
Speaker 2 (43:07):
And that's why the Karen Read thing got back to
go back in time to an earlier segment. But Karen Read,
how do we have the timeline still messy? How is
that possible in today's day and age with phones and
technology and ring cameras and Lexus cars? I mean, how
are we not able to sort this stuff out?
Speaker 4 (43:24):
Right? And was it a headlight or a dog who'd
been chewing on a pig here? How is that?
Speaker 3 (43:30):
How is that so complicated?
Speaker 2 (43:31):
I think you solved it just a couple of days
ago court, Like, I thought that was brilliant. Your your
theory about the dog toy having you know, pig Hinde
in it, that was brilliant, And like, why are we not?
Speaker 3 (43:43):
Am I not seeing that everywhere totally?
Speaker 4 (43:45):
And credit where credits due? That was bodies. I was
the one enthusiastically nodding my head saying, yes, my dog
has bully sticks.
Speaker 3 (43:52):
You don't tell anybody, it's all you.
Speaker 4 (43:54):
If you want to weigh in on any of what
we've spoken about this evening, give us a call. We're
at eight to eighty three to one crime or send
us a talkback message. And speaking of talkbacks, we have
a new one now that we'd love to hear.
Speaker 2 (44:10):
Well.
Speaker 3 (44:10):
I love it talking.
Speaker 5 (44:11):
Hi.
Speaker 6 (44:11):
My name is Eva. I'm calling from Connecticut, really close
to where one of the victim's bodies of this potential
New England serial killer was found. Personally, I didn't think
that there was one, but after the thirteenth body, I'm
starting to entertain the possibility that there is a serial
killer on the loose. But I'm curious, what do you
guys think? Do you think that people are trying to
(44:32):
make something out of nothing? Just for the excitement of it,
or do you think there's a chance there actually is
a serial killer in New England.
Speaker 3 (44:39):
I'm right with you. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (44:41):
And by the way, serial killers, if this brings eva
any comfort, they are very rare. So we all kind
of obsess about serial killers because it is kind of
like a great white shark, right there's there's not many
of them. And it should also be comforting because we've
heard this from Scott Bond, who's an extraordinary expert in
serial killers.
Speaker 3 (45:00):
He told me once and it's stuck with me that.
Speaker 2 (45:03):
We are more likely to die from a vending machine
falling on us and killing us than we are from
a serial killer. So the good news is New England
it's rare. Just you know, we all have to be
vigilant and keep an eye out and trust your spidey sense.
Speaker 5 (45:19):
And I kind of am with the talkback person. I
kind of feel at first like people are kind of
making a mountain out of molehill, and you know, there's
no shared modus operandi with any of these bodies and whatnot.
Speaker 3 (45:32):
But now I'm kind of with her.
Speaker 5 (45:35):
I kind of feel like maybe there might be something
to this, so I'm keeping I'm in that big Facebook
group of seventy thousand, and I'm checking it every day,
and I find that I'm like kind of getting maybe
a little convinced, and maybe that's just you.
Speaker 4 (45:50):
Know, you're gonna have you, but you're gonna have a
tough job convincing me because given the information we have,
which is not all that much, I'm choosing in this
moment to sort of trust the experts and who knows
what is being withheld Stephanie to your earlier point, there
may be a lot of the investigations we don't know.
But there's a criminologist at Northwestern excuse me, Northeastern University
(46:13):
named James Allen Fox, and you know he flat out
said there's no pattern to the dump sites. Allegedly, some
of the deaths are being ruled a homicide, others there
is no sign of trauma. The connection is that these
bodies have been discovered by passers by in the woods
or remote areas, which is scary enough.
Speaker 3 (46:34):
A lot of body, right, it's a lot of bodies.
Speaker 2 (46:37):
It's a lot of random people that are killing I
don't know which. Never bet a serial killer or thirteen
random killers individual killers on the lease.
Speaker 4 (46:46):
Well, but I don't mean to laugh, but keep in
mind what authorities said, some of these have not been
rule homicides.
Speaker 3 (46:56):
Well, I mean, but they're all found in like remote
wooded areas, right, Yes, I am never in a remote
wooded area, thank you. We are not dying in a
position where.
Speaker 5 (47:06):
I'm dying like this can't be. No, what I'm trying
to say is, and I'm not trying to be glib,
but what I'm trying.
Speaker 3 (47:11):
To say is like this just seems.
Speaker 5 (47:14):
Like a lot like one or two okay, find they're
hiking or whatever. Thirteen that seems in a very short
period of time.
Speaker 4 (47:22):
In short, it's very short.
Speaker 5 (47:23):
And and let me be clear too, with serial killers,
usually there's a longer cooling off period, right, because let's
let's define what a serial killer is for everybody.
Speaker 3 (47:32):
Is that okay?
Speaker 7 (47:32):
Yes?
Speaker 5 (47:33):
And this is kind of interesting too. A serial killer
is somebody who has killed three or more people, three
or more people, and there's a cooling off period. And
a cooling off period can be you know, a week,
a month, a decade, you know, like with BTK there
was a massive puling off while, but it could even
(47:54):
be a day, right, it could even be a day.
So is this is this fit a serial killer? And
it does because there's three or more. There's a really
short cooling off period though that's the only thing like
it's I haven't run into very many serial killers that
have a day of cooling off. Usually it's a month
(48:14):
or longer. So the fact that this is all condensed
in a really short timeframe does kind of make me
think that it's not. So I'm I go back and forth.
I'm just gonna be honest, I go back and forth.
Speaker 2 (48:25):
Can I ask a question, just for a layman's question,
So if a person, if a serial killer, or if
a killer I should say, takes the lives of four
different people back to back Monday through Thursday, does that
make them a serial killer or that just makes them.
Speaker 3 (48:42):
A mass murderer?
Speaker 5 (48:43):
Now, a mass murderer is somebody who takes more than
one life in a in one geographical location.
Speaker 3 (48:50):
Right, So like one.
Speaker 5 (48:52):
Area life club, for example, puls Las Vegas shoot the
Las Vegas shootings that my brother was at. Actually he's okay,
he's good. But that's a mass that's a mass killing.
And what you just described like day day one, day two,
day three, day four, that would be a mass killing.
Speaker 2 (49:08):
Wow, we have our Kati friend of the family and
producer Brian natt Miller, who's been following an insane case.
I shouldn't say insane, we should reserve judgment. Is following
a very interesting case. I've got a cult. This is
in cult and it's a mixed bag of a lot.
So Brian, welcome.
Speaker 10 (49:29):
Well, thanks for having me. Courty body. You know I'm
fans of all three of you, so thanks for having
me on the show. I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (49:35):
We're so happy to have you here.
Speaker 5 (49:37):
You're here to talk about my favorite subject, Brian.
Speaker 3 (49:40):
Cults.
Speaker 10 (49:42):
You yeah, culture, one of my favorite two, and this
one in particular is I don't know how to say.
It's just bananas. It's not at all. It is like
a typical cult.
Speaker 3 (49:53):
It is. Tell us about it, Yeah, tell us everything.
Speaker 10 (49:56):
I mean, I think most people think about cults. I
think religious cults. You know someone who is charismatic leader
and they're the next community Jesus or they tell people
they can take them to the Promised Land or whatever
it is. And this is not that. This is a
group called the Zizians that sort of are They're a
fringe group from the Bay Area, like that are largely
(50:16):
made up for the most part, fairly smart people. They
are people who are in the Silicon Valley world and
the tech world, had big degrees and computer science and whatnot,
and they are this fringe group that developed this really
radical set of beliefs that blends everything from things called
radical veganism and very unique transgender identity beliefs and some
(50:39):
pretty out there dystopian AI theories that have sort of
made up the core of what their sort of belief
system is that has led them down some pretty bizarro
paths and have led now to multiple homicides as well
as a litany of other charges across four different states.
Speaker 2 (50:59):
Wait, pack that. So you said, let's go one at
a time. Radical veganism. I'm gluten free, Please you not judge.
So radical veganism sounds right at my alley.
Speaker 3 (51:10):
What is that?
Speaker 10 (51:11):
First and foremost, Well, let's start with the AI think first,
because the AA beliefs of theirs lead into the veganism.
So to simplify it, they really believe in something called
the singularity that we're going to hit a point at
some point when AI is going to surpass human intelligence
and suddenly be essentially take over the world and the
(51:32):
computers are going to rule the people, and they believe that.
You know, look, there's a lot of talk about AI
good and bad in the other but they really believe
AI is going to take over the world. We're going
to become like enslaved to it. And part of their
belief was that AI was going to use meat industry
the blueprint for how society works, so that would get
AIS the tools that needed to sort of like figure
(51:54):
out how to control humanity. So part of what they
believed was not only should everyone be vegan, but they
have to convince all the people who create AI to
be vegan and convince them to embed withinn AI. That's
belief that animals are important beans that should be respected.
Otherwise AI is not going to respect animals, therefore won't
respect us, and we're all going to die.
Speaker 2 (52:15):
Oh okay, this is a loop because we were talking
about AI last night, Brian, and it was very, very scary,
So you know, that is a thing. But regardless, so
they believe that if you don't eat meat, and that
will inform AI to also be conscientious about meat eating,
(52:36):
and therefore they would be more conscientious about human life.
Speaker 3 (52:40):
Is that accurate.
Speaker 10 (52:41):
That is, yeah, just to sort of what one of
their core beliefs were that it is Wow. Yeah, it's
like I said, it's pretty out there. It's not it's
Nike any other cult I've looked into, which is what
drew me into this in the first place, because it
is just fascinating how they have all these different beliefs
have come together to sort of like if I sort
(53:02):
of informed their mantra as they move forward, I mean
they but at our court, they believed that they were
the only people on the planet who were really doing good,
Like they felt like this was the only way to
save humanity. The zizz Lesota, who was the sort of
like La Soda, who was sort of like the figurehead
of this group, actually had said at one point, I'm
(53:24):
actually willing to die to advance good and thought that
like this, like she was on the righteous path. At
one point, Alfo said that you know, you shouldn't trust
anyone over thirty who had to kill count of zero
because they believe it it's perfectly acceptable to take out
people if that means helping the animals and helping the
heralding off becoming apocalypse with Apocalypse with Ai.
Speaker 4 (53:46):
So Brian, don't trust anyone over thirty with a kill
count of zero.
Speaker 10 (53:54):
That was one of the fine quotes that I had read. Yes, wow, that's.
Speaker 3 (53:59):
Pretty and they're super smart too.
Speaker 10 (54:02):
Yeah, that's the thing they you know, the Ziz let's
know that actually interned at NASA, and multiple other members
within the group had different jobs at places like Google
and other big tech and engineering firms. Like these were
not you know, these actors that were well educated, that
(54:22):
most of them came from fairly well to do families.
And again like when they started out, they started sort
of following what was called like the rationalist movement, which
is something that's you know, is a lot of people
in Silicon Valley sort of like are part of, and
at its core, rationalist is someone who believes that they
need to take and engage in important conversations to come
(54:47):
up with ways of thinking clearly for the sake of
humanity's future, to sort of double check themselves into the
Silicon Valley like because they are going to help the
thrower going too far, you know, And it's they have
different rationalist conferences and different groups that try to spur
healthy dialogue and conversation because technology is growing so fast, I.
Speaker 4 (55:05):
Might be conflating something I've read I have been reading
up on the Zizians. Is there some aspect that has
to do with people having two separate brains and to
the point where one half of your brain can be
completely asleep while the other half is completely conscious.
Speaker 10 (55:23):
That is another thing they believe that they developed sort
of late in their formation of their group, if you will.
They believe that you could that all brains have two hemispheres,
and that your different hemispheres can possess completely different everything,
different moral values, you can have different feelings, you can
have even different genders, like you can be male and
(55:46):
female at the same time. And they believe your brain
can be good, but your brain can be bad, and
that you can actually, yeah, have half your brain be
asleep while the rest of you is awakened conscious, And
they had this very unique sort of dual hemispheric what
everyone calls sort of theory about brain chemistry, which is
worth noting there is no scientific evidence in any different
(56:09):
scientific world that says that there's any validity to this.
Speaker 5 (56:13):
So all this is like super interesting, like their beliefs
and whatnot in who they are at their core, but
it's not illegal.
Speaker 3 (56:20):
Like, what had they done? What crimes have they committed?
Speaker 10 (56:23):
That's where it gets Yeah, that's sort of interesting. They've
done a lot of interesting crimes as interesting as the
wrong words they've They've been a part of a variety
of crimes. I should say that started with a protest
that they were added a rationalist movement that got out
of hand. That led to their being arrested for various
small charges of you know, issues with resisting arrest and
(56:46):
things like that. But that was the first time they
sort of got on the map with some press back
and I was actually in twenty nineteen. That led to
all kinds of interesting courtroom drama that then a couple
of years later, twenty two they're you.
Speaker 7 (57:02):
Know, head of the group.
Speaker 10 (57:03):
Viz Lasoda faked her own death and faked drowning in
the bay in San Francisco, which you know, faking on
death is a belony, and they spent something like almost
a whole day with coast guard and helicopters, all kinds
of stuff trying to find her too. She eventually was
declared dead, only to turn up later and believe that
(57:24):
she faked on death to get out of issues resulting
around this protest they were at. But you get a
you know, further down the line here and suddenly they
are involved in an attempted murder. They're involved in a
actual and a murder of a landlord of a club
where some of their members were staying. They are persons
(57:44):
of interest in the murder of two parents of one
of their members, and they are they also were in
a gun shootout with the US Border Patrol that sadly
took the life of a Border Patrol agents. And then
they yeah, yes they did. They killed They shot a
one of their members, shot a boarder or court is
(58:06):
still coming, so allegedly shot a Border Patrol agents, right,
and then a litany of other various state and federal
charges for gun possession and all kinds of other small crimes.
Speaker 3 (58:19):
So it's alleged.
Speaker 5 (58:20):
It's alleged that they killed one of the member's parents.
Speaker 10 (58:25):
Yes, there are one of the members. Her parents were
found shot in their home. This was uh, yeah, this
was Richard and Rita Jaco. Their daughter, Michelle is one
of the members of the group. And they were found
shot in Michelle's actual childhood bedroom a neighbor's ring. Cam
(58:49):
uh picked up two people entering the house, not clear
enough that they were able to make an idea of them,
but the neighbors ring cam did pick up some interesting audio.
They picked up a calling out mom before hearing another
voice calling out, oh my god, oh my god.
Speaker 5 (59:06):
Oh my god, oh my god.
Speaker 4 (59:09):
That's wicked.
Speaker 10 (59:12):
And so Michelle is currently named as a person of
interest in their killings. And there's lots of weird gun stuff.
So there's other arrest at a hotel and other different
times members got arrested. They always had guns on them
and always had were always arms at a teeth ready
to fight. And one of the guns that was found
at one of these other arrests massed the serial number
(59:35):
to a gun that was owned by Michelle, the same
caliber of gun that was involved in the shooting of
her parents, and it is strongly speculated that that is
the murder weapon, but are not officially but announced by police.
Yet police just got that gun in custody just earlier
this year.
Speaker 4 (59:53):
So are all these.
Speaker 5 (59:54):
People just walking the streets or has any of this
been adjudicated or has anybody been charged officially?
Speaker 10 (01:00:00):
Best thing, there's been a lot of people have been charged. Interestingly,
the biggest murder here that of the or the biggest
killing that of Michelle's parents. No one's officially been charged
with that yet. Michelle has just been named as a
person of interest. A member has been charged with murder
and the shooting of the border patrol agent. A member
has been charged with murder in the killing of their
(01:00:21):
landlord in California. And I think one of the interesting
things about this, this whole case is that these crimes
took place spanning over three years across four states. So
you have a lot of charges of both state charges
and federal all in the mix here, and.
Speaker 4 (01:00:37):
A lot that we will continue following and hopefully you
will be back with us. Brian, thank you so much
for you know, explaining all of that to us. Come back.
We are going to dive into four execution cases that
are happening, and don't forget to give us a call
eighty to eight thirty one Crime, keep it here, True
Crime Tonight.
Speaker 2 (01:01:10):
Lots of discuss in terms of executions. You know, we've
been covering the Brian Coburger case for a while now.
He's the accused in the Idaho college murders, looking at
a potential death sentence, and you know it kind of
occurred to us that in Idaho, if in fact he
is found guilty and sentenced to death, he may be
put to death by a firing squad, right, which just
(01:01:31):
seemed like very archaic, And I just got us thinking
about just this type of sentencing in general, and there
seemed to be quite a few happening in the United
States real time, frankly at the same time.
Speaker 4 (01:01:43):
At the same time.
Speaker 3 (01:01:44):
Yeah, we have like four by four by four.
Speaker 5 (01:01:46):
Right, So there's over the next four days, four inmates
in four states are scheduled to be put to death,
and that's pretty unusual. I mean, certainly there's been strings
of executions, but I don't I don't recall they're usually
pretty rare, right, I don't recall like four happening in
four days across four states.
Speaker 4 (01:02:06):
Yeah, this is unusual and completely note and newsworthy.
Speaker 5 (01:02:10):
Right, right, So there's one today in Alabama and Florida.
Speaker 3 (01:02:16):
Wow, And then another in Oklahoma.
Speaker 5 (01:02:18):
Is going to occur on Thursday, and a final one
is slated for Friday in South Carolina.
Speaker 4 (01:02:24):
You know.
Speaker 5 (01:02:25):
And again, a string of executions is fairly normal, but
I just this back to back to back seems kind
of unusual, which you know, of course raised kind of
alarm bells with us, right, So today in Alabama, Gregor,
I kind of want to get into them just a
little bit if it's okay, but yeah, sure. So today
in Alabama, Gregory Hunt will be executed for the nineteen
(01:02:47):
eighty eight murder and sexual assault of his girlfriend, twenty
nine year old Karen Lane on August twelfth, Lane, nineteen
eighty eight. This happened many years ago. Lane was found
beaten to death. She suffered sixty injuries, including twenty to
the head, in her own apartment.
Speaker 3 (01:03:03):
He was convicted.
Speaker 5 (01:03:04):
Gregory Hunt was convicted two years later in nineteen ninety
and sentenced to death. So he's been on death row
since nineteen ninety, which is going thirty five years, right,
and that we're going to speak about that later and
discuss why this is an issue, right And then also
today in Florida. In Florida, though Anthony Wainwright will be
(01:03:24):
executed for the nineteen ninety three murder, kidnapping, and sexual
battery of twenty three year old Carmen Gayheart. In April
of ninety four, Wainwright and a friend both they both
escaped from prison. By the way in North Carolina abducted
Gayheart from a supermarket parking lot in Florida. They forcibly
raped her then shot her twice in the back of
(01:03:45):
the head. I mean, listen, if there's any kind of
cases that deserve the death penalty, right, I mean these
are He was sentenced to death in nineteen ninety five
and he will be executed with nitrogen gas. Florida is
one of the states that allows you to choose how
you get executed, and he chose nitrogen gas.
Speaker 3 (01:04:03):
Yeah, I can't even think about it. It makes me.
Speaker 4 (01:04:06):
And he chose nitrogen gas? Is that over electrocution?
Speaker 1 (01:04:11):
Right?
Speaker 3 (01:04:11):
And why is that?
Speaker 2 (01:04:12):
There has been a lot of conversation about execution generally speaking,
or the electric chair is inhumane?
Speaker 5 (01:04:19):
Right, So there's well, even even the nitrogen gases, you know,
according to the UN.
Speaker 3 (01:04:25):
Right, the UN says that this is in humane as well.
Speaker 5 (01:04:29):
And you know, listen, a lot can be said to that, right,
There's an argument to be made, like, you know, he
didn't care about her life when he took her life,
so why should we care.
Speaker 3 (01:04:37):
About I don't know.
Speaker 5 (01:04:39):
Yeah, I know, Like it's listen, we're the United States
of America. I believe we're supposed to be a shining beacon, right,
We're supposed to set the exist. This is just my
belief allegedly, you know, this is all just my opinion.
I believe we're supposed to be a shining beacon of
moral right and you know, being the best people life right.
(01:05:00):
And I just feel like if we're being criticized by
what we consider to be third world countries in how
we handle things in the death penalty being inhumane, then
maybe there's something that we should examine.
Speaker 3 (01:05:13):
I do. It would be very difficult. It is that
we're going out advice.
Speaker 2 (01:05:17):
If it was my family member, I know, you don't
get me started, right, I am not embarrassed to say
what I would think. The love of life, I can't
even imagine in that spot, so thank God, but it
would be very difficult to be on it.
Speaker 3 (01:05:31):
It was trial too, you know.
Speaker 5 (01:05:33):
I But you know, we have to think too though,
like people who are family members of these victims. When
you have a death penalty sentence on you, you get
appeal after appeal after appeal like automatic they and as
a family member, I would want to go to those
appeals and be like no, you know, so you're being
tortured constantly as a family member, right, having to constantly
(01:05:56):
fight for your family member, whereas in prison maybe without
the possibility of parroll like the Menentaz brothers for instance,
you don't have that. And so is it easier on
the family, I don't know.
Speaker 4 (01:06:07):
Well, I think that depends very much on each individual family.
You know, some it may be their guiding force, their
guiding force in light to be pursuing the death penalty
for someone taking their loved one.
Speaker 3 (01:06:20):
I always so. Yeah, I was going to.
Speaker 4 (01:06:22):
Say, so four are slated, as you said, body, but
I feel like it's a very high percentage where last
minute interventions happen on the day, So even for the
executions that are slated for Luckily you said Thursday and Friday.
Speaker 5 (01:06:39):
Right, So, speaking of what you just said, on Thursday,
in Oklahoma, John Hansen will be executed for the nineteen
ninety nine murder and kidnapping of seventy seven year old
Mary Bowels.
Speaker 3 (01:06:50):
Now, oh, Mary, I know it's horrible.
Speaker 7 (01:06:53):
Right.
Speaker 5 (01:06:53):
He is set to be executed by lethal injection on Thursday. However,
the execution is on hold. Do it do a temporary
stay due to legal concerns about alleged bias during a
clemency hearing. So that one, we're not really sure if
that one is actually going to happen or not. So
that's one that might be pulled last minute, right because
it's scheduled to happen in two days. On Friday, in
(01:07:17):
South Carolina, Stephen Stanko will be executed for the two
thousand and five murder of his girlfriend, forty three year
old Linda Ling and his friend seventy four year old
Henry Lee Turner. And that happened in April of two
thousand and five. Stanko strangled Ling in her room in
her home, raped her, and slit the throat of her daughter,
who survived.
Speaker 3 (01:07:38):
Oh come up.
Speaker 5 (01:07:39):
He then drove to Henry Turner's house and fatally shot him.
So yeah, I mean, these are heinous, heinous, heinous crimes
and terrible people, Like, by no stretch of the imagination,
these people are terrible. But you know, again, if you're
a family member, I can I can absolutely understand I
for an eye and like wanting some kind of revenge,
Like I absolutely absolutely understand that I have an aunt
(01:08:04):
who was murdered when I you know, was little. I
absolutely understand that I just don't know. I just don't
know if it's the right thing to do. And that's
just like my own personal belief because it's not. A
death penalty has never been proven to be a deterrent.
If it was, there would never be a homicide in Texas, Like, right,
(01:08:25):
do you know what I mean? Like, there would never
be another if you're worried about if you're worried about
the death penalty, like I better not do this because
I'm going to get the death penalty. There would never
be another crime, right, another murder? There would never be one.
Speaker 2 (01:08:37):
It's interesting too, because we always I've always heard the argument,
and I say always in air quotes. But you know,
people say, look, you know, why should we pay to
keep somebody in prison till the end of days? It's
you know, eye for an eye. And by the way,
I don't know where I stand on this. I haven't
been in this situation, thankfully. I don't know how I
would feel if someone, you know, took the life of
(01:08:59):
my my mother or a brother. You know, God forbid
your child, you know. So this is an observation. I
genuinely don't know where to sit with this. I do
find it fascinating when you see a parent of somebody
whose life has been taken at some of these death
sentence trials and they give forgiveness. That takes a lot
(01:09:20):
of really takes your breath away. When someone stands there
and says, I forgive, I forgive you, and I don't
want there to be a death sentence.
Speaker 9 (01:09:28):
Wow?
Speaker 2 (01:09:28):
Is that powerful? I don't know if I'm as I
don't know if I could.
Speaker 3 (01:09:31):
Pull that off.
Speaker 4 (01:09:32):
And Stephanie, you know you mentioned people making the argument
of oh, why pay to keep someone alive all of
these years in prison? But largely life in prison is
less expensive than actually the death penalty, and that's because
there are so many more trials and appeals. Body, as
(01:09:54):
you mentioned, the legal processes in these capital cases are
so much more complex. And you know, we've had the
luxury of speaking to Kirk Nurmi, who is a defense
attorney and defended Jody Arius in a death sentenced trial,
(01:10:15):
and it's really interesting to truly appreciate the complexities of
how everything every word that you say is going to
be looked at for at least a decade and tried
and retried. And the lawyer ring is it simply is
more expensive because the lawyers have many more qualifications. It
(01:10:37):
is not a simple task to be a death penalty
certified right.
Speaker 5 (01:10:42):
Well, we learned that like with Brian Coberger, right, and
Taylor is like one of only one, like two accredited
death penalty lawyers in the county.
Speaker 2 (01:10:55):
In kurtnermy to Courtney's point, this defense attorney, he made
it very clear. I mean, imagine you're defending a person's life.
It is life and death. There's no room for error.
This is like you don't just throw a clown in
the cockpit of an airplane.
Speaker 3 (01:11:10):
Right.
Speaker 2 (01:11:10):
This has to be highly regarded, highly sought through to
avoid endless amounts of appeals, right, which is the first
thing anybody does after sentencing, seemingly so it is high
stake stuff. And you bring up Brian Coberger and the
Idaho College murders. So much has been made about his
defense team and the cost of them, And frankly I
(01:11:30):
thought the same thing. I was like, expensive, this is
like costing the state of Idaho so much money. But
Milani Nurmi was very clear to say, look, what's the alternative.
Speaker 3 (01:11:39):
What if he's innocent?
Speaker 4 (01:11:41):
That's right? And further, if you don't you know, dot
every eye and cross every tee along the way, it's
almost a guaranteed complete retrial and having to start the
process and pay for it all over again. It's really
complicated stuff. And guys, I'm actually I'm getting a signal
that we have a talk back.
Speaker 3 (01:12:01):
Maybe we go to that first.
Speaker 11 (01:12:03):
Hi, ladies, this is Velma. I'm calling from Philly. I
just have a question in general, what are your feelings
on the role that social media plays when it comes
to these cases? And I also wanted to say I
love the show and you guys are doing a great job.
Speaker 3 (01:12:20):
Oh, Belma, nice, so nice.
Speaker 5 (01:12:23):
And that's a great question, right, So what kind of
impact does social media have on cases like That's something
that I could probably do a whole segment on.
Speaker 3 (01:12:30):
By the way, we should.
Speaker 5 (01:12:32):
I think it's god, you know, it's where do I begin?
So open cases, right, so cases that haven't been adjudicated
or there hasn't been any charges. I think social media
has a tremendous impact on you know, people believe something
and you know, they have the access to the Internet,
(01:12:52):
They're going to be able to espouse their opinion very loudly,
potentially to a large number of people. Every single day,
and you know, maybe whip the public up into a
frenzy over something maybe that's not even true, right, something
that maybe they sleuthed on that they they've can you know,
confirmed their own bias about something, and now they have.
Speaker 3 (01:13:13):
A microphone and hours to talk about it.
Speaker 5 (01:13:15):
And I think that could be potentially dangerous in you know.
Speaker 3 (01:13:19):
Polluting a jury pool. And is that algorithm, you know, right?
Is that algorithm fair? You know?
Speaker 2 (01:13:25):
Sometimes I'll see stuff online and we'll flag it amongst
each other when we're talking and we have to fact checked,
you know, just because somebody says it doesn't make it
so right.
Speaker 5 (01:13:36):
And but there's so many people who believe, you know,
maybe maybe it's a somebody you follow on X or
YouTube that you've maybe been watching or listening to for years,
and so you kind of believe everything that comes out
of their mouth, and they say X is responsible for
this crime, and you believe it, and they you know,
(01:13:57):
I've even seen cases where they're literally making evidence up
and presenting it or putting it.
Speaker 2 (01:14:03):
On social media as facts so that they could regurgitate
it in court.
Speaker 3 (01:14:07):
Right. Scary.
Speaker 4 (01:14:09):
I think it can be really yeah, I think it
can be really dangerous and even in the Brian Kolberger case,
which you just mentioned that we'll be coming up, it
was social media that really spread the utter lie that
the poor guy who was doing his job at the
food truck the night that these four college students, you know,
(01:14:30):
had their lives ended, and it can create absolute witch
hunts that are dangerous and body to your point, absolutely
contained a jury.
Speaker 3 (01:14:40):
Right, It's so true.
Speaker 2 (01:14:41):
I always say, when in doubt, let's put that person
in front of Courtney Armstrong herself, because she's a human
lie detector. Is she sometimes oh yeah, I'm a supersucker
and then leave something.
Speaker 3 (01:14:52):
I'll be like, oh yeah, they seem amazing, and.
Speaker 2 (01:14:53):
Courtney's like and by the way, she's always right and
always wrong.
Speaker 5 (01:15:01):
I need to take the Courtney with me out on
my social Literally, she can sniff it out pretty well.
Speaker 2 (01:15:07):
You know how I'm not in a cult is pretty extraordinary.
But listen, we're gonna cover all that and more so. Obviously,
Brian Coburger, the trial is upon us. He's looking for
a delay, so we'll have some new information tomorrow. And also,
Karen Reid watching we are standing by, definitely want to
hear from you all. So make sure you wait in
(01:15:29):
eight eight eight three one crime, True Crime, Tonight, good Night,
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.