March 1, 2024 • 44 mins
Cook County detectives are looking for Michael Gargiulo in California, and connect with L.A.P.D. homicide detective Tom Small to help locate him. Armed with a search warrant, detectives track him to an apartment listed under his girlfriend's name, and arrest him. They submit his DNA for testing and get a match with the DNA collected from Tricia Pacaccio's fingernail clippings. When the Cook County State's Attorney's office is presented with the evidence, they decide not to charge Gargiulo due to the possibility of the DNA being obtained by "casual contact". We speak with DNA expert Kristen Mittelman and former L.A. County prosecutor Joshua Ritter on the decision by Cook County's State's Attorney not to prosecute Gargiulo. Plus, Tom Small tells us how the Pacaccio family reacted to the news.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:09):
In the fall of two thousand andthree, Detective Lousala from Cook County Sheriff's
Cold Case Division began his search forMichael Garzulo, the last name on the
list of potential witnesses to the TriciaBoccaccio murder in nineteen ninety three. He
tracked Garzula to California, where he'dbeen living since nineteen ninety eight. Eventually,
(00:34):
they connected with LAPD Detective Tom Small, who was also looking into Garzula
for possible connections to the murder oftwenty two year old Ashley Ellern in Hollywood.
Let's bring back Tom Small. Tom, how did that connection happen?
The way Chicago got involved was,you know, I had no idea that
(00:59):
he was being looked at for anythingin Illinois until October of two thousand and
two, and I received a phonecall from Lusala and indicated that they were
requesting our assistance and locating a witnessbecause they needed to get some DNA to
(01:21):
rule this witness out as a participantin a case that they were investigating.
So I said, well, okay, and we can help you out.
What you got a name on thisguy, Maybe i'd do some work up
on him and we can meet,and they said yes, his name is
Mike Carjulo, and I just aboutdropped my jaw dropped the phone. I
looked at my partner. I said, did you hear that? And I
(01:45):
said, can you guys get overhere, like real quick? And they
said yeah, we're just down thestreet from it. So they showed up
and I already had a picture ofBarjulo and I put it on. Is
this the guy you're looking for?He says, yeah, did you get
that so fast? I says,I'm looking for him too. I said,
what kind of case do you have? They said, well, we're
(02:06):
investigating a nineteen ninety three murder ofa young gal that was stabbed to death.
I said, well that's ironic.I says, I'm investigating a similar
kind of murder. What do youknow about this guy? He said,
well, he was best friends withtheir murder victim's brother and he only lived
(02:30):
like a block away. I said, well, that's that's your Nike.
How was she killed? And theydescribed it and it had very close similarities
in the targeting and the fact thatshe was she was not raped or sexually
assault in any way, that itwas a purposeful killing. Multiple stab wounds
(02:51):
in the same general areas that actuallyhad hers, so the mo was was
very similar. I said, well, we're gonna have to collaborate on this
one because I'm looking for this guy. He's a murder suspect, and they
were only looking at him as apotential witness at the time because they had
somebody else. They were looking toput this on the glen View, Illinois
(03:15):
murder from ninety three, and thiswhole thing kind of changed their whole game
plan and direction. So that's howwe got involved with Chicago, and there
was some back and forth. Youknow, they came out a couple of
times. I went to Chicago afew times and you know, worked worked
(03:37):
up the cases, interviewed a bunchof people, got background and Guardula.
Turns out Garzula was born and raisedin Glenview, Illinois, which is a
Chicago suburb, and he lived literallya block away. And ultimately we kept
(03:59):
working the cases together, and thenI found out about another case in Downey,
California, and they had a similarmurder of a young lady in her
kitchen, and so we collaborated withthem and did a I think it was
two thousand and four I'm not mistaken. We actually worked with Illinois, Chicago,
(04:28):
and Downey to get Guardulo in forinterview. Los Angeles and Cook County
detectives eventually tracked down Guardulo to anapartment listed under the name of his new
girlfriend on Clark Drive. Armed witha search warrant, they found and searched
his van, Tom, how didyou track Guardulo down? Well, we
(04:55):
tracked him down initially because he wouldHe was seen by by a guy by
the name of Justin Peterson, whowas Ashley's first roommate and a very close
friend of hers, and he reportedone night to coming home. Justin did
about one in the morning, andhe was on foot, and he walked
(05:19):
past the building that Mark Durbin livesin, which is I believe Sarah Benita
Street, which it runs into PinehurstRoad and past the dog park, and
he sees a green Chevy S tenpickup. The engine is running and there's
(05:42):
somebody inside. He makes a mentalnote of the plate and he looks in
there and he sees a big crucifixhanging from the rear view mirror. And
as he's passing the truck, hesees Mike Grjulo and he says, that's
(06:03):
Mike, and it really freaked himout because he was going to spend the
night there at on Pinehurst at Ashley'splace. Ashley was gone at the time
and it was just him staying there. And then all of a sudden he
starts getting some very early phone calls, like five point thirty six in the
(06:24):
morning, and it's Mike and he'slooking for Ashley and Justin tells him she's
not here. I'll take a message. And then he looks out the window.
Justin does and he sees the ChevyS ten that he saw the night
before, making passes up and downPinehurst looking at the house. Garjula is
(06:48):
looking at the house and eventually hestops. The truck, gets out,
comes on the front porch and bangson the door and Justin opens the door.
But Guardula, he doesn't talk fromthe porch. He just barges in.
And it really unnerved Justin because Garzulawas looking room the room to see
(07:15):
if she was actually there, andshe wasn't, so he left. He
didn't say anything, he just left. So Justin confirmed the plate number,
gave it to me. I actuallygave it to his mother and his mother
suggested giving it to a private investigator, and ultimately it got to me and
(07:36):
I ran it and it turned outto be some woman that lived out in
Diamond Bar, which is thirty somemiles east of la and it was a
vehicle owned by this lady who livedwith her parents as ladies in her thirties,
(07:58):
and it was assistant with some ofthe the later moves that we found
that Garzula makes where he uses vehiclesthat blond other people, or he lives
in apartments that are actually leased byother people, and so that's that was
the story. So I ran thatdown and I came up with several other
(08:20):
potential locations. So ultimately I wrotea multilocation search warrant for all these places
and these vehicles, and I waslooking for specifically Guarzula or anything that indicates
that he lives there or stays there, plus requesting that the judge authorized a
(08:46):
search a location search for him physicallyand for his blood, hair and saliva.
And so the judge granted that,and we did a simultaneously search execution
on three locations and we were ableto locate Garjulo, who was coming out
(09:07):
of an alley. Luckily at thetime that the officers were there, because
we were inside the location to besearching. He happened to come back to
it, so he obviously saw wewere cops and he tried to charge through
(09:28):
and escape, but four coppers tookhim down, indicated that we had a
search warrant. He was going togo with us to provide hair, saliva
and blood. Of course, hehe didn't want to do that, and
they said, well, you don'thave much choice, so you can go
easier, go hard, and hedecided to go hard. So that's the
(09:50):
way we handled it and we gotall that done. I booked the evidence
and I was able to provide samplesto ship from our crime lab to the
Cook County Sheriff's Police lab for theiranalysis and comparisons to their crime scene as
(10:15):
well, and that's where we gotthe hit. LAPD Detective Michael Pellettier later
testified that while guard Julo was incustody, he asked officers what if my
DNA was on a key chain thatwas left at a crime scene, and,
according to Pelletier, he remarked,they can't find my DNA from ten
(10:39):
years ago to a crime scene,can they? Wondering if they could book
him for his hairs being found ata crime scene in Chicago. When Michael
Pellettier asked Guardjulo what he was talkingabout, he replied, never mind,
let's bring in DNA expert doctor KristenMiddleman. Doctor Middleman, can you explain
(11:05):
the process for standard DNA testing intwo thousand and three? So in two
thousand and three, the system thatwas in place for forensic DNA testing was
the CODA system here in the UnitedStates, which means that detectives would have
collected DNA from the crime scene andthen they would have used the standard forensic
(11:28):
DNA test that allows for a profilethat has twenty str markers. Then that
profile would be compared to the CODISdatabase, which is the database that law
enforcement has that includes all of theknown perpetrators in the United States. So
in order for you to make itinto CODIS, you have to be already
(11:50):
convicted of a crime and put intoCODIS. And so unfortunately a lot of
us know that many perpetrators are notThey don't have their DNA and CODIS already,
and you may get no match,or you may have a perpetrator's DNA
and CODIS, but you just don'thave their identity to link to. What
(12:13):
can happen now decades later is there'sthis new technology called forensic grade genome sequencing,
and that's building a profile that hashundreds and hundreds of thousands of markers,
so not just twenty, but hundredsand hundreds of thousands from that type
of DNA, and then you're ableto upload that profile to genealogical databases consented
(12:35):
for law enforcement use, and thatallows you to get really distant relationships seventh
cousins, sixth cousins. The moremarkers you have in the profile, the
more distant the relationships are that youcan capture. Being able to capture all
those relationships allows us to be ableto fit the unknowned DNA sample into a
(12:56):
family tree and to let law enforcementknow or insert the identity of that person
and let law enforcement know that lead. Then law enforcement can go back to
that person, obtain their DNA likethey did in this case when they got
his DNA sample, and compare itusing standard DNA technology to confirm that it's
(13:20):
certainly a match with the technology that'sgone to court all of this time,
so it's like a double confirmation.But the amazing part is if you don't
know someone's identity, but they leftDNA at a crime scene, you can
still infer it years later. Now, the question that you asked was,
can you go back ten years andget DNA from the crime scene. I
(13:43):
mean, we've worked climbs all theway back to the eighteen hundreds, right,
So it depends on how the DNAwas left. It depends on if
there was blood, if there wasjust touch DNA, what was there,
and how it was swabbed, andhow it was collected or how it was
maintained, pined, or kept.But there are multiple cases a week that
(14:05):
we announced where we've gone back tosex assaults from fifty two years ago,
murders from forty seven years ago andhave been able to use trace amounts of
DNA left at the client scene andstill identify left that DNA. So that's
the other part of the advancements thathave come through DNA technology over the last
few years. What was possible fiveyears ago, ten years ago is very
(14:28):
different from what's possible today. DNAdetection technologies, the inputs that you can
take in and build a profile forthat help you lead to someone's identity have
expanded exponentially. We have now beenable to identify a perpetrator from really difficult
mixtures, even down too point onetwo nanograms of DNA, that is about
(14:52):
fifteen human cells. It was amixture of perpetrator and victim, and it
was thirty two years old enough forus to be able to tell who that
perpetrator was, and the code ofLinkedIn to get another time that he had
gotten away with three years before.I hope that answers your question. Let's
bring back Tom Small. Tom,what happened after police took Guardulo's DNA sample.
(15:18):
We got a DNA hit on TriciaPoccaccio's fingernails. Under her fingernails was
a blood like substance that came backto Mike Garjulo, and I remember that
it was a really high It's athing in those years they call it RFLP.
I don't remember what that stands for, but it's a process of DNA
(15:41):
and it was one in ninety sevenmillion chants that it would be anybody else.
I think it was more than ninetyseven million. I think it was
more than ninety seven billion. Itwas a very high number that you couldn't
replicate in life in this world,So it was definitely Guarzulo. Unfortunately for
(16:04):
me, I couldn't link him DNAwise to my crime scene. I could
link him by way of circumstances,and I had a lot of that by
observations of my witnesses, things thatcame directly out of Garzulo's mouth to people,
that type of thing. Plus,as it turns out, his his
(16:27):
moo and his signatures on these othercases matched up very closely to my case,
So we were able to pin thatall down there. But now Illinois
had a case, so that thell In case basically burned up and made
(16:51):
made their case, so they justthey just had to act on that and
move forward with DNA testing now linkingMichael Gardulo to Tricia Poccaccio. Detectives could
bring the case to Cook County prosecutorsto recommend charges for Guardulo, but since
(17:11):
there was no DNA evidence recovered fromAshley Elren's crime scene, LAPD and Detective
Tom Small had to rely on Illinoisprosecutors to indict Guardulo and hopefully get him
off the street. The Cook CountyState Attorney at the time was Dick Divine,
with Scott Cassidy serving as special prosecutor. Let's bring back investigative journalist Doug
(17:38):
Longhini. You've covered this part ofthe case closely. What happened when Cook
County prosecutors were presented with DNA evidencefor Tricia Piccaccio enough DNA was found Atricia
Poccaccio's fingernails, the move ahead onthe case themed there was Trisia's DNA,
(18:03):
but there was also DNA from Michaelgod Julo on the fingernails. So the
detectives who had been pushing the caseproperly at that moment in two thousand and
three, text including Lusala, wentto the Cook County Prosecutors with this new
(18:26):
DNA evidence, expecting, anticipating,convinced that they'd solve the case, and
expecting the county State's Attorney's office tobring charges against Michael Guardjulo based upon the
DNA match. The Cook County whostate's attorney so they would not prosecute,
(18:55):
but they did not have enough evidence, Like, what do you mean they
don't have enough evidence? They hadDNA that on chrisus are from Chris's fingernails,
so Michael guard had had Michael Guardjulo'sDNA. How can you not bring
them in and charge them? Well, here were the reasons why. Here's
(19:17):
the reasons they gave at the timewhen that DNA evidence was those fingernails were
first nipped off of chrisus fingers.There were eight fingernails from her left hand
and her right hand. They wereswabbed. Not by the procedure standard at
the time, they should have beenswabbed, one swab doing the tops of
(19:41):
the fingernails, one swab doing thethe underside of the fingernails. No.
Remember, I've described a Cook CountyPolice department that was, let's just say,
not the best it was. Therewas one swab that was used.
Okay, and we'll get to whythat's important. Then the eight finger nails,
(20:04):
both from the right hand and theleft hand were all put in the
one envelope, and that envelope thatfor almost a decade. So, of
course, some of the as wewas putifying for it, some of that
DNA would have deteriorated over time.Nonetheless, there was Tricia's DNA and Michael
(20:26):
Cardulo's DNA. The Cook County prosecutorstold Detective Lussala and the others looking on
the investigation all of them. Thesedetectives convinced that they'd solved the case.
We're going to bring Michael Guardiulo tojustice and finds us As for a Tricia,
(20:48):
the prosecutors explained that Michael Guardulo's DNAcould have ended up on Tricia's fingernails
from casual contacts. They pointed outincorrectly that Michael Guardiulo was a friend of
Doug Pocaccio's. Michael Guardiulo had beenin the Pocacio home over the years many
(21:14):
times. Shortly before Chris's murder,Chris, they had gotten down ride in
one of the Guardulo's family vans.Many days of the week. Diane Pocaccio
would drive her son, Doug,and Michael Guardulo to high school, so
(21:38):
they'd been in Michael Gulo had beenin at least one of the Pocaccio's car,
So THEOK County State's attorneys said theycould not rule out casual contact and
therefore they would not bring charges againstMichael Guardiulo that would have profound and tragic
(22:03):
consequences. Let's bring back DNA expertdoctor Kristen Middleman. Doctor Middleman, can
you explain more about casual contact andhow it relates to DNA evidence from a
victim's fingernails absolutely. So as DNAtechnology improves and improves and becomes more and
(22:25):
more sensitive, where you're able toidentify someone from such trace amounts of DNA
touch DNA, you have to startto consider whether all the DNA collected at
a crime scene is truly probative.And that's where the investigate. The investigative
part of the process is so importantand so critical. So a seasoned detective
(22:51):
that has worked many, many ofthese cases has a really good idea of
what is probative and what is notprobative at a crime scene, or what
could be and what couldn't be probativein a crime scene. That's probably not
a call that someone that is workinga DNA in a DNA lab should be
making. It's more of a callthat the detective should make based on the
(23:12):
type of evidence that was collected.And let me give you some examples.
If the DNA was trace amounts,but it was semen or it was blood
found at the crime scene, thatindicates that it's likely that there was either
some sort of some sort of physicaldisagreement between two people. Maybe the victim
(23:40):
was able to scratch the perpetrator duringthe attack and got blood under her fingernails,
or was able to the perpetrator injuredhimself while he was stabbing the victim,
or obviously when you leave semino fluidsat a crime scene, that's something
that isn't just casual contact, evenif it's found in trace amounts. So
(24:02):
the type of DNA is one cluethat gives you the ability to say that's
probative. Unfortunately, when you're talkingabout just touch DNA, and sometimes that's
all that's left, you have toconsider the location of that touch DNA.
If it's touched DNA or on someone'sthroat and the manner of death with strangulation,
well that's something that's considered probative mostof the time. If it's touched
(24:27):
DNA on someone's clothing, well,you could have hugged your best friend,
or you could have hugged somebody theday before that day or touched them.
Is that a probative piece of DNAfor the crime scene? Probably not right.
Those are the decisions that are beingmade by law enforcement. In this
case, that obviously fell in thegray zone because the DNA was found under
(24:48):
her fingernails. But the DNA thatwas found under her fingernails, I'm not
sure if it belonged to just skincells that the felial cells or touch DNA,
or if it was something that thatwas derived from blood. That's something
that you guys can look at inthe reports. But for whatever reason,
the prosecutors determined that that wasn't sufficeto proceed, and so it wasn't necessarily
(25:15):
probative, and that's and that's howthat determination is usually made, and that's
what happened in this case. It'svery insightful, thank you. According to
investigators, there was almost a fiftyto fifty mixture of Tricia and guard Julo's
DNA under her fingernails. Can youexplain what that means? Yes, So
(25:38):
the percentage of the mixture. Sowhen you say a fifty to fifty mixture,
that means there's equal parts of thevictim and the perpetrator in that DNA
sample. So often on come scenes, the perpetrator DNA isn't much lower concentration
than the victim's DNA because you're workingwith the victim's body. A fifty to
(26:00):
fifty, make sure, means thatthere was quite a bit of his DNA
under her fingernails when they swapped herfingernails. Again, this was not sound
purvative, so it's likely that itcould have been epithelial DNA. I mean,
you can imagine if someone was youknow, you shake someone's hand,
(26:21):
or you touch someone and your fingernailsaccidentally get some of their cells underneath your
nails. It didn't necessarily mean thatthat happened during a crime. And I
think that was the argument that wasmade in the articles that I read,
is that there was no way toprove that the cells were there because of
the crime or were actually probative tothe crime. Again, likely because it
(26:44):
wasn't found in blood. Doctor,what were your thoughts on Cook County's decision
not to prosecute. I don't knowany prosecutors, and I've worked with hundreds
of them in the last few years. I don't want to prosecute someone for
a crime they committed. They haveto go into court certain that this person
(27:07):
committed that crime, and sometimes evenwith all the science and all the tools
that we hand them, that certaintyis not necessarily there, and they're having
to make a call based on whatis all the other investigations that I've ever
been part of, and all theother types of DNA evidence they have seen
at crime scenes and they have seenprosecuted successfully through court. And when you
(27:33):
make calls like that that are notbased on science but are based on being
able to analyze the crime scene andhaving to infer whether something is probitive or
not, you're not going to beone hundred percent right, even if you're
the best prosecutor in the United Statesof America. And so I understand the
outrage that people have, especially becausethis person got away with the crime and
(27:56):
then committed continue to commit more crimesuntil he got caught. But in the
United States of America, we expectcertainty when a prosecutor takes someone to court.
We're innocent until proven guilty. Andthey were looking for DNA evidence that
was more probative because there were somebodily fluids. There was something that was
(28:17):
directly linked to a crime. Andso you know, in my opinion as
a DNA expert is that is theirjob, and so they have to be
allowed the opportunity to do their jobthe best they can, and I believe
that is what happened here as well. Doctor you bring up a really good
point in the court of law.You're innocent to proven guilty. That's key.
(28:41):
Let's bring in attorney Joshua Ritter,criminal defense attorney, former Los Angeles
County Deputy District attorney. Josh whatare your thoughts on how Cook County prosecutors
handled this case? Are you surprisedthey refuse to charge Guardulo based on the
evidence they had. I completely understandand sympathize with the frustration that law enforcement
(29:11):
and the family members have had withthe hesitation on the part of Cook County
prosecutors to bring charges in this case. But I think it's important to really
look at this with a sense ofnuance and understanding of what really the responsibility
(29:33):
of a prosecutor is, because it'snot an easy call for them to make.
A lot goes into the decision andwhether or not to charge someone,
especially for something of this magnitude.You're talking about murder. We're not talking
about some low level crime. We'retalking about murder, and they are not
(30:00):
only tasked with the idea of tryingto figure out who is responsible, but
can they hold that person responsible?In other words, can they bring charges
that will get past certain legal hurdles? And to the point of being able
(30:21):
to prove those charges beyond a reasonabledoubt at trial. So that is my
long winded introduction to saying that tosome extent, I'm not surprised. Yes,
DNA is powerful evidence, but it'salso important to remember that DNA remains
(30:45):
circumstantial evidence. And what I meanby that is it's not direct evidence in
the sense that an eyewitness saw whattook place or videotape captured what took place.
All DNA is telling us is thatone person was in contact with another
person at some point in time.We can't even pinpoint when that took place
(31:11):
or how that contact was made.So the prosecutors here sounds like they had
a real problem with the DNA beingfirst of all, touch DNA, meaning
that it was not blood or someother type of bodily fluid. That you
could absolutely say that this was morethan casual contact. It was touch DNA,
(31:37):
and that this was a person thatthe victim had reason to perhaps be
in contact with. Now, Iknow there's a bunch of arguments against that.
There's the idea that she was incontact with many other people that evening
she didn't have her their DNA onher that there there was no evidence that
(32:00):
she had come into contact with thisperson anytime in the recent future. And
all of that I think makes alot of sense, and all of that
I think played into the decision madeTrix, But it still comes down to
a very difficult decision. And thedecision isn't one of do they believe this
(32:22):
person is responsible as much as withwhat they have in hand, the evidence
they have in hand, do theybelieve that they could prove this beyond a
reasonable doubt? And I think that'sa much more nuanced and difficult question to
answer, and I think why itled to the very frustrating decision that they
(32:42):
made. Josh, can you explainwhy a prosecutor wouldn't try to prosecute a
case like this? Is it notworth trying for the sake of Trishia's Piccaccio's
parents, who have gone ten yearswithout answers. Prosecutors are, to a
(33:02):
great extent gatekeepers. They are notjust tasked with the idea of putting the
bad guys away and you know,hard charging pursuit of justice. Part of
their job is to make sure thatnot only are they charging guilty people,
(33:24):
but they're making sure to not chargepeople who are either innocent or people that
they feel they cannot prove beyond areasonable doubt in front of twelve individuals that
this person is responsible. So thereis this gatekeeping element, the idea that
(33:45):
they have to make sure that justicein the sense that the right person is
being charged with the right evidence.But they're also concerned about what happens if
you do give this a try.What happens if you say, let's just
give it a shot. This familydeserves some answers. They've had an incredible
(34:09):
loss. It's been a long periodof time, we believe we know who
did it. Let's just put itin front of twelve people and see what
happens. Well, the consequences ofthat could be an acquittal, and that
could be disastrous if you think aboutit, because now double jeopardy has attached.
(34:30):
Now you've brought a case to trialwhere you didn't have sufficient evidence.
Perhaps you've got some very clever andskilled defense attorneys who were able to exploit
some of the holes in your evidence. That touch DNA could be one of
them. They could have reasons theycould present to the jury that might explain
why that DNA was there, thatdidn't have to do with the murders,
(34:52):
and if jurors felt that that wasnot enough to surmount that hurdle of beyond
a reasonable doubt, and they decideto vote not guilty. Now you've acquitted
this person and you can never trythat person again. And if down the
(35:13):
line more evidence comes forward, it'sgame over for you. You've already had
your trial and you've lost, andthere's nothing that you can do now.
And that I think is one ofthe reasons, amongst some but one of
the more powerful reasons of why theymay not prosecute a case that does not
seem like a home run because they'reconcerned with the consequences if they do lose.
(35:38):
Now that all being said, notevery case is perfect, and in
fact, most cases are not perfect. Most cases have a lot of problems
with them. But it's a prosecutor'sresponsibility to sit down and go, Okay,
everything good that we have and everythingweak that we have in this case,
(36:00):
do we feel confident we could provethis beyond a reasonable doubt? And
that is really the seminal question theyneed to answer before bringing a prosecution,
and that's why sometimes they don't takethat chance. Cook County State's attorney claims
ethical guidelines prohibit the charging of acase without evidence in hand that would enable
(36:22):
them to prove guilty beyond a reasonabledoubt. Let's bring back investigative journalists Doug
Longhini. Doug, how did thePocaccio family react to this? Thought immediately
comes to mind thinking about the DNAmatch to Michael Guardrulo and the failure or
(36:46):
the refusal. I should put itof the Cook County State's attorney to bring
charges against him based upon the DNAmatch. But what comes to night is,
well, what was the reaction inthe Pocaccio Well, initially none.
They were kept in the dark forI think three or four years. At
(37:07):
least three years. They never evenknew any of this was going on.
Nobody told them there'd been a match. Nobody told them anything. It was
only until it wasn't until two thousandand six that they learned there had been
this match. You know, Iwasn't with them at the time, and
(37:30):
I've seen them many times in thelast number of years, the last ten
years at least, and they canget pretty upset about things. I I
can't even guess how upset they werewhen they found that out. I mean,
at last, after all that time, there'd been a DNA match,
(37:54):
something I'm sure in the private thoughtsand players they'd hoped for, and there
it was in the state's attorney refusedto bring charges. They had to be
devastated, had to be. Canyou imagine. Here's a family who lost
their beautiful, bright, young daughter, and according to the mother, she
(38:22):
was always checking on the status ofthe case, but not knowing for two
years that there was DNA and alsothe fact of what was going on in
the case to potentially be left inthe dark. How that must felt for
the family wanting answers after so manyyears and still in their mind not getting
(38:50):
any answers. It had to bedevastating. Tom, were you there when
the Boccaccio family found out? Howdid they learn there be no charges laid?
Yeah? I was doing some additionalfollow ups in Illinois. I met
up first of all with with LouisAlah and some of the several of the
(39:15):
investigators that worked with him. Anotherguy by the name of Nick Tattoosa,
Nick real Squared Away guy. He'sretired too, and I wanted to talk
with some of their witnesses for additionalbackground, that maybe I could use that
information to pull stuff from my witnessesto maybe solidify the case a little bit
(39:42):
better. And ellery and I'll saythis, they really didn't want me to
to talk to a lot of theirpeople, so I'll just leave it at
that. But I did talk totheir their witnesses, a lot of them,
and I decided, I'm I'm goingto talk to the Pocaccio family because
I was led to. Actually,I was told first directly that the Illinois
(40:08):
State's attorney sat down with the familywith high level rank and file of Kokani
sheriffs, and they were told thatthere was no evidence linking any suspects to
their daughter's case. And I wantedto get a little bit more on the
(40:30):
relationship they had with Garjulo, andI wasn't going to be stopped from doing
that. So my partner and Iestablished a plan, and I got a
hold of mister Picassio, and Iestablished a date and time for a meeting,
and I left it up to themwhere they felt the safest. And
(40:52):
he was always wondering, why doesa Los Angeles police detective want to talk
to them about daughter's case from Illinois? So I said, well, I
got some information that I'd like toshare with you and kind of pick your
brain on some aspects of your daughter'scase. So we met and they said,
(41:15):
now what's this all about? AndI said, well, first of
all, what do you know aboutTricia's case? And they said, well,
they don't have anybody in mind.They're still working it. But they
said, there's there's no evidence ofof anybody. And I said, well,
I'm gonna I'm going to tell yousomething and it's gonna flor you.
But the reason I'm here is I'vegot linkage between a case that we have
(41:39):
in Los Angeles with your daughter's case, and the linkage is DNA and that's
that's how they found out. SoI you know, they they were none
too happy say that, but theywere almost relieved. And I think missus,
(42:00):
not you in particular. She blurtedout that she always felt Michael Garzula
had something to do with that case, and her husband also believe that,
but he was so taken aback.And so because he's he is the one
(42:22):
that found his daughter, so hehas a lot of a lot of issues
that he still carries to this day, trying to get through this, but
I felt that they should know thatthere is there is evidence, and we're
looking at their daughter's case and Iwanted to I needed help with that case
(42:45):
to further bolster the element case.You see that that reasoning because we can
we can do a thing under elevenoh one B of the Evidence Code when
you have a case that is sosimilar in mo in a way, it's
carried out that you can use thatin your case in chief in California.
(43:09):
A lot of states don't have that, but we have that here and so
I was able to glean a lotof information and from there I got the
names and places of different people totalk to and it it brought about a
lot of very good background information onwhat Guardula is all about, how he
(43:31):
operates, and literally we actually turnedup about thirty actual felonies that he committed
that were never charged, things likearson's and car theft and robberies and burglaries
and rapes. The guy is he'sa bad seat with choosing not to charge
(44:00):
Guardulo, he remained a free manin California. Sadly, two years later,
another Los Angeles woman was killed ina similar brutal fashion. In our
next episode, we dive deeper intothat murder, key evidence recovered from the
(44:21):
crime scene, and Gartulo's eventual moveto Santa Monica. I'm Kelly Hymen,
and this is once upon a crimein Hollywood, the Hollywood Ripper,
In the fall of two thousand andthree, Detective Lousala from Cook County Sheriff's
Cold Case Division began his search forMichael Garzulo, the last name on the
list of potential witnesses to the TriciaBoccaccio murder in nineteen ninety three. He
tracked Garzula to California, where he'dbeen living since nineteen ninety eight. Eventually,
(00:34):
they connected with LAPD Detective Tom Small, who was also looking into Garzula
for possible connections to the murder oftwenty two year old Ashley Ellern in Hollywood.
Let's bring back Tom Small. Tom, how did that connection happen?
The way Chicago got involved was,you know, I had no idea that
(00:59):
he was being looked at for anythingin Illinois until October of two thousand and
two, and I received a phonecall from Lusala and indicated that they were
requesting our assistance and locating a witnessbecause they needed to get some DNA to
(01:21):
rule this witness out as a participantin a case that they were investigating.
So I said, well, okay, and we can help you out.
What you got a name on thisguy, Maybe i'd do some work up
on him and we can meet,and they said yes, his name is
Mike Carjulo, and I just aboutdropped my jaw dropped the phone. I
looked at my partner. I said, did you hear that? And I
(01:45):
said, can you guys get overhere, like real quick? And they
said yeah, we're just down thestreet from it. So they showed up
and I already had a picture ofBarjulo and I put it on. Is
this the guy you're looking for?He says, yeah, did you get
that so fast? I says,I'm looking for him too. I said,
what kind of case do you have? They said, well, we're
(02:06):
investigating a nineteen ninety three murder ofa young gal that was stabbed to death.
I said, well that's ironic.I says, I'm investigating a similar
kind of murder. What do youknow about this guy? He said,
well, he was best friends withtheir murder victim's brother and he only lived
(02:30):
like a block away. I said, well, that's that's your Nike.
How was she killed? And theydescribed it and it had very close similarities
in the targeting and the fact thatshe was she was not raped or sexually
assault in any way, that itwas a purposeful killing. Multiple stab wounds
(02:51):
in the same general areas that actuallyhad hers, so the mo was was
very similar. I said, well, we're gonna have to collaborate on this
one because I'm looking for this guy. He's a murder suspect, and they
were only looking at him as apotential witness at the time because they had
somebody else. They were looking toput this on the glen View, Illinois
(03:15):
murder from ninety three, and thiswhole thing kind of changed their whole game
plan and direction. So that's howwe got involved with Chicago, and there
was some back and forth. Youknow, they came out a couple of
times. I went to Chicago afew times and you know, worked worked
(03:37):
up the cases, interviewed a bunchof people, got background and Guardula.
Turns out Garzula was born and raisedin Glenview, Illinois, which is a
Chicago suburb, and he lived literallya block away. And ultimately we kept
(03:59):
working the cases together, and thenI found out about another case in Downey,
California, and they had a similarmurder of a young lady in her
kitchen, and so we collaborated withthem and did a I think it was
two thousand and four I'm not mistaken. We actually worked with Illinois, Chicago,
(04:28):
and Downey to get Guardulo in forinterview. Los Angeles and Cook County
detectives eventually tracked down Guardulo to anapartment listed under the name of his new
girlfriend on Clark Drive. Armed witha search warrant, they found and searched
his van, Tom, how didyou track Guardulo down? Well, we
(04:55):
tracked him down initially because he wouldHe was seen by by a guy by
the name of Justin Peterson, whowas Ashley's first roommate and a very close
friend of hers, and he reportedone night to coming home. Justin did
about one in the morning, andhe was on foot, and he walked
(05:19):
past the building that Mark Durbin livesin, which is I believe Sarah Benita
Street, which it runs into PinehurstRoad and past the dog park, and
he sees a green Chevy S tenpickup. The engine is running and there's
(05:42):
somebody inside. He makes a mentalnote of the plate and he looks in
there and he sees a big crucifixhanging from the rear view mirror. And
as he's passing the truck, hesees Mike Grjulo and he says, that's
(06:03):
Mike, and it really freaked himout because he was going to spend the
night there at on Pinehurst at Ashley'splace. Ashley was gone at the time
and it was just him staying there. And then all of a sudden he
starts getting some very early phone calls, like five point thirty six in the
(06:24):
morning, and it's Mike and he'slooking for Ashley and Justin tells him she's
not here. I'll take a message. And then he looks out the window.
Justin does and he sees the ChevyS ten that he saw the night
before, making passes up and downPinehurst looking at the house. Garjula is
(06:48):
looking at the house and eventually hestops. The truck, gets out,
comes on the front porch and bangson the door and Justin opens the door.
But Guardula, he doesn't talk fromthe porch. He just barges in.
And it really unnerved Justin because Garzulawas looking room the room to see
(07:15):
if she was actually there, andshe wasn't, so he left. He
didn't say anything, he just left. So Justin confirmed the plate number,
gave it to me. I actuallygave it to his mother and his mother
suggested giving it to a private investigator, and ultimately it got to me and
(07:36):
I ran it and it turned outto be some woman that lived out in
Diamond Bar, which is thirty somemiles east of la and it was a
vehicle owned by this lady who livedwith her parents as ladies in her thirties,
(07:58):
and it was assistant with some ofthe the later moves that we found
that Garzula makes where he uses vehiclesthat blond other people, or he lives
in apartments that are actually leased byother people, and so that's that was
the story. So I ran thatdown and I came up with several other
(08:20):
potential locations. So ultimately I wrotea multilocation search warrant for all these places
and these vehicles, and I waslooking for specifically Guarzula or anything that indicates
that he lives there or stays there, plus requesting that the judge authorized a
(08:46):
search a location search for him physicallyand for his blood, hair and saliva.
And so the judge granted that,and we did a simultaneously search execution
on three locations and we were ableto locate Garjulo, who was coming out
(09:07):
of an alley. Luckily at thetime that the officers were there, because
we were inside the location to besearching. He happened to come back to
it, so he obviously saw wewere cops and he tried to charge through
(09:28):
and escape, but four coppers tookhim down, indicated that we had a
search warrant. He was going togo with us to provide hair, saliva
and blood. Of course, hehe didn't want to do that, and
they said, well, you don'thave much choice, so you can go
easier, go hard, and hedecided to go hard. So that's the
(09:50):
way we handled it and we gotall that done. I booked the evidence
and I was able to provide samplesto ship from our crime lab to the
Cook County Sheriff's Police lab for theiranalysis and comparisons to their crime scene as
(10:15):
well, and that's where we gotthe hit. LAPD Detective Michael Pellettier later
testified that while guard Julo was incustody, he asked officers what if my
DNA was on a key chain thatwas left at a crime scene, and,
according to Pelletier, he remarked,they can't find my DNA from ten
(10:39):
years ago to a crime scene,can they? Wondering if they could book
him for his hairs being found ata crime scene in Chicago. When Michael
Pellettier asked Guardjulo what he was talkingabout, he replied, never mind,
let's bring in DNA expert doctor KristenMiddleman. Doctor Middleman, can you explain
(11:05):
the process for standard DNA testing intwo thousand and three? So in two
thousand and three, the system thatwas in place for forensic DNA testing was
the CODA system here in the UnitedStates, which means that detectives would have
collected DNA from the crime scene andthen they would have used the standard forensic
(11:28):
DNA test that allows for a profilethat has twenty str markers. Then that
profile would be compared to the CODISdatabase, which is the database that law
enforcement has that includes all of theknown perpetrators in the United States. So
in order for you to make itinto CODIS, you have to be already
(11:50):
convicted of a crime and put intoCODIS. And so unfortunately a lot of
us know that many perpetrators are notThey don't have their DNA and CODIS already,
and you may get no match,or you may have a perpetrator's DNA
and CODIS, but you just don'thave their identity to link to. What
(12:13):
can happen now decades later is there'sthis new technology called forensic grade genome sequencing,
and that's building a profile that hashundreds and hundreds of thousands of markers,
so not just twenty, but hundredsand hundreds of thousands from that type
of DNA, and then you're ableto upload that profile to genealogical databases consented
(12:35):
for law enforcement use, and thatallows you to get really distant relationships seventh
cousins, sixth cousins. The moremarkers you have in the profile, the
more distant the relationships are that youcan capture. Being able to capture all
those relationships allows us to be ableto fit the unknowned DNA sample into a
(12:56):
family tree and to let law enforcementknow or insert the identity of that person
and let law enforcement know that lead. Then law enforcement can go back to
that person, obtain their DNA likethey did in this case when they got
his DNA sample, and compare itusing standard DNA technology to confirm that it's
(13:20):
certainly a match with the technology that'sgone to court all of this time,
so it's like a double confirmation.But the amazing part is if you don't
know someone's identity, but they leftDNA at a crime scene, you can
still infer it years later. Now, the question that you asked was,
can you go back ten years andget DNA from the crime scene. I
(13:43):
mean, we've worked climbs all theway back to the eighteen hundreds, right,
So it depends on how the DNAwas left. It depends on if
there was blood, if there wasjust touch DNA, what was there,
and how it was swabbed, andhow it was collected or how it was
maintained, pined, or kept.But there are multiple cases a week that
(14:05):
we announced where we've gone back tosex assaults from fifty two years ago,
murders from forty seven years ago andhave been able to use trace amounts of
DNA left at the client scene andstill identify left that DNA. So that's
the other part of the advancements thathave come through DNA technology over the last
few years. What was possible fiveyears ago, ten years ago is very
(14:28):
different from what's possible today. DNAdetection technologies, the inputs that you can
take in and build a profile forthat help you lead to someone's identity have
expanded exponentially. We have now beenable to identify a perpetrator from really difficult
mixtures, even down too point onetwo nanograms of DNA, that is about
(14:52):
fifteen human cells. It was amixture of perpetrator and victim, and it
was thirty two years old enough forus to be able to tell who that
perpetrator was, and the code ofLinkedIn to get another time that he had
gotten away with three years before.I hope that answers your question. Let's
bring back Tom Small. Tom,what happened after police took Guardulo's DNA sample.
(15:18):
We got a DNA hit on TriciaPoccaccio's fingernails. Under her fingernails was
a blood like substance that came backto Mike Garjulo, and I remember that
it was a really high It's athing in those years they call it RFLP.
I don't remember what that stands for, but it's a process of DNA
(15:41):
and it was one in ninety sevenmillion chants that it would be anybody else.
I think it was more than ninetyseven million. I think it was
more than ninety seven billion. Itwas a very high number that you couldn't
replicate in life in this world,So it was definitely Guarzulo. Unfortunately for
(16:04):
me, I couldn't link him DNAwise to my crime scene. I could
link him by way of circumstances,and I had a lot of that by
observations of my witnesses, things thatcame directly out of Garzulo's mouth to people,
that type of thing. Plus,as it turns out, his his
(16:27):
moo and his signatures on these othercases matched up very closely to my case,
So we were able to pin thatall down there. But now Illinois
had a case, so that thell In case basically burned up and made
(16:51):
made their case, so they justthey just had to act on that and
move forward with DNA testing now linkingMichael Gardulo to Tricia Poccaccio. Detectives could
bring the case to Cook County prosecutorsto recommend charges for Guardulo, but since
(17:11):
there was no DNA evidence recovered fromAshley Elren's crime scene, LAPD and Detective
Tom Small had to rely on Illinoisprosecutors to indict Guardulo and hopefully get him
off the street. The Cook CountyState Attorney at the time was Dick Divine,
with Scott Cassidy serving as special prosecutor. Let's bring back investigative journalist Doug
(17:38):
Longhini. You've covered this part ofthe case closely. What happened when Cook
County prosecutors were presented with DNA evidencefor Tricia Piccaccio enough DNA was found Atricia
Poccaccio's fingernails, the move ahead onthe case themed there was Trisia's DNA,
(18:03):
but there was also DNA from Michaelgod Julo on the fingernails. So the
detectives who had been pushing the caseproperly at that moment in two thousand and
three, text including Lusala, wentto the Cook County Prosecutors with this new
(18:26):
DNA evidence, expecting, anticipating,convinced that they'd solve the case, and
expecting the county State's Attorney's office tobring charges against Michael Guardjulo based upon the
DNA match. The Cook County whostate's attorney so they would not prosecute,
(18:55):
but they did not have enough evidence, Like, what do you mean they
don't have enough evidence? They hadDNA that on chrisus are from Chris's fingernails,
so Michael guard had had Michael Guardjulo'sDNA. How can you not bring
them in and charge them? Well, here were the reasons why. Here's
(19:17):
the reasons they gave at the timewhen that DNA evidence was those fingernails were
first nipped off of chrisus fingers.There were eight fingernails from her left hand
and her right hand. They wereswabbed. Not by the procedure standard at
the time, they should have beenswabbed, one swab doing the tops of
(19:41):
the fingernails, one swab doing thethe underside of the fingernails. No.
Remember, I've described a Cook CountyPolice department that was, let's just say,
not the best it was. Therewas one swab that was used.
Okay, and we'll get to whythat's important. Then the eight finger nails,
(20:04):
both from the right hand and theleft hand were all put in the
one envelope, and that envelope thatfor almost a decade. So, of
course, some of the as wewas putifying for it, some of that
DNA would have deteriorated over time.Nonetheless, there was Tricia's DNA and Michael
(20:26):
Cardulo's DNA. The Cook County prosecutorstold Detective Lussala and the others looking on
the investigation all of them. Thesedetectives convinced that they'd solved the case.
We're going to bring Michael Guardiulo tojustice and finds us As for a Tricia,
(20:48):
the prosecutors explained that Michael Guardulo's DNAcould have ended up on Tricia's fingernails
from casual contacts. They pointed outincorrectly that Michael Guardiulo was a friend of
Doug Pocaccio's. Michael Guardiulo had beenin the Pocacio home over the years many
(21:14):
times. Shortly before Chris's murder,Chris, they had gotten down ride in
one of the Guardulo's family vans.Many days of the week. Diane Pocaccio
would drive her son, Doug,and Michael Guardulo to high school, so
(21:38):
they'd been in Michael Gulo had beenin at least one of the Pocaccio's car,
So THEOK County State's attorneys said theycould not rule out casual contact and
therefore they would not bring charges againstMichael Guardiulo that would have profound and tragic
(22:03):
consequences. Let's bring back DNA expertdoctor Kristen Middleman. Doctor Middleman, can
you explain more about casual contact andhow it relates to DNA evidence from a
victim's fingernails absolutely. So as DNAtechnology improves and improves and becomes more and
(22:25):
more sensitive, where you're able toidentify someone from such trace amounts of DNA
touch DNA, you have to startto consider whether all the DNA collected at
a crime scene is truly probative.And that's where the investigate. The investigative
part of the process is so importantand so critical. So a seasoned detective
(22:51):
that has worked many, many ofthese cases has a really good idea of
what is probative and what is notprobative at a crime scene, or what
could be and what couldn't be probativein a crime scene. That's probably not
a call that someone that is workinga DNA in a DNA lab should be
making. It's more of a callthat the detective should make based on the
(23:12):
type of evidence that was collected.And let me give you some examples.
If the DNA was trace amounts,but it was semen or it was blood
found at the crime scene, thatindicates that it's likely that there was either
some sort of some sort of physicaldisagreement between two people. Maybe the victim
(23:40):
was able to scratch the perpetrator duringthe attack and got blood under her fingernails,
or was able to the perpetrator injuredhimself while he was stabbing the victim,
or obviously when you leave semino fluidsat a crime scene, that's something
that isn't just casual contact, evenif it's found in trace amounts. So
(24:02):
the type of DNA is one cluethat gives you the ability to say that's
probative. Unfortunately, when you're talkingabout just touch DNA, and sometimes that's
all that's left, you have toconsider the location of that touch DNA.
If it's touched DNA or on someone'sthroat and the manner of death with strangulation,
well that's something that's considered probative mostof the time. If it's touched
(24:27):
DNA on someone's clothing, well,you could have hugged your best friend,
or you could have hugged somebody theday before that day or touched them.
Is that a probative piece of DNAfor the crime scene? Probably not right.
Those are the decisions that are beingmade by law enforcement. In this
case, that obviously fell in thegray zone because the DNA was found under
(24:48):
her fingernails. But the DNA thatwas found under her fingernails, I'm not
sure if it belonged to just skincells that the felial cells or touch DNA,
or if it was something that thatwas derived from blood. That's something
that you guys can look at inthe reports. But for whatever reason,
the prosecutors determined that that wasn't sufficeto proceed, and so it wasn't necessarily
(25:15):
probative, and that's and that's howthat determination is usually made, and that's
what happened in this case. It'svery insightful, thank you. According to
investigators, there was almost a fiftyto fifty mixture of Tricia and guard Julo's
DNA under her fingernails. Can youexplain what that means? Yes, So
(25:38):
the percentage of the mixture. Sowhen you say a fifty to fifty mixture,
that means there's equal parts of thevictim and the perpetrator in that DNA
sample. So often on come scenes, the perpetrator DNA isn't much lower concentration
than the victim's DNA because you're workingwith the victim's body. A fifty to
(26:00):
fifty, make sure, means thatthere was quite a bit of his DNA
under her fingernails when they swapped herfingernails. Again, this was not sound
purvative, so it's likely that itcould have been epithelial DNA. I mean,
you can imagine if someone was youknow, you shake someone's hand,
(26:21):
or you touch someone and your fingernailsaccidentally get some of their cells underneath your
nails. It didn't necessarily mean thatthat happened during a crime. And I
think that was the argument that wasmade in the articles that I read,
is that there was no way toprove that the cells were there because of
the crime or were actually probative tothe crime. Again, likely because it
(26:44):
wasn't found in blood. Doctor,what were your thoughts on Cook County's decision
not to prosecute. I don't knowany prosecutors, and I've worked with hundreds
of them in the last few years. I don't want to prosecute someone for
a crime they committed. They haveto go into court certain that this person
(27:07):
committed that crime, and sometimes evenwith all the science and all the tools
that we hand them, that certaintyis not necessarily there, and they're having
to make a call based on whatis all the other investigations that I've ever
been part of, and all theother types of DNA evidence they have seen
at crime scenes and they have seenprosecuted successfully through court. And when you
(27:33):
make calls like that that are notbased on science but are based on being
able to analyze the crime scene andhaving to infer whether something is probitive or
not, you're not going to beone hundred percent right, even if you're
the best prosecutor in the United Statesof America. And so I understand the
outrage that people have, especially becausethis person got away with the crime and
(27:56):
then committed continue to commit more crimesuntil he got caught. But in the
United States of America, we expectcertainty when a prosecutor takes someone to court.
We're innocent until proven guilty. Andthey were looking for DNA evidence that
was more probative because there were somebodily fluids. There was something that was
(28:17):
directly linked to a crime. Andso you know, in my opinion as
a DNA expert is that is theirjob, and so they have to be
allowed the opportunity to do their jobthe best they can, and I believe
that is what happened here as well. Doctor you bring up a really good
point in the court of law.You're innocent to proven guilty. That's key.
(28:41):
Let's bring in attorney Joshua Ritter,criminal defense attorney, former Los Angeles
County Deputy District attorney. Josh whatare your thoughts on how Cook County prosecutors
handled this case? Are you surprisedthey refuse to charge Guardulo based on the
evidence they had. I completely understandand sympathize with the frustration that law enforcement
(29:11):
and the family members have had withthe hesitation on the part of Cook County
prosecutors to bring charges in this case. But I think it's important to really
look at this with a sense ofnuance and understanding of what really the responsibility
(29:33):
of a prosecutor is, because it'snot an easy call for them to make.
A lot goes into the decision andwhether or not to charge someone,
especially for something of this magnitude.You're talking about murder. We're not talking
about some low level crime. We'retalking about murder, and they are not
(30:00):
only tasked with the idea of tryingto figure out who is responsible, but
can they hold that person responsible?In other words, can they bring charges
that will get past certain legal hurdles? And to the point of being able
(30:21):
to prove those charges beyond a reasonabledoubt at trial. So that is my
long winded introduction to saying that tosome extent, I'm not surprised. Yes,
DNA is powerful evidence, but it'salso important to remember that DNA remains
(30:45):
circumstantial evidence. And what I meanby that is it's not direct evidence in
the sense that an eyewitness saw whattook place or videotape captured what took place.
All DNA is telling us is thatone person was in contact with another
person at some point in time.We can't even pinpoint when that took place
(31:11):
or how that contact was made.So the prosecutors here sounds like they had
a real problem with the DNA beingfirst of all, touch DNA, meaning
that it was not blood or someother type of bodily fluid. That you
could absolutely say that this was morethan casual contact. It was touch DNA,
(31:37):
and that this was a person thatthe victim had reason to perhaps be
in contact with. Now, Iknow there's a bunch of arguments against that.
There's the idea that she was incontact with many other people that evening
she didn't have her their DNA onher that there there was no evidence that
(32:00):
she had come into contact with thisperson anytime in the recent future. And
all of that I think makes alot of sense, and all of that
I think played into the decision madeTrix, But it still comes down to
a very difficult decision. And thedecision isn't one of do they believe this
(32:22):
person is responsible as much as withwhat they have in hand, the evidence
they have in hand, do theybelieve that they could prove this beyond a
reasonable doubt? And I think that'sa much more nuanced and difficult question to
answer, and I think why itled to the very frustrating decision that they
(32:42):
made. Josh, can you explainwhy a prosecutor wouldn't try to prosecute a
case like this? Is it notworth trying for the sake of Trishia's Piccaccio's
parents, who have gone ten yearswithout answers. Prosecutors are, to a
(33:02):
great extent gatekeepers. They are notjust tasked with the idea of putting the
bad guys away and you know,hard charging pursuit of justice. Part of
their job is to make sure thatnot only are they charging guilty people,
(33:24):
but they're making sure to not chargepeople who are either innocent or people that
they feel they cannot prove beyond areasonable doubt in front of twelve individuals that
this person is responsible. So thereis this gatekeeping element, the idea that
(33:45):
they have to make sure that justicein the sense that the right person is
being charged with the right evidence.But they're also concerned about what happens if
you do give this a try.What happens if you say, let's just
give it a shot. This familydeserves some answers. They've had an incredible
(34:09):
loss. It's been a long periodof time, we believe we know who
did it. Let's just put itin front of twelve people and see what
happens. Well, the consequences ofthat could be an acquittal, and that
could be disastrous if you think aboutit, because now double jeopardy has attached.
(34:30):
Now you've brought a case to trialwhere you didn't have sufficient evidence.
Perhaps you've got some very clever andskilled defense attorneys who were able to exploit
some of the holes in your evidence. That touch DNA could be one of
them. They could have reasons theycould present to the jury that might explain
why that DNA was there, thatdidn't have to do with the murders,
(34:52):
and if jurors felt that that wasnot enough to surmount that hurdle of beyond
a reasonable doubt, and they decideto vote not guilty. Now you've acquitted
this person and you can never trythat person again. And if down the
(35:13):
line more evidence comes forward, it'sgame over for you. You've already had
your trial and you've lost, andthere's nothing that you can do now.
And that I think is one ofthe reasons, amongst some but one of
the more powerful reasons of why theymay not prosecute a case that does not
seem like a home run because they'reconcerned with the consequences if they do lose.
(35:38):
Now that all being said, notevery case is perfect, and in
fact, most cases are not perfect. Most cases have a lot of problems
with them. But it's a prosecutor'sresponsibility to sit down and go, Okay,
everything good that we have and everythingweak that we have in this case,
(36:00):
do we feel confident we could provethis beyond a reasonable doubt? And
that is really the seminal question theyneed to answer before bringing a prosecution,
and that's why sometimes they don't takethat chance. Cook County State's attorney claims
ethical guidelines prohibit the charging of acase without evidence in hand that would enable
(36:22):
them to prove guilty beyond a reasonabledoubt. Let's bring back investigative journalists Doug
Longhini. Doug, how did thePocaccio family react to this? Thought immediately
comes to mind thinking about the DNAmatch to Michael Guardrulo and the failure or
(36:46):
the refusal. I should put itof the Cook County State's attorney to bring
charges against him based upon the DNAmatch. But what comes to night is,
well, what was the reaction inthe Pocaccio Well, initially none.
They were kept in the dark forI think three or four years. At
(37:07):
least three years. They never evenknew any of this was going on.
Nobody told them there'd been a match. Nobody told them anything. It was
only until it wasn't until two thousandand six that they learned there had been
this match. You know, Iwasn't with them at the time, and
(37:30):
I've seen them many times in thelast number of years, the last ten
years at least, and they canget pretty upset about things. I I
can't even guess how upset they werewhen they found that out. I mean,
at last, after all that time, there'd been a DNA match,
(37:54):
something I'm sure in the private thoughtsand players they'd hoped for, and there
it was in the state's attorney refusedto bring charges. They had to be
devastated, had to be. Canyou imagine. Here's a family who lost
their beautiful, bright, young daughter, and according to the mother, she
(38:22):
was always checking on the status ofthe case, but not knowing for two
years that there was DNA and alsothe fact of what was going on in
the case to potentially be left inthe dark. How that must felt for
the family wanting answers after so manyyears and still in their mind not getting
(38:50):
any answers. It had to bedevastating. Tom, were you there when
the Boccaccio family found out? Howdid they learn there be no charges laid?
Yeah? I was doing some additionalfollow ups in Illinois. I met
up first of all with with LouisAlah and some of the several of the
(39:15):
investigators that worked with him. Anotherguy by the name of Nick Tattoosa,
Nick real Squared Away guy. He'sretired too, and I wanted to talk
with some of their witnesses for additionalbackground, that maybe I could use that
information to pull stuff from my witnessesto maybe solidify the case a little bit
(39:42):
better. And ellery and I'll saythis, they really didn't want me to
to talk to a lot of theirpeople, so I'll just leave it at
that. But I did talk totheir their witnesses, a lot of them,
and I decided, I'm I'm goingto talk to the Pocaccio family because
I was led to. Actually,I was told first directly that the Illinois
(40:08):
State's attorney sat down with the familywith high level rank and file of Kokani
sheriffs, and they were told thatthere was no evidence linking any suspects to
their daughter's case. And I wantedto get a little bit more on the
(40:30):
relationship they had with Garjulo, andI wasn't going to be stopped from doing
that. So my partner and Iestablished a plan, and I got a
hold of mister Picassio, and Iestablished a date and time for a meeting,
and I left it up to themwhere they felt the safest. And
(40:52):
he was always wondering, why doesa Los Angeles police detective want to talk
to them about daughter's case from Illinois? So I said, well, I
got some information that I'd like toshare with you and kind of pick your
brain on some aspects of your daughter'scase. So we met and they said,
(41:15):
now what's this all about? AndI said, well, first of
all, what do you know aboutTricia's case? And they said, well,
they don't have anybody in mind.They're still working it. But they
said, there's there's no evidence ofof anybody. And I said, well,
I'm gonna I'm going to tell yousomething and it's gonna flor you.
But the reason I'm here is I'vegot linkage between a case that we have
(41:39):
in Los Angeles with your daughter's case, and the linkage is DNA and that's
that's how they found out. SoI you know, they they were none
too happy say that, but theywere almost relieved. And I think missus,
(42:00):
not you in particular. She blurtedout that she always felt Michael Garzula
had something to do with that case, and her husband also believe that,
but he was so taken aback.And so because he's he is the one
(42:22):
that found his daughter, so hehas a lot of a lot of issues
that he still carries to this day, trying to get through this, but
I felt that they should know thatthere is there is evidence, and we're
looking at their daughter's case and Iwanted to I needed help with that case
(42:45):
to further bolster the element case.You see that that reasoning because we can
we can do a thing under elevenoh one B of the Evidence Code when
you have a case that is sosimilar in mo in a way, it's
carried out that you can use thatin your case in chief in California.
(43:09):
A lot of states don't have that, but we have that here and so
I was able to glean a lotof information and from there I got the
names and places of different people totalk to and it it brought about a
lot of very good background information onwhat Guardula is all about, how he
(43:31):
operates, and literally we actually turnedup about thirty actual felonies that he committed
that were never charged, things likearson's and car theft and robberies and burglaries
and rapes. The guy is he'sa bad seat with choosing not to charge
(44:00):
Guardulo, he remained a free manin California. Sadly, two years later,
another Los Angeles woman was killed ina similar brutal fashion. In our
next episode, we dive deeper intothat murder, key evidence recovered from the
(44:21):
crime scene, and Gartulo's eventual moveto Santa Monica. I'm Kelly Hymen,
and this is once upon a crimein Hollywood, the Hollywood Ripper,
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!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com