September 23, 2025 • 50 mins
When a quadruple homicide occurs in Austin, Texas in 1991 at an “I Can’t Believe it’s Yogurt” shop, it results in multiple false confessions and an innocent man on death row.
Emily and Shane are discussing the infamous cold case that has yet to be solved due to a lack of DNA evidence, a crime scene set on fire & police narrowing in on the wrong suspects.
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):
Hi guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I
will be your host today, Emily Simpson with Shane Shane Simpson.
First of all, again just a reminder, we are now
on our own feed, so if you could, if you
love listening to us, you can go over to our
feed called Legally Brunette. It's so much easier to find
(00:22):
now click follow, so make sure you're following us and
all of our episodes are now populated there so you
don't have to kind of go through two Teas to
locate them. Also, just a big shout out and thank
you to Two Teas. That was definitely a huge help
for us to launch this podcast. It allowed us to
have an audience that could come and listen and really
enjoy us. So a big thank you to them for
(00:44):
allowing us to get our start.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Yes, thank you.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
So today, let's do just a little bit of updates.
There were a couple of things in the news that
I wanted to talk about because we've been following Menandez
through all of this, so there were some new things
that came up, so let's just go through those. First
of all, if you remember we talked about in earlier episodes.
If you want to go back and listen to any
of our earlier Menindez episodes, there was a habeas petition
(01:07):
before Judge Ryan and that was basically asking for a
new trial based on new evidence. So recently the judge,
Judge Ryan denies the Menindez brothers petition for a new
trial and their latest setback that was an ABC News article.
So last Tuesday, had Judge denied the Menindez brothers Habeas
corpus petition which they had submitted back in twenty twenty three.
(01:29):
That was to throw out their old conviction and receive
a new trial based on recently discovered evidence. And if
you do remember the two new pieces of evidence, do
you remember what they were? The two new pieces of
evidence was.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
A letter from a childhood or a longtime friend or cousin, Yeah,
that claimed abuse. So it kind of corroborated the stories
that the father was abuse, right.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
It was a letter that Eric Menindez had written to
his cousin Andy basically alluding to the sexual abuse by
his father Jose. So that was included in the habeas
And the second piece of new evidence, do you remember
the second one? The fingerprints on the knife no, no,
there was no knife in case Ron case it was.
(02:14):
There was a documentary that came out about the Menudo.
A member of the Menudo, remember the band.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Was another witness testimony, right.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Roy Roussello, that's his name. I watched it. He also
came forward and said that when he was a member
of Menudo and he was very young, that he was
also abused by Jose. And so those were the two
pieces of corroborating evidence. However, the judge said that the
(02:42):
nineteen eighty eight letter from Andy Cano, who was the cousin,
about alleged abuse, was not very strong, even saying it
contradicted the brother's attempts at a new trial. The judge said,
neither piece of newly discovered evidence is particularly strong. The
Cano letter contradicts in part the testimony of Eric and
Andy Canno, who testified in the original trials. It also
(03:04):
only corroborates what was already discussed at length by both witnesses.
The two did discuss Jose's abuse. At best, it does
not additionally inform the jury of petitioner's alleged fear at
the time of the murders, and at worst, it puts
a crack and the credibility of both witnesses. I'm not
sure exactly what he means by the credibility of both witnesses,
but I do understand where he's saying. The main issue
is whether they were justified in killing their parents that
(03:28):
night because they were fearful of their life, and that's
why they claim that they got the shotguns and they
shot their parents because they were afraid their parents were
going to kill them. And he's saying, this letter corroborates
the abuse, but it doesn't help.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
With the women at fear the eminent fear exactly.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
The judge also disputed the relevance of testimony from Roy Rosello,
who is the member of Menudo. As for the Rosello
declaration that corroborates the general allegation that Jose was sexually
abusive of boys and young men, but it is not
relevant to the petitioner's state of mind at the time
of murders. It's the same thing. It's saying, Yeah, again,
this corroborates that he was sexually abusive. However, again it doesn't.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
It just stops there. Yeah, Okay, we're not fine. There's abuse,
but there's more needed in order to have a better
defense exactly.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
So, speaking at a news conference on Tuesday after the
judge's decision, La County District Attorney Nathan Hakman told reporters
that the judge's decision amounted to a full cabash on
the brothers habeas petition. And he's right now that the
judge made a decision on the habeas petition. There's there's
no other road that's done. There's nothing else to do,
(04:34):
so that road is blocked. They still have the possibility
of getting out on parole, which we spoke about previously
when we did an episode on that's.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Not for three years.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Well, it said remember we were, it said eighteen months
they would be eligible. I think they they in eighteen
months they can start petitioning for parole and probably start.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
But if all goes well, it wouldn't be sooner than.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Three to be sooner than three years. So anyway, that
is their other option. And then there's always the option
that Governor Newsome decides to uh.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
He actually wakes up and he wakes up attention.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
He's like, what he could commute them and you know,
maybe getting people's.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Good greases exactly, and the Menudo brothers and they're like, no, sir,
Menendez brothers. We've gone over this before.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
It's Menendez, all right. So that is an update on Menendez.
We'll keep following that and see what happens. I don't
know what do you think the likelihood of them ever?
Do you think they'll be paroled at some point? No, no,
you don't.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
I have no reason to think they would in three
years versus right now. All that's happened. Well, I don't
know what could happen in the next three years. I
guess they would have to use any different because then't
they have like cell phone use. So they were.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Right, they had some infractions and they had cell phone use.
So I guess if they were just had a clean
record for the next three years and they didn't have
any maybe then you know, I think it's a possibility,
but maybe again, we'll see. We'll continue to follow it.
Another update, just a brief update on Lively in Baldoni.
We took a step back from that because I was
tired of talking about Blake Lively. But I think there's
(06:09):
some interesting things that have come up in the trial recently,
or not the trial, but the case. They're going to
go to trial next spring at least that's on the calendar.
We'll see what continues to happen. But Justin Baldoni has
hired Alexandra's Shapiro to join his legal team amid his
ongoing case with Blake Lively. If you don't remember the
name of Alexandra Shapiro, she was part of Ditty's defense team.
(06:32):
The addition of Shapiro to Baldoni's team comes as he
is facing further scrutiny as another individual has come forward
with claims of harassment. This is according to a newly
filed court document, which was obtained by The Daily Mail. Also,
I do remember when we talked, when I read all
the legal documents in the beginning, when it came to
Blake Lively, her original CRT, I think that's what it
(06:54):
was called. It was the civil rights violation. Remember, it
wasn't an actual This is.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
The form the allegations.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
And she alleged in that first initial complaint that there
was someone else on this set that also had filed
something against him for harassment, but she didn't name who
it wasn't there wasn't any details and it was very vague,
So I don't know if this is the same person.
Or if this is someone different that they managed to find.
(07:28):
In a sworn declaration filed by Blake Lively's lawyer, the
individual whose name has been redacted alleged they endured repeated
negative interactions with mister Baldoni and his associates, including verbal
abuse by mister Baldoni. The unnamed person further claimed that
Baldoni was not permitted on set during the majority of
production as a result of those experiences. I don't know
(07:50):
if this person is referring to it ends with us.
We've already discussed the fact that he wasn't allowed on
set because Blake Lively make sure.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
That he was.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
He was taken off of the movie, So I don't know. Also,
it's very hard for me to find this man to
be verbally abusive. After all of the research. I've done everything,
I've read, all of his text messages, all of his
communications with Blake Blake Lively. I don't find him to
be a.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Verbally find her to be more verbally abusive than him. Well,
I find things you've read and seen.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Yeah, I mean, I've seen a lot of interviews with
her where she's very self righteous.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
But even the text messages.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
She is and so I don't know. It's hard for
me to believe that there's any type of verbal abuse
when it comes to this man, I don't know, I
don't I don't find it. I don't know. We'll have
to have more information to find it credible. But the
individual also said they requested that Baldoni not be involved
in marketing or public relations efforts, which I again, I
believe that that was Blake Lively requesting that he not
(08:55):
be involved in any of the marketing. And he was
removed from a lot of the things, even a premiere day, right, Yeah,
he was in the basement at premiere days. So I
don't know who this other person is. This will be
interesting once that comes out. A source told TMC that
the individual is likely to testify against Justin and Lively's trial.
The filing also references Baldoni's business partner, Wayfair co founder
(09:16):
Steve Sorrowitz, noting that the accuser had been contacted by
sorrowitz assistant to arrange a meeting, though no specific topic
for the discussion was identified. The document was filed on
September fourth of twenty twenty five and was submitted under
penalty of perjury. Okay, I find this interesting because we'll
continue to follow that because again, when we talked about
(09:36):
this case earlier, Sorrowitz is kind of like a silent partner.
But I do remember that she made allegations that he
was on set when she was doing the birthing scene
and that she was uncomfortable with him being there, and
that I don't know. I just again, it just seems.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Who would work with her? Again, I wouldn't.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Well, when she reaches out to you and asks you
to be in her next movie, you can.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Tell her how I feel like I would. However, paying attention,
my wife doesn't like you, no, allegedly alleged.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
We're gonna go on and move on to the bulk
of what we're going to talk about today, which is
the Yogurt Shot Murders. This is a four part HBO series.
It was recently just came out on HBO, so if
you have the opportunity to watch it, I think it
was very very interesting. It was done well.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
So.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
The Yogurt Shop Murders refer to a nineteen ninety one
unsolved quadruple homicide of four teenage girls at an Austin, Texas.
I can't believe it's yogurt. Do you remember that? Do
you remember those?
Speaker 2 (10:47):
No, I just remember I can't believe it's not butter. Oh, Margarine,
I don't remember that.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Yeah, well I do remember that. Yeah, I can't believe
it's yogurt. They called it icbuy.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Well, I'm sure it was a play on that phrase. Yeah,
either way, right, so this was yeah, okay, now I remember, Yeah,
the acronym icby they were popular.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Like now, it's yogurt land right here. I don't know
in other places, but here in southern California, there's a
ton of yogurt lands. But it's the same it's the
same concept, but it was called I can't believe it's yogurt.
It was a crime that shocked the community and left
a lasting trauma. The victims were forced to the back
of the shop. This is four young teenage girls, the
four victims and the yogurt shop murders. Two of the girls,
(11:29):
Eliza and Jennifer, who were both seventeen at the time,
worked at the shop.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
So they're closing shops. It was like eleven o'clock at night.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Yeah, it's the end of the night. They're closing. There's
two girls at work there. They're closing the shop. That's
Eliza and Jennifer. They're seventeen. Sarah, who was fifteen, was
Jennifer's younger sister, and then she was there with her
best friend Amy, who was thirteen. So you have four
teenage girls in a yogurt shop chatting, having a good
time cleaning up, closing a shop. Someone comes in and
(12:00):
forces them to the back of the shop, ties them up,
gags them, and then shot all four girls to death
before the shop was then set on fire. The case
has remained a significant mystery for years, complicated by aggressive
interrogation tactics which we're going to get into that led
to false confessions and questionable evidence, before newer technology and
investigations brought new focus to the case again. A docuseries
(12:25):
titled The Yogurt Shop Murders chronicles the tragedy. It's on HBO. Also,
what I thought was interesting about The Yogurt Shop Murders
on HBO is the new director used a lot of
old footage from I think Variety was going to do
a docuseries on it, but for some reason it never happened,
So they have all this footage.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
You're saying a docuseries was initiated, was initiated, Maybe they
went through they did a significant amount of it, and
then they dropped it.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
And then they dropped it. I don't know why it.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Was dropped, picked up where it left off and added
to it.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
And now now this is recent just it just came
out in twenty twenty five, in August, So they've used
a lot of that older footage, but they've also added
in a lot of new interviews with the family. Also,
what's different about the Yogurt shot murders. It's true crime,
but I think the director she didn't focus on true crime.
She focused on the impact that grief has on the family. Oh,
(13:19):
the family, the community and the families, but specifically the families,
how it's been thirty years, how where they are, how
they've processed through it. I mean you have to think
about the one mother lost two daughters. Yeah, nice, and
they interview her and.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
In that horrific manner too. I mean, those are the
only thoughts that are going through your head when you're right,
child was killed like that?
Speaker 1 (13:42):
Right. The director was named Margaret Brown, and I read
an interview with her and she told Variety, this is
in August of twenty twenty five, right after this docu
series came out that her team or her it's called
A twenty four, that's her production company covered some of
her team's therapy costs because they were photos of the
actual crime scene and that it was really hard on
(14:03):
their system. Now, in the docuseries, they don't show actual
photos of the crime scene, obviously for respect to the
victims and the families. They show crime scene photos of
fire and evidence and things like that, but they don't
actually show bodies bodies, right, So let's just go through
a timeline of the events and then get to where
(14:26):
we at today with this. So, on December sixth, nineteen
ninety one, around midnight, all SOMEO firefighters respond to a
fire at the camp I can't believe it's yogurt shop
on Anderson Lane. Inside they find the bodies of Jennifer, Sarah, Eliza,
and Amy, all teenagers that were bound, gagged, shot in
the back of the head execution style, and the store
had then been set on fire. I mean clearly the
(14:48):
fire was set as a way to.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
Destroy the evidence exactly.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
So nine days later, this is December fifteenth, and nineteen
ninety one, the police stop this young kid named Maurice Pierce,
he's sixteen at the time, at the North Cross Mall.
He has a twenty two caliber pistol tucked into his waistband.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
And that's the same type of gun that was used
in the murders. Yes, same caliber anyway, so the twenty two.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Was considered a possible match for the murder weapon. They
bring Maurice in for an interview and he's interviewed by
police Sergeant Hector Polanco, and the interview starts at midnight. Now,
this is interesting. This kid is sixteen. He gets brought
into the police station. He's sixteen years old. He doesn't
have a parent with him. I believe.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
That's my question is like, if we had a sixteen
year old and they don't come home, we'd want to
know where they were. And if the police called and said, oh,
he's in our interrogation room, you would drive down. I
would think, like, okay, where. So I don't know, maybe
you do. I don't know what's going on, But a
sixteen year old in a police station at midnight is
(15:56):
already posing some concerning questions exactly.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
And there's other boys that become involved and will go
through that. But according to the docu series. And I
think this is interesting is that these boys come from
broken families. And I think that this kid, this kid,
Maurice Pearce, was known as like a bad kid, right.
He was like the kind of like punk kid in town.
(16:21):
He takes a gun to the mall. He's just he's
known to be a troublemaker. Also, the fact that he
starts getting interviewed at midnight. Who gets interviewed at midnight?
Why are they interviewing a teenager at midnight?
Speaker 2 (16:34):
That's why I'm wondering, this is already off to a
bad start.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Right. Also, this Hector Polanco who interviews him, I just
want to read a little quote about him, because they
focus on a lot of problems with Hector. Hector polonco
new interrogation. This is what Detective John Jones says, who's
the main the main investigator on this case and they
interview him in this series. He says, you know, he
was a cobra. He had the reputation and homicide for
(17:00):
solving the tough cases. Now, when he said that, I
thought solving the tough cases or getting people to admit
to things that maybe they didn't possibly do. So they
also interview in this docuseries Detective Mike Huckabee, who worked
on the case. He also speaks to Polanco in the docuseries,
(17:23):
and this is what he says about him. The sad
thing about it is Hector really is a good investigator.
He's a very good investigator, but he don't use it right.
Hakkabee says, I've seen him get confessions from somebody that
did not have a thing to do with it. But
Hector can scare the shit out of you and make
you confess. He can. He's okay with it. As long
as he gets a confession, he's okay. So this is
(17:45):
the man who was interviewing a sixteen year old at midnight.
So I just wanted to give those kind of background
information on what people say about Hector and think about Hector.
So he interviews Maurice. I'm not sure exactly how long
the interview goes, but it starts at midnight and the
and he actually gets some type of confession from him.
(18:07):
I don't think Maurice says that he's actually involved himself,
but he names other people and he does give some
type of confession as to what happened that night. Then
after Polonko's done with him. I'm sure he interviews him
all night long. Then the lead investigator, John Jones comes
in the next morning and he's like, hey, I need
(18:27):
you to take a written statement. He just confessed. So
John Jones then takes a written statement. The written statement
is almost completely different than the oral interview that he
gave just earlier over the night.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Is like factually different, yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
Factually different. Like it's just you know whatever he was
telling you know this this Cobra Polonko in this overnight interview. Listen,
I go to bed at nine o'clock. If the police
call me in to an interview at.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Midnight, like Shane's in the interrogation room at midnight, and
you'd be like, okay, me in the morning.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Yeah, But I'm saying, but if I'm saying, if I'm
getting interviewed a midnight, yes, I'm like, I might. I
don't know what I would agree.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
The difference is you would know a little bit more
of your rights and you would be like, I'm not
gonna you know, I need an attorney or if you're
not holding me against my will, then I'm going to
go home. But his sixteen year old right a six
year old is going to be intimate, especially if they're
carrying a gun. And if he didn't do anything wrong,
he's just playing and he has a gun, which I
don't approve of. But he has a gun and he's
just being playful, or he thinks he's cool and he
(19:29):
has a gun and then this happens, He's gonna be scared, right.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
So again, Maurice never actually confesses to the murders himself,
but he does claim his friend Forrest Welborn took his
pistol and told him that he shot the girls and
that he liked watching them burn. So he's not admitting
that he himself was involved, but he's naming other people
that were involved. Police wire Maurice to get a confession
from Forrest, but the confession never comes. He actually like
(19:56):
gets wired and goes and talks to his friend Forrest
about it, and friend Forrest never he never admits to
anything or says that he was involved.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
In any way because he wasn't involved.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Forrest insists that it was just a joke and that
he had nothing to do with the murders. He was
with Maurice the whole night. Then eight years later, so
that goes nowhere, right right, They don't really get much
of a confession. They try to get Forrest, you know,
on wiretaps saying that he was involved, he doesn't admit
to doing anything there. Also, there's no physical evidence taken
(20:28):
from this crime scene because of the fires. Then when
the fire department arrives and they hose everything down, everything
gets wet, so then you can't get fingerprints. They don't
have They have very very small amounts of DNA, but
again this is nineteen ninety one, so they can't.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Really run it.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
It's not testable at that time in nineteen ninety one.
You have to have large amounts of liquid to be
able to test it back then, so they don't have anything.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
Well, and with the fire, probably whatever other DNA was
available that it might have been testable at the time
is now destroyed.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
So then eight years later we get to nineteen ninety eight,
So nothing happens with this case until nineteen ninety eight.
Police revisit Maurice's involvement in this case and ask why
he gave conflicting statements, So they bring him back in
to the police station. And you know this is interesting too,
because I was talking about this with Jasmine who works
with the Innocence Project with me, and she was saying,
(21:21):
what's so sad about this? In these interrogations. She told
me she has a hard time watching the interrogations. Is
what she said is that when people go down to
the police station, they're going because they think they're helping, right,
they're showing it up.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Like the guy that says I was on that bridge. Yeah,
last week he said I was on that bridge, right, Like,
let me know if you have any.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
Questions, right exactly in this case, that's interesting you brought
it up. That's Richard Allen from the Delphi murders. I
find this case to be very similar to Richard Allen
and the Delphi murders. And we can talk about.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
That a little bit. They have a suspect and so
they make it fit the crime.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
Well, first of all, you're talking about teenage girls that
are that are murdered and horrific ways. You're talking about
no DNA evidence, no fingerprints, no physical evidence left behind
in either one. There's a large time lapse that goes
by where they don't have a suspect. Then they're bringing
people in and they're basically coercing them into confessions and
(22:16):
telling them that they were there. It just the Delphi murders.
If you haven't listened to that, we did that podcast
last week. It's very there's a lot of similarities between
these two cases. So they bring Maurice back in. This
is in nineteen ninety eight, this is eight years later,
and they ask why he gave conflicting statements. Maurice can't
remember anything, and he never actually confesses, but he does
(22:38):
point fingers at the three boys he was with that night.
So again he never confesses himself that he was involved,
but he does say that there were three other guys
that he was with that night that were involved in
the case. So then this is September of nineteen ninety nine.
First they bring in Forrest Welborn. He's the one that
they originally tried to get on a wiretap, admitting that
(22:58):
he was involved. Bring him back in. He shows up again.
This is the other thing. They just keep going to
the police station alone with no no one with them,
no attorney, president, they don't ask for an attorney, and
they go in and they sit there and I don't know.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
It's free. Yeah, well this is okay, isn't didn't you
tell me something about their legislation to try to make
it if you're under age, an attorney has to be
afforded to you without you like expressing your need for
an insue.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Yeah, that's that actually came out of the Terrell Swift
case that if you watch Housewives, I I did a
scene with Tourell. Remember he was convicted when he was
very young, and then he find he signed a false
he was he was under age.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
He was overly interrogated by the police to the point of.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
Confession false confession. He spent twenty years in prison. He
was exonerated by DNA evidence that came out later and
then recently, I don't know the name of the bill,
but there was a recent California bill that was passed
because of his case that he advocated for. That has
to do with not being able to interrogate a minor
without an attorney. This is present.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
This is a state thing is yes, this is California.
This is a no other states that have that as well, right,
I mean it.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
Should be federal, but it's not. But there's no way
that you should ever be able to interrogate child.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
You want our kids' friends, come on. I feel bad
like if I'm going to, like, you know, talk to them,
and oh.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
You get nervous talking to them.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
Parents.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
That's Shane, He's weird. He's taller in person, all right.
So then Maurice Pierce names Michael Scott. They bring him
into interrogate him. Let' 's talk about Michael Scott's interrogation.
(24:49):
They interrogate him for over twenty hours, and again he's
backed into a corner. He's got two investigators in his face.
The real question is do you feel free to leave? Right?
That's the legal standard.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Well, yes, that is a legal standard. Does anyone ever
feel free to leave when you have a police officer
standing there and talking to you and then questioning you
about something. No one ever feels free to leave.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
Not when you're at the farthest point of the room
from the door, and you have two investigators ten inches
from your face leaning forward into you, talking about and
asking you about a crime. I don't think anyone would feel.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
No one free to leave, and I can't blame them
for not feeling free to leave. But the courts say that,
They say, a reasonable person you just jumped.
Speaker 1 (25:33):
Up and walked out. Sorry, guys, right, No one does
that anyway? Also in Michael's interrogation, they actually pull out
a gun at a point because they're re enacting the
crime scene, right, and they're saying, Michael, this is what
(25:54):
you did. You were there, here's the gun. You know,
you went up behind her and you put the gun
behind her. And they have an actual gun and they're
brandishing it in face, start putting.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
It to the back of his head, even if it's
not loaded. Pointing a gun at someone.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
That's scary, right, Well, again, a reasonable person standard, do
you feel free to leave?
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Wouldn't feel threatened?
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Another tactic that they use in these interrogations that was
just so clear to me that this is just psychological
warfare at this point, right is they're saying, Michael, you
know what happened you you tied the girls up? How
did you do it? You know how you did it?
And the first thing he says is shoelaces, And that's
not right, right, it wasn't shoelaces. So they're like, no, Michael,
(26:36):
you're not remembering it right. You got to think harder, Michael, Right, Michael,
it wasn't shoelaces.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
What was it?
Speaker 1 (26:42):
And then he's like electrical cords and they're like, no, Michael,
it's not electrical chords. Think harder. I think he even
goes on to say napkins. I'm sure this guy's trying
to think of everything possible he could think of. And
then finally he's like clothes and they're like, yes, that's it, Michael,
because they were bound by their clothing. And so, I mean,
(27:02):
after four attempts, he finally gets it right and they're like, see, Michael,
now you remember, now you remember what you did that night.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Goodness. It reminds me of when I worked at Target
as an investigator for internal external theft, and anytime we
would catch someone internal right, someone on the inside stealing,
which was more valuable. It was a really a big deal.
If you can catch someone on the inside, because there
were more of a liability, you would interrogate them. So
you already have all the evidence. You already have the videos,
you have the receipts, you have everything. Now you just
(27:31):
want a confession for added you know kicks right, So
you go and you get them confessed. But you they
had rules. Target had rules. You could not be between
them and the door. Nothing could be between them and
the door, and the door had to be cracked open,
so they felt free to leave, and it was really important.
And one of the tactics I use, which cops use,
which is I don't believe you're a bad person.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
You just made a bad choice, right you use that?
Speaker 2 (27:56):
Oh yeah, well no, What I would say is Target's
a billion dollar company. They don't care about socks and
underwhere right, it's a big deal. Is they want to
straighten it out and get their money back. So just
you're right down everything you stole and the value. Let's
let's get it squared away, let's be done.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
So you were doing that thing, or you're building rapport,
you're being their friend.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
Which cops do, which is yes, and which is true
because I was saying, let's clear it up, write everything down,
because you're gonna have to pay them back. I didn't
let them know that I already called the sheriff and
they're coming to arrest them afterwards once they make apussion. No, no, no,
I was truthful.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
You just omitted things.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
I just didn't.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Yeah, omission exactly right.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
Anyway. The point is cops can be crookedly and shady.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Yes. Also, I think the point of your story is
I feel like Target has stricter.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
Uh oh yeah, way strict, way stricter. Liability. Cops have immunity, right,
Can they see the cop and say you assaulted me
by putting the gun? Now not really, I mean the
police department maybe, and it gets buried. But private organizations bam,
big loss, deep pockets. Right.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
Lastly, they interrogate Robert Springsteen. Robert claims that he went
to a Rocky horror picture show that night. When they
bring him in for the interrogation, he's very adamant and
he's believable. He's like, I had nothing to do with this.
I wasn't there. Again, those four guys were kind of troublemakers,
and they were all together that night. But they're all
pointing fingers at each other.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
They don't know what's going on.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
No, and none of their none of their stories really
add up. He claims that he does remember that he
was at a rocky horror picture show that night. The
police then lie to him and tell him that there
wasn't even a showing that night. And you can tell
during the interrogation when they say to him, hey, we'll
just tell you that there wasn't even a showing that night,
that he's dumbfounded. He's like, but I but I remember
(29:42):
being there. I remember going And then when they lie
to him and say there wasn't a showing, then you
can tell that he's That's when they start to get
him and they start to get him to confess because
he's very confused about what's going on, and you're talking
about these are guys in their twenties. They're not. I don't,
I don't I think any of them are highly educated.
They can't find anyone in.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Their early twenties is inexperienced to deal with even someone
in their forties might be inexperienced to deal with all this.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
He does remain adamant that he wasn't at the yogurt shop,
and he asked to take a light detector test. This
is in the beginning of the interrogation, but after hours
of interrogating, he eventually confesses to being there, just like
Michael Scott does. And then they start talking about things
and obviously this again, how would they know details of
(30:30):
this case. This case was very huge and there was
a lot going on in the media. They also had
claimed that they bought a paper the next day when
they were in the stolen vehicle. And went to San
Antonio that they bought a paper and read about the murder.
So whatever these memories are that are coming up.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Yeah, they have some familiarity with.
Speaker 1 (30:47):
Murder, having exactly exactly a lot of this issue with
the false confessions, which they actually go into in the docuseriies,
and I was kind of glad that they did. That.
Is they say that the police use a nine step
interrogation process, and it's widely known as the Read technique.
It's been heavily criticized for increasing the risk of false
confessions and for being psychologically manipulative and coercive. Tactics used
(31:11):
in the Read technique, like psychological pressure, deception, moral justification,
can be very effective at eliciting confessions from both guilty
and innocent people. And I don't to me, that's what
it seems like. I mean, did these boys really have
anything to do with this murder that night? My takeaway
is no.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
At least not. The evidence doesn't show that the evidence
is weak, right at.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
Best, they end up being tried. First of all, Force
ends up we talked about earlier. Force ends up getting
off because he supposedly wasn't involved in it. They'd say
that he was like the getaway driver or something. They
don't have any physical evidence. The judge let's out on bail.
He that's the End's good to them. Yeah. Robert Springsteen
(31:59):
is tried convicted of capital murder, largely based on just
his confession because again they have no physical evidence capital murder.
Day on that evidence, Yes, he gets sentenced to death.
This is in May of two thousand and one. Michael
Scott goes to trial.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
Wait, so he is sentenced.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
Yes, Robert Springsteen is tried in front.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
Of it jury and is sentencing is death.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
He has found guilty of capital murder and it's all
based on his confession or the other people's confession, them
naming him, and he is sentenced to death. Again, there
is no DNA evidence, there is no fingerprint, there is
no physical evidence that ties other witnesses.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
There's nothing.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
Well, the four guys naming each other in their interrogations.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Michael Scott then goes to trial. His confession is used
as the main evidence. Again, there's no fingerprint, DNA, there's
nothing that ties him to the crime. He's convicted of
capital murder and he receives the life in prison. Maurice
Pierce who was the original kid that was brought in
for interrogation because he's the one that went to the
mall with the gun and the twenty two caliber. He
(33:10):
spends some time in jail awaiting trial, but prosecutors eventually
drop the charges due to having no physical evidence against him,
and he would never actually confess. So he's the only
one that never actually confessed to being there and being
part of this crime. So the DA drops a case
against him. However, they make it very clear that he's
(33:30):
still a suspect in their eyes.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
Sot there.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
Well, you've got the two gods. So there are four
that are all naming each other and they're all being interrogated.
You've got two that are convicted, and then you've got Maurice,
who actually is The charges are dropped against him because
because he never said that he was actually there. He
named other people, but he didn't say he was there. Okay,
now they go to prison. They spend about ten years
(33:57):
in prison, and then they both get there convictions overturned
because there are blatant constitutional errors. They So we're talking
about Robert Springsteen and Michael Scott. They both have separate trials. However,
both pleaded the fifth and did not testify on their
own behalf. Also, during their trials, and you'll understand this
because this is a sixth Amendment issue, they used confessions.
(34:20):
So in Robert's trial, they use confessions from Michael Scotts.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
A made a confession and pointed to B. B made
a confession and pointed A. A pleads the fifth. Therefore he
can't be put on the stand. B pleads the fifth.
Therefore he can't be put on the stand. Therefore A
cannot question B and confront his witness or the accuser,
and B cannot question A and confront his accuser. And
(34:47):
therefore the confession is inadmissible because you're allowed to. You
have a constitutional right to address your accusers exactly.
Speaker 1 (34:57):
So, just to simplify that, you have the these.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Guys are simple, Well it was.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
There's a lot of a's and b's in there. But
basically what happened is these guys are accusing each other
during these interrogations, and then they have these written confessions. Correct.
They take the written statements and they bring it in
and show it to a jury as evidence. However, you
can't have Michael Scott's confession during an interrogation against Robert
without being able to then cross examin Michael Scott. And
(35:26):
Michael Scott didn't testify, so there was no way to
cross examine him. So again there were blatant Six Amendment violations.
So in June of two thousand and six, the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals overturns Robert Springsteen's conviction, ruling his
rights were violated because he did not cross examine Scott,
whose confession implicated him. And then in September of two
(35:48):
thousand and seven, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturns
Michael Scott's conviction because he could not cross examine Robert Springsteen.
So then they end up getting out of prison. Now
this is interesting because they do a whole thing in
the DA you know, does a press conference and speaks
and everything. So now we're in the early two thousands.
(36:12):
This murder happened in nineteen ninety one, and again we
talked about DNA evidence. They had small traces, but in
nineteen ninety one it couldn't be tested. However, now we're
into like, you know, what are we in like two
thousand and eight, two thousand and nine. Now, so now
they have this thing called ystr DNA testing, so they
could use the small amounts of DNA that they found
during a vaginal swab. So they got some DNA from that,
(36:35):
but it was a very small amount. But now they
can test it. So I know they tested it thinking
that that DNA was gonna what match.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
Back to who one of the guys that they coursed
into confessing.
Speaker 1 (36:47):
Exactly, they think, okay, now we can we can do
this high tech new DNA testing.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
Well they should be testing exactly.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
They've got this small amount of DNA from a vaginal swab.
The full DNA pro file comes back and does not
match any of those four boys. So now you've got
a full DNA profile of someone else that's not any
of those.
Speaker 2 (37:10):
Four yep, so to clear them. Yeah, yeah, So far
there were sentenced to One was sentenced to death. Imagine
had that been carried out exactly. That's why the death
all these a tough one to do because it's irreversible.
You can let people out of jail, right, but you
can't bring him back to life.
Speaker 1 (37:28):
So the state claims that possibly the DNA could have
been contamination or a fifth person was involved. They do
not rule out the boys. The state tests everyone, and
then what the state does This is interesting too. First
of all, I watched the docu series and an attorney speaks.
He's a defense attorney for Michael Scott, and he says,
(37:49):
there's no way that it can be contamination because that
DNA sample is found in several other places. It's not
just and how can you have contamination on a rape
kit and the vaginal swuah, Like that's it's not like
in the Amanda Knox trial where they take a bunch
of knives and they'll throw them in a bag together.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
And that's what he's saying about the integrity of the department.
That's you know, preserving the evidence in the you know,
chaining command and all that, right.
Speaker 1 (38:13):
But what they did in order to rule out that
there was any type of contamination. And when I talk
about contamination, that means that someone, you know, someone in
the scene accidentally got some their own DNA. So the
state tests everyone that could have been present or near
the bodies, which was over two hundred men, and not
a single person matched. Right. So on June twenty fourth,
(38:38):
the two thousand and nine prosecutors announced that they cannot
retry Scott or Springsteen due to the new DNA evidence,
both men are released from prison, and then in October
twenty eighth to two thousand and nine, all charges against
Scott and Springsteen are formally dismissed. You know what's interesting
is the families, And this also reminds me of the
(39:00):
Delphi murders. The families still continue to believe that these
four boys are involved in some way. They do they do, yeah,
And I was thinking about.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
It, and I don't want to say that they're not
allowed to think that. And obviously they know more about
the case than I do, and they're emotionally involved, but
it's because they probably have nowhere else to kind of.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
Grief or yeah, yeah, yeah, you know it Also it
reminds me of Delphi too, because to me, I could
not find Richard Allen to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm not saying that he doesn't have the ability to
be the one that committed the murders, but to me,
not beyond a reasonable doubt. And I feel the same
way about these four boys and this whole new DNA
(39:42):
profile that doesn't match any of them, But the families
still hold on to the fact that they think it's
these four boys, and I think you're right in what
you're saying. It's because they need something. Yeah, because I
don't know what it's like to go through that kind
of grief. No one does, and no one would judge that.
And it's the same thing with the Delphi murders, where
the family is convinced that it's Richard Allen and they
can't really It's like tunnel vision, they can't really see
(40:02):
outside of that. And also it's because I do realize
that these families have a bond with the police officers
and the investigators.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
They they've been invested in in the accused for however
many years, right to the trials.
Speaker 1 (40:18):
And these investigators are following up with them. And what
are they saying, these guys did it, We know they
did it. We're going to get him for you, you know.
And so they don't. They don't have the capacity, I think,
to look outside of that. This also is interesting. I
did not know this about the case, but Maurice Pearce,
who was the original ringleader, right, the one that took
the gun to the mall, he ends up being killed
(40:40):
in December of two thousand and nine in Austin. A
police officer. They try to pull him over during just
a routine traffic stop. I think he ran a stop
sign and instead of pulling over, he takes off and
he runs. They pursue him on foot and tackle him,
and in this wrestling around, he grabs the knife from
(41:02):
the officer's belt and he stabs the officer in the
neck and the officer grabs his gun, shoots him and
kills him.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
Yeah, and did the officer survive?
Speaker 1 (41:12):
The officer survived. Maurice died. And you know what's sad.
This is what his defense attorney talks and.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
Says, Can I guess yeah, as the position that he
was fearful of police. Yeah, because he's had reason right
for years to be fearful of being convicted of a
crime he didn't commit.
Speaker 1 (41:31):
Right. And also, what they don't they never ended up
telling these boys, or I think really even telling the public,
which it came out in this docu series, was that
original twenty two caliber gun that Maurice took didn't match.
Didn't match.
Speaker 2 (41:46):
Wait, so I never matched. They knew that from the beginning. Yeah,
And they were focused on the Rocky Horror Picture show.
Speaker 1 (41:52):
They were focused on those boys and getting confessions out
of them.
Speaker 2 (41:56):
When it wasn't even the right guy.
Speaker 1 (41:58):
It wasn't the right gun. No, and that came out later.
But this guy, you're right, he suffered from such severe PTSD,
from being interrogated so many times, from being arrested, from
being put in prison, from thinking that he was going
to go on trial.
Speaker 2 (42:12):
He had no they're gonna get me after something else,
They're going to put me back in that jake exactly.
Speaker 1 (42:17):
So when he can you imagine, I can just picture
him in a car running a stop sign, which we've
all rolled through at some point.
Speaker 2 (42:24):
Right, it's an infraction, an infraction.
Speaker 1 (42:27):
But then he ends up losing his life, which, by
the way, he shouldn't run from police. He shouldn't have
grabbed the knife. He shouldn't never understand what exactly I mean,
they had every right to defend themselves, and.
Speaker 2 (42:38):
Yeah, police got stabbed in the neck exactly stop exactly.
Speaker 1 (42:41):
But but his reaction wasn't I'll just pull over and
get a ticket, right, like a reasonable person would. His
reaction was to flee.
Speaker 2 (42:51):
And he may not even know why he was pulled over.
He saw police, saw flashing lights start there after me.
Speaker 1 (42:55):
Again exactly, so you know this case, to me is
very sad. We were talking about this. It's a tragic case.
First of all, it's tragic in the fact that there's
four young girls that lost their life one night for
for no reason at all, horrifically, horrifically lost their lives.
Then you've got these four boys who were interrogated.
Speaker 2 (43:17):
They were set back in their life for years, probably
I don't know what track they were on, you know,
to adulthood, but they were set back.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
And then the two of them spent ten years in prison,
one set back ten years, one on death row, one
in for life. Yeah, and then you've got these families
that are grief stricken, and it's just this investigation did
nothing but cause more more tragedy, more tragedy, more loss
(43:46):
of life, more grief, more pain. Maurice And you can
honestly say, Maurice Pierce, even though he was a punk
when he was a kid or whatever, and he brought
a gun to the mall, if that kid never took
a gun to a mall that day, he'd still be alive.
The whole catalyst of this entire situation with these four.
Speaker 2 (44:03):
Boys, and this maybe a bit of a stretch, but
they might have also had better luck with finding the
actual criminals. Yeah, you're right, because if they were focused
all their energy on these boys, these young men, and
they're overlooking all other things, right, sort of like the
bridge guy, they overlooked that post it note that had
his phone number on it or whatever, because he was
(44:23):
at the scene at the bridge last week, and the
Delphi murders could very well be the same thing. Right.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
They get tunnel visions.
Speaker 2 (44:29):
Yeah, they overlook other there's a term for it. I
forgot what it is, but where they overlook other suspects,
they're focused on one, and.
Speaker 1 (44:36):
Then when they focus on that one, they do everything
possible to try to make it fit.
Speaker 2 (44:39):
Yeah, like point a gun at their head, right like that.
Speaker 1 (44:42):
Twenty seventeen was the twenty fifth anniversary of the yogurt
shop murders. The Awesome Police reaffirmed that the case remains
open and active. The same DNA profile that was found
from Amy ey Or she was the one that they
got the vaginal DNA from, is found on other evidence,
but by different laps. So that's another thing that they
make clear that the investigator makes clear because they've had
(45:04):
three different sets of investigators, right, this case has been
going on for thirty years, so you had your original investigators,
then you had a second investigative team. Now you have
a new cold case investigative team on it. And they
said that they clarified that this DNA sample could not
be contaminated because they've also sent it to two different
labs getting the same test results back, so they're adamant
(45:29):
that it is a completely different and want sect. In
twenty twenty one, it was the thirtieth anniversary, authorities confirmed
that the DNA profile is of an unidentified male, but
it still does not match anyone in the national database. However,
you know what, I read something, and this is interesting
to me because I don't even really understand what this means.
(45:49):
But in twenty twenty, new DNA testing matched evidence from
the crime scene to an unidentified man. The Austin American
Statesman reported. This was where I read it. Though the
FBI allegedly has a matching sample, they have not handed
it over to Austin investigators due to legal complications. Now
what do you think that means? To me? That sounds
(46:11):
like they they It says the FBI allegedly has a
matching sample, but they haven't turned it over to the
Austin investigators due to legal complications.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
So that's legal complications.
Speaker 1 (46:22):
That sounds to me like they that the FBI made
some match, but.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
They're not going to give that the legal complications are.
It's not the people we thought it was, That's what
it is. It's not the suspects.
Speaker 1 (46:35):
I don't understand how you can say that there's a
that they made some match, but they're not going to
hand that information.
Speaker 2 (46:40):
They say it was a match, No, it says.
Speaker 1 (46:44):
It says allegedly that they have a matching sample, but
they have not handed it over to Austin investigators due
to legal complications. Present day, the case remains unsolved. The
investigators continue to hope advance forensic technology will identify them
as That's.
Speaker 2 (46:59):
How it is. It's the legal complications.
Speaker 1 (47:01):
I don't know. I don't know. If I don't know,
I don't.
Speaker 2 (47:04):
Oh, it's very very well be saw. I told you
they swept stuff under the road, and then you brought
that out.
Speaker 1 (47:09):
Yeah. See, I can't imagine that the FBI would have
a match and then they don't want to turn that
information over. I don't know, but I read that. I
think I read that the.
Speaker 2 (47:20):
Legal complications, it's the chief of police. Yeah, that's legally.
Speaker 1 (47:24):
Complicated, right, Are there any signs that would point to
anyone else? Like, how are we ever going to find this?
The crime scene shows that the girls were in the
middle of closing up the store when this happened. It's
believed that two guys were the last in the shop.
Police identified fifty three customers that came in between four
thirty and eleven PM and a number of whom saw
these two men. Are they the killers? Why were they
(47:46):
never identified? Also, I do remember originally do you remember
they also originally blamed or brought in those two Mexican
There was a Mexican guy that was like a gang
leader or something. Oh yeah, yeah, two two of them,
I believe, and then they said that he did it.
Speaker 2 (48:01):
Well, then they were they were in they were they
were in Mexico. There were since then, like whenever they surfaced,
they were in Mexico. And then the authorities here wanted
an extra item or whatever, and then they claimed that
the Mexican government said no, we'll prosecute them, and then
that's it. That's that's as far as I heard.
Speaker 1 (48:20):
Well, they were also they also said that their interrogations
that they were slapped around and beaten, hit and to
get their confessions, because allegedly they gave a confession as
well and said.
Speaker 2 (48:29):
They did it, and the national practice they.
Speaker 1 (48:32):
Just recanted the following day and and said that you
know that they were.
Speaker 2 (48:36):
You know, I don't know, this is terrible. Oh but
didn't they match the composite too well?
Speaker 1 (48:42):
Yeah, but that comps you know, composite drawings bother me.
It's like it looks like you drew it and then
it wasn't. I mean, the they never.
Speaker 2 (48:51):
Look I don't know. Sometimes they're pretty good.
Speaker 1 (48:54):
I don't know. I just think back to the Delphi
want to remember they had two different composites and like
one's an older guy.
Speaker 2 (48:59):
Yeah. I'm not saying they're always dead on, but it
is interesting if they look similar.
Speaker 1 (49:04):
Yeah, there's another theory possibly with this case. All four
girls were members of the f FA, which is the
Future Farmers of America, and could some guys have from
the FFA have done it because they were also they
were bound and gagged and you know when when they
you know, when they rope animals and stuff, they bind
them like the legs and stuff. And yeah, so I
(49:25):
don't know. That's another theory that maybe could have been explored.
I don't know, but anyway, I'm.
Speaker 2 (49:29):
Gonna go with the theory that the police sucked at
the investigation.
Speaker 1 (49:33):
That's a good theory, yeah, allegedly. All right, guys, thank
you so much for listening to Legally Brunette. We hope
you enjoyed this episode. Also, just another reminder that we're
on our own feed so please find us, follow us,
leave a review. We'd love to hear what you guys
have to say. And again, if you have any cases
that you think are interesting that you would love for
us to cover. I always love the feedback, So thanks
(49:56):
for listening.
Speaker 2 (49:56):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (50:00):
M
Hi guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I
will be your host today, Emily Simpson with Shane Shane Simpson.
First of all, again just a reminder, we are now
on our own feed, so if you could, if you
love listening to us, you can go over to our
feed called Legally Brunette. It's so much easier to find
(00:22):
now click follow, so make sure you're following us and
all of our episodes are now populated there so you
don't have to kind of go through two Teas to
locate them. Also, just a big shout out and thank
you to Two Teas. That was definitely a huge help
for us to launch this podcast. It allowed us to
have an audience that could come and listen and really
enjoy us. So a big thank you to them for
(00:44):
allowing us to get our start.
Speaker 2 (00:45):
Yes, thank you.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
So today, let's do just a little bit of updates.
There were a couple of things in the news that
I wanted to talk about because we've been following Menandez
through all of this, so there were some new things
that came up, so let's just go through those. First
of all, if you remember we talked about in earlier episodes.
If you want to go back and listen to any
of our earlier Menindez episodes, there was a habeas petition
(01:07):
before Judge Ryan and that was basically asking for a
new trial based on new evidence. So recently the judge,
Judge Ryan denies the Menindez brothers petition for a new
trial and their latest setback that was an ABC News article.
So last Tuesday, had Judge denied the Menindez brothers Habeas
corpus petition which they had submitted back in twenty twenty three.
(01:29):
That was to throw out their old conviction and receive
a new trial based on recently discovered evidence. And if
you do remember the two new pieces of evidence, do
you remember what they were? The two new pieces of
evidence was.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
A letter from a childhood or a longtime friend or cousin, Yeah,
that claimed abuse. So it kind of corroborated the stories
that the father was abuse, right.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
It was a letter that Eric Menindez had written to
his cousin Andy basically alluding to the sexual abuse by
his father Jose. So that was included in the habeas
And the second piece of new evidence, do you remember
the second one? The fingerprints on the knife no, no,
there was no knife in case Ron case it was.
(02:14):
There was a documentary that came out about the Menudo.
A member of the Menudo, remember the band.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Was another witness testimony, right.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Roy Roussello, that's his name. I watched it. He also
came forward and said that when he was a member
of Menudo and he was very young, that he was
also abused by Jose. And so those were the two
pieces of corroborating evidence. However, the judge said that the
(02:42):
nineteen eighty eight letter from Andy Cano, who was the cousin,
about alleged abuse, was not very strong, even saying it
contradicted the brother's attempts at a new trial. The judge said,
neither piece of newly discovered evidence is particularly strong. The
Cano letter contradicts in part the testimony of Eric and
Andy Canno, who testified in the original trials. It also
(03:04):
only corroborates what was already discussed at length by both witnesses.
The two did discuss Jose's abuse. At best, it does
not additionally inform the jury of petitioner's alleged fear at
the time of the murders, and at worst, it puts
a crack and the credibility of both witnesses. I'm not
sure exactly what he means by the credibility of both witnesses,
but I do understand where he's saying. The main issue
is whether they were justified in killing their parents that
(03:28):
night because they were fearful of their life, and that's
why they claim that they got the shotguns and they
shot their parents because they were afraid their parents were
going to kill them. And he's saying, this letter corroborates
the abuse, but it doesn't help.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
With the women at fear the eminent fear exactly.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
The judge also disputed the relevance of testimony from Roy Rosello,
who is the member of Menudo. As for the Rosello
declaration that corroborates the general allegation that Jose was sexually
abusive of boys and young men, but it is not
relevant to the petitioner's state of mind at the time
of murders. It's the same thing. It's saying, Yeah, again,
this corroborates that he was sexually abusive. However, again it doesn't.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
It just stops there. Yeah, Okay, we're not fine. There's abuse,
but there's more needed in order to have a better
defense exactly.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
So, speaking at a news conference on Tuesday after the
judge's decision, La County District Attorney Nathan Hakman told reporters
that the judge's decision amounted to a full cabash on
the brothers habeas petition. And he's right now that the
judge made a decision on the habeas petition. There's there's
no other road that's done. There's nothing else to do,
(04:34):
so that road is blocked. They still have the possibility
of getting out on parole, which we spoke about previously
when we did an episode on that's.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Not for three years.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Well, it said remember we were, it said eighteen months
they would be eligible. I think they they in eighteen
months they can start petitioning for parole and probably start.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
But if all goes well, it wouldn't be sooner than.
Speaker 1 (04:59):
Three to be sooner than three years. So anyway, that
is their other option. And then there's always the option
that Governor Newsome decides to uh.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
He actually wakes up and he wakes up attention.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
He's like, what he could commute them and you know,
maybe getting people's.
Speaker 2 (05:16):
Good greases exactly, and the Menudo brothers and they're like, no, sir,
Menendez brothers. We've gone over this before.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
It's Menendez, all right. So that is an update on Menendez.
We'll keep following that and see what happens. I don't
know what do you think the likelihood of them ever?
Do you think they'll be paroled at some point? No, no,
you don't.
Speaker 2 (05:33):
I have no reason to think they would in three
years versus right now. All that's happened. Well, I don't
know what could happen in the next three years. I
guess they would have to use any different because then't
they have like cell phone use. So they were.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
Right, they had some infractions and they had cell phone use.
So I guess if they were just had a clean
record for the next three years and they didn't have
any maybe then you know, I think it's a possibility,
but maybe again, we'll see. We'll continue to follow it.
Another update, just a brief update on Lively in Baldoni.
We took a step back from that because I was
tired of talking about Blake Lively. But I think there's
(06:09):
some interesting things that have come up in the trial recently,
or not the trial, but the case. They're going to
go to trial next spring at least that's on the calendar.
We'll see what continues to happen. But Justin Baldoni has
hired Alexandra's Shapiro to join his legal team amid his
ongoing case with Blake Lively. If you don't remember the
name of Alexandra Shapiro, she was part of Ditty's defense team.
(06:32):
The addition of Shapiro to Baldoni's team comes as he
is facing further scrutiny as another individual has come forward
with claims of harassment. This is according to a newly
filed court document, which was obtained by The Daily Mail. Also,
I do remember when we talked, when I read all
the legal documents in the beginning, when it came to
Blake Lively, her original CRT, I think that's what it
(06:54):
was called. It was the civil rights violation. Remember, it
wasn't an actual This is.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
The form the allegations.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
And she alleged in that first initial complaint that there
was someone else on this set that also had filed
something against him for harassment, but she didn't name who
it wasn't there wasn't any details and it was very vague,
So I don't know if this is the same person.
Or if this is someone different that they managed to find.
(07:28):
In a sworn declaration filed by Blake Lively's lawyer, the
individual whose name has been redacted alleged they endured repeated
negative interactions with mister Baldoni and his associates, including verbal
abuse by mister Baldoni. The unnamed person further claimed that
Baldoni was not permitted on set during the majority of
production as a result of those experiences. I don't know
(07:50):
if this person is referring to it ends with us.
We've already discussed the fact that he wasn't allowed on
set because Blake Lively make sure.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
That he was.
Speaker 1 (08:02):
He was taken off of the movie, So I don't know. Also,
it's very hard for me to find this man to
be verbally abusive. After all of the research. I've done everything,
I've read, all of his text messages, all of his
communications with Blake Blake Lively. I don't find him to
be a.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
Verbally find her to be more verbally abusive than him. Well,
I find things you've read and seen.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Yeah, I mean, I've seen a lot of interviews with
her where she's very self righteous.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
But even the text messages.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
She is and so I don't know. It's hard for
me to believe that there's any type of verbal abuse
when it comes to this man, I don't know, I
don't I don't find it. I don't know. We'll have
to have more information to find it credible. But the
individual also said they requested that Baldoni not be involved
in marketing or public relations efforts, which I again, I
believe that that was Blake Lively requesting that he not
(08:55):
be involved in any of the marketing. And he was
removed from a lot of the things, even a premiere day, right, Yeah,
he was in the basement at premiere days. So I
don't know who this other person is. This will be
interesting once that comes out. A source told TMC that
the individual is likely to testify against Justin and Lively's trial.
The filing also references Baldoni's business partner, Wayfair co founder
(09:16):
Steve Sorrowitz, noting that the accuser had been contacted by
sorrowitz assistant to arrange a meeting, though no specific topic
for the discussion was identified. The document was filed on
September fourth of twenty twenty five and was submitted under
penalty of perjury. Okay, I find this interesting because we'll
continue to follow that because again, when we talked about
(09:36):
this case earlier, Sorrowitz is kind of like a silent partner.
But I do remember that she made allegations that he
was on set when she was doing the birthing scene
and that she was uncomfortable with him being there, and
that I don't know. I just again, it just seems.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Who would work with her? Again, I wouldn't.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Well, when she reaches out to you and asks you
to be in her next movie, you can.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
Tell her how I feel like I would. However, paying attention,
my wife doesn't like you, no, allegedly alleged.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
We're gonna go on and move on to the bulk
of what we're going to talk about today, which is
the Yogurt Shot Murders. This is a four part HBO series.
It was recently just came out on HBO, so if
you have the opportunity to watch it, I think it
was very very interesting. It was done well.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
So.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
The Yogurt Shop Murders refer to a nineteen ninety one
unsolved quadruple homicide of four teenage girls at an Austin, Texas.
I can't believe it's yogurt. Do you remember that? Do
you remember those?
Speaker 2 (10:47):
No, I just remember I can't believe it's not butter. Oh, Margarine,
I don't remember that.
Speaker 1 (10:53):
Yeah, well I do remember that. Yeah, I can't believe
it's yogurt. They called it icbuy.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
Well, I'm sure it was a play on that phrase. Yeah,
either way, right, so this was yeah, okay, now I remember, Yeah,
the acronym icby they were popular.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Like now, it's yogurt land right here. I don't know
in other places, but here in southern California, there's a
ton of yogurt lands. But it's the same it's the
same concept, but it was called I can't believe it's yogurt.
It was a crime that shocked the community and left
a lasting trauma. The victims were forced to the back
of the shop. This is four young teenage girls, the
four victims and the yogurt shop murders. Two of the girls,
(11:29):
Eliza and Jennifer, who were both seventeen at the time,
worked at the shop.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
So they're closing shops. It was like eleven o'clock at night.
Speaker 1 (11:36):
Yeah, it's the end of the night. They're closing. There's
two girls at work there. They're closing the shop. That's
Eliza and Jennifer. They're seventeen. Sarah, who was fifteen, was
Jennifer's younger sister, and then she was there with her
best friend Amy, who was thirteen. So you have four
teenage girls in a yogurt shop chatting, having a good
time cleaning up, closing a shop. Someone comes in and
(12:00):
forces them to the back of the shop, ties them up,
gags them, and then shot all four girls to death
before the shop was then set on fire. The case
has remained a significant mystery for years, complicated by aggressive
interrogation tactics which we're going to get into that led
to false confessions and questionable evidence, before newer technology and
investigations brought new focus to the case again. A docuseries
(12:25):
titled The Yogurt Shop Murders chronicles the tragedy. It's on HBO. Also,
what I thought was interesting about The Yogurt Shop Murders
on HBO is the new director used a lot of
old footage from I think Variety was going to do
a docuseries on it, but for some reason it never happened,
So they have all this footage.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
You're saying a docuseries was initiated, was initiated, Maybe they
went through they did a significant amount of it, and
then they dropped it.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
And then they dropped it. I don't know why it.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Was dropped, picked up where it left off and added
to it.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
And now now this is recent just it just came
out in twenty twenty five, in August, So they've used
a lot of that older footage, but they've also added
in a lot of new interviews with the family. Also,
what's different about the Yogurt shot murders. It's true crime,
but I think the director she didn't focus on true crime.
She focused on the impact that grief has on the family. Oh,
(13:19):
the family, the community and the families, but specifically the families,
how it's been thirty years, how where they are, how
they've processed through it. I mean you have to think
about the one mother lost two daughters. Yeah, nice, and
they interview her and.
Speaker 2 (13:36):
In that horrific manner too. I mean, those are the
only thoughts that are going through your head when you're right,
child was killed like that?
Speaker 1 (13:42):
Right. The director was named Margaret Brown, and I read
an interview with her and she told Variety, this is
in August of twenty twenty five, right after this docu
series came out that her team or her it's called
A twenty four, that's her production company covered some of
her team's therapy costs because they were photos of the
actual crime scene and that it was really hard on
(14:03):
their system. Now, in the docuseries, they don't show actual
photos of the crime scene, obviously for respect to the
victims and the families. They show crime scene photos of
fire and evidence and things like that, but they don't
actually show bodies bodies, right, So let's just go through
a timeline of the events and then get to where
(14:26):
we at today with this. So, on December sixth, nineteen
ninety one, around midnight, all SOMEO firefighters respond to a
fire at the camp I can't believe it's yogurt shop
on Anderson Lane. Inside they find the bodies of Jennifer, Sarah, Eliza,
and Amy, all teenagers that were bound, gagged, shot in
the back of the head execution style, and the store
had then been set on fire. I mean clearly the
(14:48):
fire was set as a way to.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
Destroy the evidence exactly.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
So nine days later, this is December fifteenth, and nineteen
ninety one, the police stop this young kid named Maurice Pierce,
he's sixteen at the time, at the North Cross Mall.
He has a twenty two caliber pistol tucked into his waistband.
Speaker 2 (15:09):
And that's the same type of gun that was used
in the murders. Yes, same caliber anyway, so the twenty two.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Was considered a possible match for the murder weapon. They
bring Maurice in for an interview and he's interviewed by
police Sergeant Hector Polanco, and the interview starts at midnight. Now,
this is interesting. This kid is sixteen. He gets brought
into the police station. He's sixteen years old. He doesn't
have a parent with him. I believe.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
That's my question is like, if we had a sixteen
year old and they don't come home, we'd want to
know where they were. And if the police called and said, oh,
he's in our interrogation room, you would drive down. I
would think, like, okay, where. So I don't know, maybe
you do. I don't know what's going on, But a
sixteen year old in a police station at midnight is
(15:56):
already posing some concerning questions exactly.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
And there's other boys that become involved and will go
through that. But according to the docu series. And I
think this is interesting is that these boys come from
broken families. And I think that this kid, this kid,
Maurice Pearce, was known as like a bad kid, right.
He was like the kind of like punk kid in town.
(16:21):
He takes a gun to the mall. He's just he's
known to be a troublemaker. Also, the fact that he
starts getting interviewed at midnight. Who gets interviewed at midnight?
Why are they interviewing a teenager at midnight?
Speaker 2 (16:34):
That's why I'm wondering, this is already off to a
bad start.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Right. Also, this Hector Polanco who interviews him, I just
want to read a little quote about him, because they
focus on a lot of problems with Hector. Hector polonco
new interrogation. This is what Detective John Jones says, who's
the main the main investigator on this case and they
interview him in this series. He says, you know, he
was a cobra. He had the reputation and homicide for
(17:00):
solving the tough cases. Now, when he said that, I
thought solving the tough cases or getting people to admit
to things that maybe they didn't possibly do. So they
also interview in this docuseries Detective Mike Huckabee, who worked
on the case. He also speaks to Polanco in the docuseries,
(17:23):
and this is what he says about him. The sad
thing about it is Hector really is a good investigator.
He's a very good investigator, but he don't use it right.
Hakkabee says, I've seen him get confessions from somebody that
did not have a thing to do with it. But
Hector can scare the shit out of you and make
you confess. He can. He's okay with it. As long
as he gets a confession, he's okay. So this is
(17:45):
the man who was interviewing a sixteen year old at midnight.
So I just wanted to give those kind of background
information on what people say about Hector and think about Hector.
So he interviews Maurice. I'm not sure exactly how long
the interview goes, but it starts at midnight and the
and he actually gets some type of confession from him.
(18:07):
I don't think Maurice says that he's actually involved himself,
but he names other people and he does give some
type of confession as to what happened that night. Then
after Polonko's done with him. I'm sure he interviews him
all night long. Then the lead investigator, John Jones comes
in the next morning and he's like, hey, I need
(18:27):
you to take a written statement. He just confessed. So
John Jones then takes a written statement. The written statement
is almost completely different than the oral interview that he
gave just earlier over the night.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Is like factually different, yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
Factually different. Like it's just you know whatever he was
telling you know this this Cobra Polonko in this overnight interview. Listen,
I go to bed at nine o'clock. If the police
call me in to an interview at.
Speaker 2 (18:56):
Midnight, like Shane's in the interrogation room at midnight, and
you'd be like, okay, me in the morning.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Yeah, But I'm saying, but if I'm saying, if I'm
getting interviewed a midnight, yes, I'm like, I might. I
don't know what I would agree.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
The difference is you would know a little bit more
of your rights and you would be like, I'm not
gonna you know, I need an attorney or if you're
not holding me against my will, then I'm going to
go home. But his sixteen year old right a six
year old is going to be intimate, especially if they're
carrying a gun. And if he didn't do anything wrong,
he's just playing and he has a gun, which I
don't approve of. But he has a gun and he's
just being playful, or he thinks he's cool and he
(19:29):
has a gun and then this happens, He's gonna be scared, right.
Speaker 1 (19:33):
So again, Maurice never actually confesses to the murders himself,
but he does claim his friend Forrest Welborn took his
pistol and told him that he shot the girls and
that he liked watching them burn. So he's not admitting
that he himself was involved, but he's naming other people
that were involved. Police wire Maurice to get a confession
from Forrest, but the confession never comes. He actually like
(19:56):
gets wired and goes and talks to his friend Forrest
about it, and friend Forrest never he never admits to
anything or says that he was involved.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
In any way because he wasn't involved.
Speaker 1 (20:07):
Forrest insists that it was just a joke and that
he had nothing to do with the murders. He was
with Maurice the whole night. Then eight years later, so
that goes nowhere, right right, They don't really get much
of a confession. They try to get Forrest, you know,
on wiretaps saying that he was involved, he doesn't admit
to doing anything there. Also, there's no physical evidence taken
(20:28):
from this crime scene because of the fires. Then when
the fire department arrives and they hose everything down, everything
gets wet, so then you can't get fingerprints. They don't
have They have very very small amounts of DNA, but
again this is nineteen ninety one, so they can't.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Really run it.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
It's not testable at that time in nineteen ninety one.
You have to have large amounts of liquid to be
able to test it back then, so they don't have anything.
Speaker 2 (20:53):
Well, and with the fire, probably whatever other DNA was
available that it might have been testable at the time
is now destroyed.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
So then eight years later we get to nineteen ninety eight,
So nothing happens with this case until nineteen ninety eight.
Police revisit Maurice's involvement in this case and ask why
he gave conflicting statements, So they bring him back in
to the police station. And you know this is interesting too,
because I was talking about this with Jasmine who works
with the Innocence Project with me, and she was saying,
(21:21):
what's so sad about this? In these interrogations. She told
me she has a hard time watching the interrogations. Is
what she said is that when people go down to
the police station, they're going because they think they're helping, right,
they're showing it up.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
Like the guy that says I was on that bridge. Yeah,
last week he said I was on that bridge, right, Like,
let me know if you have any.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
Questions, right exactly in this case, that's interesting you brought
it up. That's Richard Allen from the Delphi murders. I
find this case to be very similar to Richard Allen
and the Delphi murders. And we can talk about.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
That a little bit. They have a suspect and so
they make it fit the crime.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
Well, first of all, you're talking about teenage girls that
are that are murdered and horrific ways. You're talking about
no DNA evidence, no fingerprints, no physical evidence left behind
in either one. There's a large time lapse that goes
by where they don't have a suspect. Then they're bringing
people in and they're basically coercing them into confessions and
(22:16):
telling them that they were there. It just the Delphi murders.
If you haven't listened to that, we did that podcast
last week. It's very there's a lot of similarities between
these two cases. So they bring Maurice back in. This
is in nineteen ninety eight, this is eight years later,
and they ask why he gave conflicting statements. Maurice can't
remember anything, and he never actually confesses, but he does
(22:38):
point fingers at the three boys he was with that night.
So again he never confesses himself that he was involved,
but he does say that there were three other guys
that he was with that night that were involved in
the case. So then this is September of nineteen ninety nine.
First they bring in Forrest Welborn. He's the one that
they originally tried to get on a wiretap, admitting that
(22:58):
he was involved. Bring him back in. He shows up again.
This is the other thing. They just keep going to
the police station alone with no no one with them,
no attorney, president, they don't ask for an attorney, and
they go in and they sit there and I don't know.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
It's free. Yeah, well this is okay, isn't didn't you
tell me something about their legislation to try to make
it if you're under age, an attorney has to be
afforded to you without you like expressing your need for
an insue.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
Yeah, that's that actually came out of the Terrell Swift
case that if you watch Housewives, I I did a
scene with Tourell. Remember he was convicted when he was
very young, and then he find he signed a false
he was he was under age.
Speaker 2 (23:43):
He was overly interrogated by the police to the point of.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
Confession false confession. He spent twenty years in prison. He
was exonerated by DNA evidence that came out later and
then recently, I don't know the name of the bill,
but there was a recent California bill that was passed
because of his case that he advocated for. That has
to do with not being able to interrogate a minor
without an attorney. This is present.
Speaker 2 (24:06):
This is a state thing is yes, this is California.
This is a no other states that have that as well, right,
I mean it.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
Should be federal, but it's not. But there's no way
that you should ever be able to interrogate child.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
You want our kids' friends, come on. I feel bad
like if I'm going to, like, you know, talk to them,
and oh.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
You get nervous talking to them.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
Parents.
Speaker 1 (24:27):
That's Shane, He's weird. He's taller in person, all right.
So then Maurice Pierce names Michael Scott. They bring him
into interrogate him. Let' 's talk about Michael Scott's interrogation.
(24:49):
They interrogate him for over twenty hours, and again he's
backed into a corner. He's got two investigators in his face.
The real question is do you feel free to leave? Right?
That's the legal standard.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
Well, yes, that is a legal standard. Does anyone ever
feel free to leave when you have a police officer
standing there and talking to you and then questioning you
about something. No one ever feels free to leave.
Speaker 1 (25:10):
Not when you're at the farthest point of the room
from the door, and you have two investigators ten inches
from your face leaning forward into you, talking about and
asking you about a crime. I don't think anyone would feel.
Speaker 2 (25:25):
No one free to leave, and I can't blame them
for not feeling free to leave. But the courts say that,
They say, a reasonable person you just jumped.
Speaker 1 (25:33):
Up and walked out. Sorry, guys, right, No one does
that anyway? Also in Michael's interrogation, they actually pull out
a gun at a point because they're re enacting the
crime scene, right, and they're saying, Michael, this is what
(25:54):
you did. You were there, here's the gun. You know,
you went up behind her and you put the gun
behind her. And they have an actual gun and they're
brandishing it in face, start putting.
Speaker 2 (26:02):
It to the back of his head, even if it's
not loaded. Pointing a gun at someone.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
That's scary, right, Well, again, a reasonable person standard, do
you feel free to leave?
Speaker 2 (26:12):
Wouldn't feel threatened?
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Another tactic that they use in these interrogations that was
just so clear to me that this is just psychological
warfare at this point, right is they're saying, Michael, you
know what happened you you tied the girls up? How
did you do it? You know how you did it?
And the first thing he says is shoelaces, And that's
not right, right, it wasn't shoelaces. So they're like, no, Michael,
(26:36):
you're not remembering it right. You got to think harder, Michael, Right, Michael,
it wasn't shoelaces.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
What was it?
Speaker 1 (26:42):
And then he's like electrical cords and they're like, no, Michael,
it's not electrical chords. Think harder. I think he even
goes on to say napkins. I'm sure this guy's trying
to think of everything possible he could think of. And
then finally he's like clothes and they're like, yes, that's it, Michael,
because they were bound by their clothing. And so, I mean,
(27:02):
after four attempts, he finally gets it right and they're like, see, Michael,
now you remember, now you remember what you did that night.
Speaker 2 (27:09):
Goodness. It reminds me of when I worked at Target
as an investigator for internal external theft, and anytime we
would catch someone internal right, someone on the inside stealing,
which was more valuable. It was a really a big deal.
If you can catch someone on the inside, because there
were more of a liability, you would interrogate them. So
you already have all the evidence. You already have the videos,
you have the receipts, you have everything. Now you just
(27:31):
want a confession for added you know kicks right, So
you go and you get them confessed. But you they
had rules. Target had rules. You could not be between
them and the door. Nothing could be between them and
the door, and the door had to be cracked open,
so they felt free to leave, and it was really important.
And one of the tactics I use, which cops use,
which is I don't believe you're a bad person.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
You just made a bad choice, right you use that?
Speaker 2 (27:56):
Oh yeah, well no, What I would say is Target's
a billion dollar company. They don't care about socks and
underwhere right, it's a big deal. Is they want to
straighten it out and get their money back. So just
you're right down everything you stole and the value. Let's
let's get it squared away, let's be done.
Speaker 1 (28:12):
So you were doing that thing, or you're building rapport,
you're being their friend.
Speaker 2 (28:16):
Which cops do, which is yes, and which is true
because I was saying, let's clear it up, write everything down,
because you're gonna have to pay them back. I didn't
let them know that I already called the sheriff and
they're coming to arrest them afterwards once they make apussion. No, no, no,
I was truthful.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
You just omitted things.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
I just didn't.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Yeah, omission exactly right.
Speaker 2 (28:36):
Anyway. The point is cops can be crookedly and shady.
Speaker 1 (28:40):
Yes. Also, I think the point of your story is
I feel like Target has stricter.
Speaker 2 (28:45):
Uh oh yeah, way strict, way stricter. Liability. Cops have immunity, right,
Can they see the cop and say you assaulted me
by putting the gun? Now not really, I mean the
police department maybe, and it gets buried. But private organizations bam,
big loss, deep pockets. Right.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
Lastly, they interrogate Robert Springsteen. Robert claims that he went
to a Rocky horror picture show that night. When they
bring him in for the interrogation, he's very adamant and
he's believable. He's like, I had nothing to do with this.
I wasn't there. Again, those four guys were kind of troublemakers,
and they were all together that night. But they're all
pointing fingers at each other.
Speaker 2 (29:20):
They don't know what's going on.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
No, and none of their none of their stories really
add up. He claims that he does remember that he
was at a rocky horror picture show that night. The
police then lie to him and tell him that there
wasn't even a showing that night. And you can tell
during the interrogation when they say to him, hey, we'll
just tell you that there wasn't even a showing that night,
that he's dumbfounded. He's like, but I but I remember
(29:42):
being there. I remember going And then when they lie
to him and say there wasn't a showing, then you
can tell that he's That's when they start to get
him and they start to get him to confess because
he's very confused about what's going on, and you're talking
about these are guys in their twenties. They're not. I don't,
I don't I think any of them are highly educated.
They can't find anyone in.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
Their early twenties is inexperienced to deal with even someone
in their forties might be inexperienced to deal with all this.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
He does remain adamant that he wasn't at the yogurt shop,
and he asked to take a light detector test. This
is in the beginning of the interrogation, but after hours
of interrogating, he eventually confesses to being there, just like
Michael Scott does. And then they start talking about things
and obviously this again, how would they know details of
(30:30):
this case. This case was very huge and there was
a lot going on in the media. They also had
claimed that they bought a paper the next day when
they were in the stolen vehicle. And went to San
Antonio that they bought a paper and read about the murder.
So whatever these memories are that are coming up.
Speaker 2 (30:45):
Yeah, they have some familiarity with.
Speaker 1 (30:47):
Murder, having exactly exactly a lot of this issue with
the false confessions, which they actually go into in the docuseriies,
and I was kind of glad that they did. That.
Is they say that the police use a nine step
interrogation process, and it's widely known as the Read technique.
It's been heavily criticized for increasing the risk of false
confessions and for being psychologically manipulative and coercive. Tactics used
(31:11):
in the Read technique, like psychological pressure, deception, moral justification,
can be very effective at eliciting confessions from both guilty
and innocent people. And I don't to me, that's what
it seems like. I mean, did these boys really have
anything to do with this murder that night? My takeaway
is no.
Speaker 2 (31:32):
At least not. The evidence doesn't show that the evidence
is weak, right at.
Speaker 1 (31:36):
Best, they end up being tried. First of all, Force
ends up we talked about earlier. Force ends up getting
off because he supposedly wasn't involved in it. They'd say
that he was like the getaway driver or something. They
don't have any physical evidence. The judge let's out on bail.
He that's the End's good to them. Yeah. Robert Springsteen
(31:59):
is tried convicted of capital murder, largely based on just
his confession because again they have no physical evidence capital murder.
Day on that evidence, Yes, he gets sentenced to death.
This is in May of two thousand and one. Michael
Scott goes to trial.
Speaker 2 (32:15):
Wait, so he is sentenced.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
Yes, Robert Springsteen is tried in front.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
Of it jury and is sentencing is death.
Speaker 1 (32:23):
He has found guilty of capital murder and it's all
based on his confession or the other people's confession, them
naming him, and he is sentenced to death. Again, there
is no DNA evidence, there is no fingerprint, there is
no physical evidence that ties other witnesses.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
There's nothing.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
Well, the four guys naming each other in their interrogations.
Speaker 2 (32:47):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Michael Scott then goes to trial. His confession is used
as the main evidence. Again, there's no fingerprint, DNA, there's
nothing that ties him to the crime. He's convicted of
capital murder and he receives the life in prison. Maurice
Pierce who was the original kid that was brought in
for interrogation because he's the one that went to the
mall with the gun and the twenty two caliber. He
(33:10):
spends some time in jail awaiting trial, but prosecutors eventually
drop the charges due to having no physical evidence against him,
and he would never actually confess. So he's the only
one that never actually confessed to being there and being
part of this crime. So the DA drops a case
against him. However, they make it very clear that he's
(33:30):
still a suspect in their eyes.
Speaker 2 (33:32):
Sot there.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
Well, you've got the two gods. So there are four
that are all naming each other and they're all being interrogated.
You've got two that are convicted, and then you've got Maurice,
who actually is The charges are dropped against him because
because he never said that he was actually there. He
named other people, but he didn't say he was there. Okay,
now they go to prison. They spend about ten years
(33:57):
in prison, and then they both get there convictions overturned
because there are blatant constitutional errors. They So we're talking
about Robert Springsteen and Michael Scott. They both have separate trials. However,
both pleaded the fifth and did not testify on their
own behalf. Also, during their trials, and you'll understand this
because this is a sixth Amendment issue, they used confessions.
(34:20):
So in Robert's trial, they use confessions from Michael Scotts.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
A made a confession and pointed to B. B made
a confession and pointed A. A pleads the fifth. Therefore he
can't be put on the stand. B pleads the fifth.
Therefore he can't be put on the stand. Therefore A
cannot question B and confront his witness or the accuser,
and B cannot question A and confront his accuser. And
(34:47):
therefore the confession is inadmissible because you're allowed to. You
have a constitutional right to address your accusers exactly.
Speaker 1 (34:57):
So, just to simplify that, you have the these.
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Guys are simple, Well it was.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
There's a lot of a's and b's in there. But
basically what happened is these guys are accusing each other
during these interrogations, and then they have these written confessions. Correct.
They take the written statements and they bring it in
and show it to a jury as evidence. However, you
can't have Michael Scott's confession during an interrogation against Robert
without being able to then cross examin Michael Scott. And
(35:26):
Michael Scott didn't testify, so there was no way to
cross examine him. So again there were blatant Six Amendment violations.
So in June of two thousand and six, the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals overturns Robert Springsteen's conviction, ruling his
rights were violated because he did not cross examine Scott,
whose confession implicated him. And then in September of two
(35:48):
thousand and seven, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturns
Michael Scott's conviction because he could not cross examine Robert Springsteen.
So then they end up getting out of prison. Now
this is interesting because they do a whole thing in
the DA you know, does a press conference and speaks
and everything. So now we're in the early two thousands.
(36:12):
This murder happened in nineteen ninety one, and again we
talked about DNA evidence. They had small traces, but in
nineteen ninety one it couldn't be tested. However, now we're
into like, you know, what are we in like two
thousand and eight, two thousand and nine. Now, so now
they have this thing called ystr DNA testing, so they
could use the small amounts of DNA that they found
during a vaginal swab. So they got some DNA from that,
(36:35):
but it was a very small amount. But now they
can test it. So I know they tested it thinking
that that DNA was gonna what match.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
Back to who one of the guys that they coursed
into confessing.
Speaker 1 (36:47):
Exactly, they think, okay, now we can we can do
this high tech new DNA testing.
Speaker 2 (36:52):
Well they should be testing exactly.
Speaker 1 (36:54):
They've got this small amount of DNA from a vaginal swab.
The full DNA pro file comes back and does not
match any of those four boys. So now you've got
a full DNA profile of someone else that's not any
of those.
Speaker 2 (37:10):
Four yep, so to clear them. Yeah, yeah, So far
there were sentenced to One was sentenced to death. Imagine
had that been carried out exactly. That's why the death
all these a tough one to do because it's irreversible.
You can let people out of jail, right, but you
can't bring him back to life.
Speaker 1 (37:28):
So the state claims that possibly the DNA could have
been contamination or a fifth person was involved. They do
not rule out the boys. The state tests everyone, and
then what the state does This is interesting too. First
of all, I watched the docu series and an attorney speaks.
He's a defense attorney for Michael Scott, and he says,
(37:49):
there's no way that it can be contamination because that
DNA sample is found in several other places. It's not
just and how can you have contamination on a rape
kit and the vaginal swuah, Like that's it's not like
in the Amanda Knox trial where they take a bunch
of knives and they'll throw them in a bag together.
Speaker 2 (38:05):
And that's what he's saying about the integrity of the department.
That's you know, preserving the evidence in the you know,
chaining command and all that, right.
Speaker 1 (38:13):
But what they did in order to rule out that
there was any type of contamination. And when I talk
about contamination, that means that someone, you know, someone in
the scene accidentally got some their own DNA. So the
state tests everyone that could have been present or near
the bodies, which was over two hundred men, and not
a single person matched. Right. So on June twenty fourth,
(38:38):
the two thousand and nine prosecutors announced that they cannot
retry Scott or Springsteen due to the new DNA evidence,
both men are released from prison, and then in October
twenty eighth to two thousand and nine, all charges against
Scott and Springsteen are formally dismissed. You know what's interesting
is the families, And this also reminds me of the
(39:00):
Delphi murders. The families still continue to believe that these
four boys are involved in some way. They do they do, yeah,
And I was thinking about.
Speaker 2 (39:08):
It, and I don't want to say that they're not
allowed to think that. And obviously they know more about
the case than I do, and they're emotionally involved, but
it's because they probably have nowhere else to kind of.
Speaker 1 (39:21):
Grief or yeah, yeah, yeah, you know it Also it
reminds me of Delphi too, because to me, I could
not find Richard Allen to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm not saying that he doesn't have the ability to
be the one that committed the murders, but to me,
not beyond a reasonable doubt. And I feel the same
way about these four boys and this whole new DNA
(39:42):
profile that doesn't match any of them, But the families
still hold on to the fact that they think it's
these four boys, and I think you're right in what
you're saying. It's because they need something. Yeah, because I
don't know what it's like to go through that kind
of grief. No one does, and no one would judge that.
And it's the same thing with the Delphi murders, where
the family is convinced that it's Richard Allen and they
can't really It's like tunnel vision, they can't really see
(40:02):
outside of that. And also it's because I do realize
that these families have a bond with the police officers
and the investigators.
Speaker 2 (40:11):
They they've been invested in in the accused for however
many years, right to the trials.
Speaker 1 (40:18):
And these investigators are following up with them. And what
are they saying, these guys did it, We know they
did it. We're going to get him for you, you know.
And so they don't. They don't have the capacity, I think,
to look outside of that. This also is interesting. I
did not know this about the case, but Maurice Pearce,
who was the original ringleader, right, the one that took
the gun to the mall, he ends up being killed
(40:40):
in December of two thousand and nine in Austin. A
police officer. They try to pull him over during just
a routine traffic stop. I think he ran a stop
sign and instead of pulling over, he takes off and
he runs. They pursue him on foot and tackle him,
and in this wrestling around, he grabs the knife from
(41:02):
the officer's belt and he stabs the officer in the
neck and the officer grabs his gun, shoots him and
kills him.
Speaker 2 (41:09):
Yeah, and did the officer survive?
Speaker 1 (41:12):
The officer survived. Maurice died. And you know what's sad.
This is what his defense attorney talks and.
Speaker 2 (41:19):
Says, Can I guess yeah, as the position that he
was fearful of police. Yeah, because he's had reason right
for years to be fearful of being convicted of a
crime he didn't commit.
Speaker 1 (41:31):
Right. And also, what they don't they never ended up
telling these boys, or I think really even telling the public,
which it came out in this docu series, was that
original twenty two caliber gun that Maurice took didn't match.
Didn't match.
Speaker 2 (41:46):
Wait, so I never matched. They knew that from the beginning. Yeah,
And they were focused on the Rocky Horror Picture show.
Speaker 1 (41:52):
They were focused on those boys and getting confessions out
of them.
Speaker 2 (41:56):
When it wasn't even the right guy.
Speaker 1 (41:58):
It wasn't the right gun. No, and that came out later.
But this guy, you're right, he suffered from such severe PTSD,
from being interrogated so many times, from being arrested, from
being put in prison, from thinking that he was going
to go on trial.
Speaker 2 (42:12):
He had no they're gonna get me after something else,
They're going to put me back in that jake exactly.
Speaker 1 (42:17):
So when he can you imagine, I can just picture
him in a car running a stop sign, which we've
all rolled through at some point.
Speaker 2 (42:24):
Right, it's an infraction, an infraction.
Speaker 1 (42:27):
But then he ends up losing his life, which, by
the way, he shouldn't run from police. He shouldn't have
grabbed the knife. He shouldn't never understand what exactly I mean,
they had every right to defend themselves, and.
Speaker 2 (42:38):
Yeah, police got stabbed in the neck exactly stop exactly.
Speaker 1 (42:41):
But but his reaction wasn't I'll just pull over and
get a ticket, right, like a reasonable person would. His
reaction was to flee.
Speaker 2 (42:51):
And he may not even know why he was pulled over.
He saw police, saw flashing lights start there after me.
Speaker 1 (42:55):
Again exactly, so you know this case, to me is
very sad. We were talking about this. It's a tragic case.
First of all, it's tragic in the fact that there's
four young girls that lost their life one night for
for no reason at all, horrifically, horrifically lost their lives.
Then you've got these four boys who were interrogated.
Speaker 2 (43:17):
They were set back in their life for years, probably
I don't know what track they were on, you know,
to adulthood, but they were set back.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
And then the two of them spent ten years in prison,
one set back ten years, one on death row, one
in for life. Yeah, and then you've got these families
that are grief stricken, and it's just this investigation did
nothing but cause more more tragedy, more tragedy, more loss
(43:46):
of life, more grief, more pain. Maurice And you can
honestly say, Maurice Pierce, even though he was a punk
when he was a kid or whatever, and he brought
a gun to the mall, if that kid never took
a gun to a mall that day, he'd still be alive.
The whole catalyst of this entire situation with these four.
Speaker 2 (44:03):
Boys, and this maybe a bit of a stretch, but
they might have also had better luck with finding the
actual criminals. Yeah, you're right, because if they were focused
all their energy on these boys, these young men, and
they're overlooking all other things, right, sort of like the
bridge guy, they overlooked that post it note that had
his phone number on it or whatever, because he was
(44:23):
at the scene at the bridge last week, and the
Delphi murders could very well be the same thing. Right.
Speaker 1 (44:28):
They get tunnel visions.
Speaker 2 (44:29):
Yeah, they overlook other there's a term for it. I
forgot what it is, but where they overlook other suspects,
they're focused on one, and.
Speaker 1 (44:36):
Then when they focus on that one, they do everything
possible to try to make it fit.
Speaker 2 (44:39):
Yeah, like point a gun at their head, right like that.
Speaker 1 (44:42):
Twenty seventeen was the twenty fifth anniversary of the yogurt
shop murders. The Awesome Police reaffirmed that the case remains
open and active. The same DNA profile that was found
from Amy ey Or she was the one that they
got the vaginal DNA from, is found on other evidence,
but by different laps. So that's another thing that they
make clear that the investigator makes clear because they've had
(45:04):
three different sets of investigators, right, this case has been
going on for thirty years, so you had your original investigators,
then you had a second investigative team. Now you have
a new cold case investigative team on it. And they
said that they clarified that this DNA sample could not
be contaminated because they've also sent it to two different
labs getting the same test results back, so they're adamant
(45:29):
that it is a completely different and want sect. In
twenty twenty one, it was the thirtieth anniversary, authorities confirmed
that the DNA profile is of an unidentified male, but
it still does not match anyone in the national database. However,
you know what, I read something, and this is interesting
to me because I don't even really understand what this means.
(45:49):
But in twenty twenty, new DNA testing matched evidence from
the crime scene to an unidentified man. The Austin American
Statesman reported. This was where I read it. Though the
FBI allegedly has a matching sample, they have not handed
it over to Austin investigators due to legal complications. Now
what do you think that means? To me? That sounds
(46:11):
like they they It says the FBI allegedly has a
matching sample, but they haven't turned it over to the
Austin investigators due to legal complications.
Speaker 2 (46:20):
So that's legal complications.
Speaker 1 (46:22):
That sounds to me like they that the FBI made
some match, but.
Speaker 2 (46:27):
They're not going to give that the legal complications are.
It's not the people we thought it was, That's what
it is. It's not the suspects.
Speaker 1 (46:35):
I don't understand how you can say that there's a
that they made some match, but they're not going to
hand that information.
Speaker 2 (46:40):
They say it was a match, No, it says.
Speaker 1 (46:44):
It says allegedly that they have a matching sample, but
they have not handed it over to Austin investigators due
to legal complications. Present day, the case remains unsolved. The
investigators continue to hope advance forensic technology will identify them
as That's.
Speaker 2 (46:59):
How it is. It's the legal complications.
Speaker 1 (47:01):
I don't know. I don't know. If I don't know,
I don't.
Speaker 2 (47:04):
Oh, it's very very well be saw. I told you
they swept stuff under the road, and then you brought
that out.
Speaker 1 (47:09):
Yeah. See, I can't imagine that the FBI would have
a match and then they don't want to turn that
information over. I don't know, but I read that. I
think I read that the.
Speaker 2 (47:20):
Legal complications, it's the chief of police. Yeah, that's legally.
Speaker 1 (47:24):
Complicated, right, Are there any signs that would point to
anyone else? Like, how are we ever going to find this?
The crime scene shows that the girls were in the
middle of closing up the store when this happened. It's
believed that two guys were the last in the shop.
Police identified fifty three customers that came in between four
thirty and eleven PM and a number of whom saw
these two men. Are they the killers? Why were they
(47:46):
never identified? Also, I do remember originally do you remember
they also originally blamed or brought in those two Mexican
There was a Mexican guy that was like a gang
leader or something. Oh yeah, yeah, two two of them,
I believe, and then they said that he did it.
Speaker 2 (48:01):
Well, then they were they were in they were they
were in Mexico. There were since then, like whenever they surfaced,
they were in Mexico. And then the authorities here wanted
an extra item or whatever, and then they claimed that
the Mexican government said no, we'll prosecute them, and then
that's it. That's that's as far as I heard.
Speaker 1 (48:20):
Well, they were also they also said that their interrogations
that they were slapped around and beaten, hit and to
get their confessions, because allegedly they gave a confession as
well and said.
Speaker 2 (48:29):
They did it, and the national practice they.
Speaker 1 (48:32):
Just recanted the following day and and said that you
know that they were.
Speaker 2 (48:36):
You know, I don't know, this is terrible. Oh but
didn't they match the composite too well?
Speaker 1 (48:42):
Yeah, but that comps you know, composite drawings bother me.
It's like it looks like you drew it and then
it wasn't. I mean, the they never.
Speaker 2 (48:51):
Look I don't know. Sometimes they're pretty good.
Speaker 1 (48:54):
I don't know. I just think back to the Delphi
want to remember they had two different composites and like
one's an older guy.
Speaker 2 (48:59):
Yeah. I'm not saying they're always dead on, but it
is interesting if they look similar.
Speaker 1 (49:04):
Yeah, there's another theory possibly with this case. All four
girls were members of the f FA, which is the
Future Farmers of America, and could some guys have from
the FFA have done it because they were also they
were bound and gagged and you know when when they
you know, when they rope animals and stuff, they bind
them like the legs and stuff. And yeah, so I
(49:25):
don't know. That's another theory that maybe could have been explored.
I don't know, but anyway, I'm.
Speaker 2 (49:29):
Gonna go with the theory that the police sucked at
the investigation.
Speaker 1 (49:33):
That's a good theory, yeah, allegedly. All right, guys, thank
you so much for listening to Legally Brunette. We hope
you enjoyed this episode. Also, just another reminder that we're
on our own feed so please find us, follow us,
leave a review. We'd love to hear what you guys
have to say. And again, if you have any cases
that you think are interesting that you would love for
us to cover. I always love the feedback, So thanks
(49:56):
for listening.
Speaker 2 (49:56):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (50:00):
M
Hosts And Creators
Teddi Mellencamp
Tamra Judge
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.