August 5, 2025 • 62 mins
When the Golden State Killer terrorized California communities for over a decade, residents lived in constant fear, keeping windows closed despite sweltering heat and forming neighborhood watch groups to protect themselves. Monica and Neil from the Wine Camp Podcast join us to share their personal experiences living through this terrifying period of California history.
This special collaboration episode explores the evolution of Joseph James DeAngelo's crimes, beginning as the Visalia Ransacker and escalating to sexual assaults and murders across multiple California jurisdictions. We discuss how his law enforcement background helped him evade capture for over 40 years, and how the geography of California—with its rivers, highways, and jurisdictional boundaries—complicated efforts to connect these crimes.
The conversation takes a deeply personal turn as Neil reveals that the killer ultimately lived just half a mile from her home, and Monica shares her discovery that victims lived mere doors from her current residence. We explore the breakthrough role of genetic genealogy in finally catching DeAngelo in 2018, and the critical contributions of true crime writer Michelle McNamara in revitalizing interest in the case.
Most chillingly, we examine how DeAngelo lived as an ordinary family man while committing these horrific crimes, hiding in plain sight for decades before justice finally caught up with him. The plea deal that allowed even victims beyond the statute of limitations to deliver impact statements provides a powerful concluding note to this decades-long nightmare.
Whether you're fascinated by cold case investigations, the psychological aspects of serial predators, or the innovations in forensic science that finally brought this case to closure, this episode offers unique insights into one of America's most notorious criminal cases from those who lived through it. Subscribe now for more true crime discussions paired with fantastic wine recommendations from Texas and beyond.
Magic Mind
🌟🌟 Transform Your Life in Just 30 Days! 🌟🌟
Are you ready to experience unparalleled focus, energy, and productivity magic mind has to offer?
Chris, we undeniably love this stuff! After using Magic Mind for 30 days, I can confidently say it’s a
game-changer! Here’s what I achieved:
✨ Enhanced Focus: Say goodbye to distractions and hello to laser-sharp concentration. I tackled
my tasks with ease and efficiency.
⚡ Boosted Energy: No more afternoon slumps! I felt energized and motivated throughout the day,
ready to take on any challenge.
🧠🧠 Improved Cognitive Function: My memory and problem-solving skills reached new heights. I felt
sharper and more creative than ever before.
🌿🌿 Natural Ingredients: Magic Mind’s blend of nootropics, adaptogens, and natural ingredients
worked wonders without any jitters or crashes.
Don’t just take my word for it – try Magic Mind for yourself and unlock your true potential!
Order now and start your 30-day transformation today!
http://magicmind.com/texaswine20
www.texaswineandtruecrime.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Welcome all of you wine and true crime lovers.
I'm Brandi.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
And I'm Chris.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
And this is Texas Wine and True Crime.
Thank you for being here,friends, for this week's episode
.
The Golden State Killer, heyChris, hey Brandi.
Today we have guests joining usfor a little collaboration
episode, if you will.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
We absolutely do.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
We have Monica and Neil from the Wine Camp Podcast.
Ladies, ladies, welcome toTexas Wine and True Crime.
I am so happy to have both ofyou here and to be talking about
the Golden State Killer which,when we all started talking
(00:57):
about doing this case, I toldyou wow, this is a monster of a
case.
There's so many monster of acase.
There's so many well, not justvictims, but just areas and
years, and there's just reallyso much to this one man, and so
I'm just so excited to have youboth here to talk about this.
(01:19):
So, Monica and Neil, welcome tothe show.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Welcome guys.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Thank you, thank you.
We're very happy to be here.
This is our first time doing acollaboration with anyone and
you were our first thought, sothank you for accepting and
welcoming us.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Excellent.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Well, that makes us feel very nice and thanks for
choosing us to collaborate withand I'm excited.
Well, one let's talk about yourpodcast.
You're not just here to talkabout this case.
You actually have a podcast, sotell us more about it.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
Right, we're a wine, we do wine camp podcast and
we're very wine adjacent, soit's not just about the wine.
We don't know anything aboutmaking wine.
It is about the stories behindthe wine, the people that make
the wine, serve the wine, ourown shenanigans and experiences
with wine and that's just prettymuch it.
(02:16):
It's just very adjacent and wejust happen to like wine, so
that's our gig.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Yeah, we've met some interesting people along the way
, but we don't know how theymake wine, and we don't care how
they make wine.
We don't want to know how theymake wine.
There's 142 podcasts out therethat talk about making wine, so
so what are you okay?
Speaker 1 (02:40):
So when you drink your wine cause we're both
drinking wine tonight tell uswhat are you sipping on, what do
you normally sip on and why didyou choose to do a wine podcast
or actually have wine in yourpodcast?
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Well, we started this idea.
Neil and I retired a coupleyears ago, and I think it was
late one night I was sitting onmy couch at my house having a
glass of wine.
She was doing the same at herhouse and she texted me with
this idea of wine camp,something we could do together
when we retired.
So we have spent a lot of time.
We visited a lot of winerieslet's just say that, mostly in
(03:17):
California, but a little bitabroad too and we sort of
conceptualized somethingentirely different and then
finally settled on a podcast,and so that's kind of how we
started this but it's been a lotof fun.
Speaker 4 (03:30):
We feel that nobody has a bad experience wine
tasting or sitting aroundvisiting with friends drinking a
glass of wine.
It's always a good experienceand that's kind of what we want
to do.
So it's called Wine Campbecause we think about the times
that we sat around a campfire,the times we've known each other
for almost 40 years, that we'vesat around campfires drinking
(03:52):
wine, telling stories and ourshared experience and that's
what this is kind of like.
So it's essentially it's a winecampfire.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
We're just chatting and sharing information and
visiting with only californiastories no do you guys only
drink california wine becauseyou mentioned going abroad.
Speaker 4 (04:13):
No, we drink, we do.
We we've had some really goodcroatian wines and italian wines
and uh, we've had I don't know.
It's just we like what we like,so we're're not stuck to a
region, if you will.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Right, and we mostly do our interviews on site, so
that's why most of our episodeswhere we are featuring a winery
have been California wines.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Understood.
That's so cool.
That's where we are Well.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
Thank you again.
Nothing like a good crime story.
Now who doesn't like a littletrue crime and why?
That's right, exactly Well.
And you know it's funny becausea lot of people you know they
always said like why true crimeand why wine?
And it's exactly what you said.
(05:05):
It's two people having aconversation, telling a story,
sharing.
You know, wine kind of bringspeople together, sometimes in
(05:28):
joyous occasions and sometimesnot.
So it's great what you're doing.
We need more wine podcasts outthere.
We need more of in really anyregion.
I know we predominantly doTexas wine, but we love I'm like
a big old world wine, so I likethe Spanish big old world wine,
so I like the Spanish old worldstuff.
So that's just so cool.
(05:49):
You're bringing your knowledgeand your travels and everything
else to the Wine Camp podcast.
So okay, ladies.
Well, we are here today to talkabout the Golden State Killer.
Now I was taking well, you andI and I'm sorry us we were all
talking about this case, yourarea you mentioned you're both
(06:09):
in California.
You're about to share with theaudience, our listeners, your
listeners, really about justthis case in general, but not
only that what the area was like, how people were thinking what
they were feeling, how thingswere evolving, how the case was
evolving?
Were they getting closer to asuspect?
(06:32):
But gosh, we're talking aboutso many years, monica and Neil.
So all of this, and, by the way,this person, he ends up going
in different areas of California.
And I don't know about you, butI feel like when you have
someone who is committing crimesacross county lines, across in
(06:56):
different cities and differentareas, it becomes very difficult
to track them down.
And you had murders, you hadsexual assaults, sometimes one
crime wasn't the same.
Even harder to then narrowsomeone in particular down.
So did this start in like theearly 1970, 73, 74 timeline?
(07:20):
Right Is when the perpetratorbegan committing crimes, right
right, and he started.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
If you think about this, he started.
It's classic escalation becausehe started burglarizing in the
Central Valley early on and thatwas the time that later
discovered he was working forthe city of Exeter and he was
burglarizing homes in the cityof Visalia, which is a
(07:47):
neighboring town, and got thenickname the Visalia Ransacker,
because apparently he would justransack homes when he burglared
them.
But then he escalated.
Of course, he later left Exeter, moved to the town of Auburn,
(08:09):
which is about a half hour upinto the hills from the
Sacramento area.
Right, he started working inAuburn, right.
Right, started working, workingin Auburn.
Yeah, I don't know where heactually lived at the time, but
you're right, he was working inAuburn as a police officer.
Yeah, I don't know where heactually lived at the time, but
you're right, he was working inAuburn as a police officer.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
And that's when the sexual assault started in the
Sacramento area, to be known asthe East Area Rapist, and to
just give an idea of what thisarea was like back in the early
mid-70s it's quite broad rightnow.
All the communities areattached.
It's quite broad right now.
All the communities areattached.
But what we have here is wehave community borders
essentially set up by rivers andfreeways.
So we have Sacramento River,the American River, we have
(08:57):
Interstate 80, 50, 99.
And so the area is verysegregated along those lines
right.
So you have a community pocket.
So when there were attacks inthe Sacramento area it wasn't
just like it was, just theperson was just moving from
(09:17):
easily from one neighborhood tothe other.
There were rivers and freewaysand all that that were crossed.
It was quite a span of area andit was all very agricultural.
There were lots of tomatofields, strawberry fields,
ranches, that type of thing.
So it wasn't just an easy justdown the street and around the
corner thing.
So whoever this was, it wasvery hard.
(09:39):
It crossed legal jurisdictions,so it was hard for those law
enforcement agencies tocommunicate.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Well, and we also can't forget, he is and will be
once he's arrested and they findout who he is.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Yeah, Right, yeah, and we'll get into this a little
bit more.
But the detectives working thecase back in the day some of
them did think that, you know,they did think he had.
Maybe he had a law enforcementbackground or a military
background Right, we have a lotof.
Speaker 4 (10:13):
At that time we had several military bases located
in Sacramento, and so theythought it could be a military
person.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
Yeah, so yeah, now, neil lived here during the time
I did it, but she has a betteruh understanding of what the
community was going through atthe time so where are all these
places really, was it?
Speaker 1 (10:40):
you said ranches and different things in the area, so
were things just spread out?
Was he able to when he became,when he was the ransacker, for
instance, and he was escalatingthen into sexual assaults?
Was he able?
Did he know these people Likewas?
Was he?
I know he was a police officerin some of these towns he worked
(11:02):
in, but did he know a lot ofthese people?
Were there certain targets?
What do we know about his earlydays?
Was it just like tiptoeing intowhat he was going to progress
to?
What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 4 (11:19):
Well, I've never heard anything that he knew who
these people were, whose victimswere.
I don't.
I've never heard anything thathe knew who these people were,
who his victims were.
I what I've always heard isthat he, he basically stalked
people and learned theirroutines, their coming and going
, who was in the house, whatthey have.
Sometimes he would go in whilethey were gone, figure out you
(11:39):
know how their home was set up.
If there were weapons, he would, or he would leave his own
equipment and weapons there.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Yeah, he would hide things in some of the.
I mean he was creative and diddifferent things in different
houses.
So I think it was verydifficult for law enforcement,
for the detectives, to connectthe dots back then or to even
start to connect the dots.
But they did.
But he did do different thingsin houses.
Sometimes he would plantsomething, hide it in their
(12:09):
house and sometimes he wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Well, as a police officer, it's probably very
advantageous for him to know thepolice officer's routine and,
even with these areas beingseparated by different format,
you know, like said, rivers,highways and stuff knowing how
to skirt the law, I guess, andthe policies and procedures and
how they would look at things,and so that kind of kept people
(12:35):
guessing as well too, bouncingaround and then also, like you
mentioned, at the crime sceneshiding things, planning things
to essentially hide his identity.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
And it's interesting.
Well, and when you change it upit's hard to target to one
person.
You know what I mean when youhave different.
When you have someone, you knowtypically if you're a burglar
you don't typically go in tosexually assault someone.
You're a burglar.
So you're going in and takethings and you're leaving.
But then there's thatescalation.
But it's like he already kindof knew.
I think he kind of knew wherethis maybe progression was going
(13:10):
, or it just wasn't entertainingenough.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Well, he wasn't leaving a calling card to note
that it was him each time.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
I see on here the original Night Stalker.
That reminds me of the NightStalker.
He used to stalk his prey tooand know their routine and would
sometimes go in the homes andobserve and then leave and just
creepy.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
Well, that was him.
Yeah, yeah, were you living inSouthern California at that time
.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Brandy.
So I was living.
So yeah, I was actually livingin Ventura when the Night
Stalker was out and I rememberjust being a little girl and
riding her bike and not beingable to stay out past, you know,
before you know when, likebefore, it's dark, you come
inside.
One of the things I knew aboutthe Night Stalker was that, for
(13:58):
whatever reason, he would findhomes that were very close to
the freeway, maybe to get backto downtown Los Angeles, because
we know that's where he wasliving.
Most of the time was indowntown LA, um, and and
multiple on the streets inhotels, Um.
So you know, I I think it's justhard, you know, but with the
Night Stalker, and and why Ithink the Golden State Killer is
(14:22):
so different than really anyany really killer, Chris, that I
have, and I mean like serialserial murderers, sexual
assaults, burglary, it's almostlike he knew he was a law
enforcement agent, you know, heknew what his job was, he knew
(14:44):
how, like you said, to skirt thelaw, he knew what they would be
looking for if they looked, ifall the crimes look the same,
and then I think he, you know,this guy, was an everyday man.
We'll come to find out right,With children and family and
people who would never thinkthis about him, which is which,
to me, is like the worst of theworst.
(15:05):
Right Like you, go through yourwhole life and the things he
did and the things he wascapable of, and for nobody.
I mean, am I right about that,ladies?
Nobody knew in his family,right?
Speaker 4 (15:17):
Yeah, he's hiding in plain sight, right, just
blending in.
And it's crazy because, um,when this was all going on, my
father worked up in Auburn andthat's about 30 minutes from
where we lived up in thefoothills and one of the Auburn
police officers said to myfather because he knew where we
(15:39):
lived and I have no idea whothis police officer was, I'm
just going to throw that inthere but he told my father he
goes.
We think it's a police officer,we think it's that, that, that
somebody that knows our routinesand how we do things.
Keep in mind the guy theyarrested.
He worked for the Auburn PoliceDepartment, uplifting rope and
(16:02):
duct tape or something like that.
But yeah, I mean, these arethings that just happen.
Then there's people that justblend in and there was no
communication between the lawenforcement agencies to know oh,
we've been having this happenand you've been having that
happen in order to connect thedots.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
Yeah Right, and I want to add to that that, while
there wasn't the level of, youknow, the technology and
communication that we currentlyhave today, as a police officer
not only did he know oftechniques, ideas, he probably
had, you know, studied somecriminals before, but he was
(16:43):
privy to information that thepolice would be privy to, so,
you know, as an insider right.
And then, in addition to that,yeah, I know that in the
Sacramento area, um detectiveCarol Daly was the lead
detective on the uh East arearapist cases and they would hold
(17:04):
these public forums at thelocal high schools with hundreds
of people showing up, and youknow they were probably put on
television.
So I'm sure he saw those too.
And then, or he could have evenbeen in attendance.
Right, he could have been inattendance because, like I said,
he was hiding in plain sight.
There was one instance where aman got up to speak at one of
(17:27):
those town halls and what did hesay?
Speaker 4 (17:29):
Neal.
It was something along thelines and we're no experts on
this, but it was something alongthe lines of that.
There was some doubt, if youwill, that this person existed,
that these things were happening, and within a week or so, he
and his spouse were attacked.
And this was around the timethat what the perpetrator
started doing was it used to bejust when a woman was alone in
(17:53):
the house or she had a smallchild and then it escalates
where there was a man in thehouse and he would tie up the
man, put dishes on him to, youknow, be hurting, be rattling.
So you know this caused so muchfear in the communities and not
trying to take anything awayfrom the victims of this at all,
(18:13):
this is just to give ourperspectives of how living here,
what things were like, and itwas.
Everybody was a suspect,everybody was afraid.
You didn't know because this issomebody you had no idea who it
was.
Anybody that even looked kindof like a sketch, like one of
the sketches, was a suspect.
It was just a terrifying timeand it went on forever For me.
(18:40):
Where we lived, we didn't haveair conditioning in our house
and this is during the summer.
It gets to be 110.
Everybody in the areas hadtheir windows open.
Doors were unlocked.
It was just a very gentlecommunity feel, right.
But now we had to lock ourwindows and we had no air
(19:01):
conditioning and it was somiserable.
You know, my my dad was wassmart.
He went out and bought us aswamp cooler and installed it,
so now it was just hot and humidin the house.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
That's what good another perspective sentimental
valley is.
While it gets hot here in thedaytime in the summer, we get
that delta breeze in the evening.
So that's why everyone, youhave your windows open it just
isn't a natural air conditioner.
Speaker 4 (19:40):
For the most part I was miserable, but yeah, it was
just.
It changed how we allinteracted and, um, our trust
level and um you know, it wasjust such a change in how we we
lived that to this day you cantalk to people that lived
through it and everybody willtell you the same type of thing.
(20:00):
It just you know, it's just wemade us.
Everybody was a suspect.
We don't trust anybody and welock everything up.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
So, speaking of how the area was feeling at the time
and the difference, so we knowthere were 38 attacks in the
Sacramento area.
Um, you were you.
Were you both teenagers at thistime, living through this?
Yeah, you know, 14, 15, 16 yearolds what was it like being
that age when this was starting?
(20:31):
I mean, and this went on foryears.
Did it ever change?
Did the community ever feeldifferently?
Was there ever a time when youthought they're never going to
catch him.
He's going to continue to dothis?
Did they always think this wasdifferent people?
And then people were shockedwhen they found out this was one
person.
(20:52):
Did the environment and feelever change.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
Everybody pretty felt it was much felt it was one
person, and it went on for solong that we wondered what
happened to this person.
It was never solved for, youknow, for all those years and it
was just like hanging like acloud.
Where is this person?
They speculated that he died.
He moved, he was in prison, notthat he was still here, I mean,
(21:19):
he obviously moved around andcommitted crimes throughout the
state, but he eventually endedup back here again, about a half
a mile from where I lived.
So it was when that broke outand it's funny because my dad
and all the other neighborhooddads it was not uncommon to have
(21:40):
the men going out patrollingtheir neighborhoods at night
just looking for anybody.
My dad and our neighbors didthat, and so to find out that he
was actually living for many,many years, just honestly, down
the street from us I'm sayinghalf a mile, as a crow flies, I
(22:03):
would drive by that area all thetime.
It was just like when theycaught him, it was a shock
because we didn't know that hewas still around and it's like,
after all these years we thought, oh well, this is going to be,
you know, an unsolved crime.
And then they solved it and wewere just like are you kidding
(22:26):
us?
Speaker 2 (22:27):
it was amazing to us yeah, and he moved closer to you
, or I mean, I guess, initially,when a lot of these place that
was this like a secondaryresidence or you know what I had
heard?
Speaker 4 (22:42):
that he had bought this house, that he was arrested
at like 30 years previous, buthe hadn't always lived in it,
that he'd moved around um, butthere he was living right there
like just kind of wondering,like, where is he like looking
for?
Speaker 2 (23:01):
you know, victim, victim, wise, um, you know, how
close in proximity were theyoccurring?
Were all these crimes occurringclose to where he was actually
living?
So was he going, you know, fararound and kind of keeping his
powder dry, so to speak where hewas living at.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
There was one I know of in the, just not far from,
not necessarily far from wherehe lived, but there was.
The rest were a little, alittle bit away.
But you know we're talkingseveral miles, we're not talking
20, always 20 miles.
I mean to get from where he wasliving to say Rancho Cordova.
(23:39):
You know it could be as far as20 miles, or like Davis, that's
a ways that's probably like 40miles, 30 miles, yeah, something
like that, something alongthose lines.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
Unlike Neil who lived here at the time.
I didn't, but after he wascaught I learned that one of his
teenage victims was two doorsdown from where I currently live
.
And it was after he was caughtthat my neighbors started
buzzing and I said I can'tbelieve that no one told us that
before.
Well, there's still some of theoriginal homeowners in my
(24:12):
neighborhood and for whateverreason, it never came up after
all these years.
But yeah, two doors down.
And then I discovered also thatum Bonnie, who is the woman he
had been engaged to before allthis started, um, her daughter
(24:32):
attends my church.
In fact, she works at ourchurch as well.
Um, so then I found out thatconnection too.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
It's a small it means yeah, it's a small.
It's.
It's really essentially a smalltown.
You might as well be in theMidwest, you know, and it's less
than six degrees of separation.
Everybody has a connection tosomebody else, so yeah, it was a
a.
It was a time of a lot of fear.
And I'll tell you, as a kid,teenager, you know, suddenly,
(25:02):
you know, my parents were likeyou'd be very careful and I
still got to go out and dothings, but I had to be very
careful.
You know, like I would.
I would ride my bike, you know,as we all did as a teenager,
like 10 speed from from where II live to to the lake, to my
friend's house at the lake.
So I would, I'd ride my bike.
There was probably eight milesto her house and then we'd ride
(25:24):
somewhere else along the lakeand ride to another friend's
house and come back again withat a time when we didn't have
cell phones and nobody had awater bottle, nobody had a tire
repair kit, you know.
But you know there was stillthat weird element.
Oh no, I'll be fine.
This is just an offshoot and itonly happens at night, so I'll
(25:46):
be fine during the day.
You know, I mean this ismindset that you have and
teenagers are invincible, that'sright.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
That's right, and I think we never think it's going
to happen to us, right?
No-transcript.
(26:26):
I did not know that he actuallywrote into the newspapers and
even wrote letters.
Maybe you can talk more aboutthat and I also did not know
that he would actually call hisvictims after he victimized them
.
So these were two things that II didn't know he actually was
doing.
Um, can you, can you talk aboutthose a little bit?
Speaker 4 (26:49):
Well, I know that the letters that were written, they
were written to, uh, I believethem, like the mayor and one of
the news outlets, um, and thatwas the first that anybody heard
about.
And at that point they didn'tcontact the sheriff's office and
and they're like what's goingon?
And you know, it was uh, lipssealed, nobody said.
(27:09):
And finally it was like eitheryou come forward with this or
we're going to come forward withthis.
And that's when they startedletting information out and
having the community meetingsand things like that, because
the news was going we can't keepthis from people and you
shouldn't be keeping it frompeople.
(27:34):
And, unfortunately, views of howwomen were treated as victims
in legal situations are muchdifferent than they are now.
And these assaults wereshameful and of no fault of
these women at all.
But you know how the law waswritten and how, unfortunately,
(27:59):
many law enforcement officerstalked about it.
It was just, you know, I thinkat that point it was a
misdemeanor, right, you know.
So it was just a very sad timefor that.
And so then it started comingout and it changed.
The laws have changed a lothere and the mindsets about
(28:20):
these type of crimes havechanged.
So there was that, but then,yeah, we did hear that people
were getting calls.
Even before he was captured,these people were saying that
they were getting calls.
How terrifying.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
Yeah, sometimes years after they had been victimized
he would call them.
Speaker 4 (28:40):
And what's crazy also about that is you're talking at
a time when there really wasn'tthe internet to go look
somebody up.
So where is he getting thephone numbers?
Speaker 2 (28:50):
You know, yeah.
Yeah, I mean, I think just Imean if he had any still, any
attachments to law enforcement,but I think too, just knowing
the address, it was relativelyeasy.
You know, everybody had a homephone too, so there was a pretty
good chance that you know withcorrelating address, regardless
of what the name was, somebodywas going to pick up.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
Yeah, it is interesting, though, that it's
like returning to the scene ofthe crime without returning to
the scene of the crime.
It's like connecting yourselfonce again to something, um, to
continually torment thesevictims.
Yeah, it's like it's not enoughright, like feeding something
inside of him that just wasincomplete.
(29:30):
I mean, what would make himthink about that years later?
Well it's considering how manyvictims he's had over the years
right.
Speaker 2 (29:37):
I'm not even sure there's a dwelling on that.
You could trace a phone callback then too.
I'm not sure if there was evena capability to see where the
number came from.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
There are some recordings.
There are some recordings ofsome of his calls because some
of the victims were givenrecording devices but the ones
probably that came years laterwere not and I don't know when
they became able to trace calls,but remember that was a process
.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
Yeah, I don't know, yeah it was, and not only that,
he would know how long he hasuntil he needs to get off the
phone.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
I mean, if there's anyone who knows how to, well, I
mean, I think before, if youwere tracing, you had to like
know when the person was calling, and then they would have to
you know.
So you literally almost have tohave I'm guessing law
enforcement there when the phonecall comes through somebody
else yeah, because there was nono caller id, things like that,
(30:37):
where they could even call back.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
Magic Mind is a nootropic productivity drink
that contains ingredients aimedat enhancing focus, energy,
calmness and memory.
It's often marketed as acomplement to coffee, which,
chris, as you know, it is thecomplement to my coffee every
morning.
Some of those key ingredientsinclude matcha, that natural
caffeine, adaptogens, nootropics, lion mane, mushroom and
(30:59):
turmeric.
So I've been taking itconsistently for about five or
six months.
Focus and productivity is oneof the top things I notice,
chris my energy levels, smoothenergy, no coffee crashes mood
and calmness, less anxiety, moreemotional balance when you have
those busy, busy days and that.
Sharper mental clarity, easierdeep work and less
(31:22):
procrastination all in just onelittle shot.
So head over to magicmindcomand use the code TexasWine20 for
20% off.
That's magicmindcom code,texaswine20.
Stay curious, stay focused.
Reclaim your brain with MagicMind.
Okay, ladies, so we are talkingabout a 40-year span from when
(31:46):
these crimes sort of well gosh.
I would say even maybe morelike a 40 to 43-year span of
when these crimes actuallystarted to when there was an
arrest that was actually made inthis case.
So how do you know how long?
Because I know there wereperiods when there was no crimes
happening.
Right, like you said, was he injail?
(32:06):
Did something happen to him?
Did he move?
Do you feel like when thosesilent periods were there, was
he just doing somethingdifferent?
Like when those silent periodswere there, was he just doing
something different moving,switching jobs, having kids?
Do you know or have you heardany thoughts around like why
some of this would stop and thenit would pick up again?
Speaker 3 (32:29):
I've heard speculation that you know when
the crimes would stop.
He was in transit, you know,maybe between careers or
starting his family, I don'tknow.
There were definitely somebreaks.
And then you know the end ofhis terror reign, I think was
around 86.
But then he wasn't caught.
(32:52):
Until what?
Is it 2018?
Speaker 1 (32:55):
Yeah, 2017, 2018,.
Which is so wild that you havesomeone go that long without
committing another crime, or atleast see that's something
interesting too.
Was there actually crimescommitted that we just don't
know about?
Or maybe they didn't correlatethem to him, it's?
(33:16):
It's just so mind boggling tothink that you do all of this
and then you don't do it anymore, right?
Speaker 3 (33:25):
Someone who starts out with yeah, yeah, and you
know, if you think about um,that he actually started out
committing even smaller, pettycrimes, but always someone who
hurts animals.
That is such a red flag.
So he did that for years.
I don't know how often he didit, but there are stories about
(33:49):
him harming animals and killinganimals, terrible things and
then he went on to burglarizingand then to sexual assault and
then murder and sexual assault,and I don't even know when the
lines crossed.
You know when the level of hiscrimes crossed.
Speaker 4 (34:08):
I'm sure there's some overlap, I'm sure there's some
back and forth, but he, he didwork for many years at a
warehouse in right roseville,like many, many years, so I
don't know what was going onwith his life at that point that
, um, he didn't commit crimes ordidn't commit the same, uh,
(34:30):
traceable type of crimes, youknow, do you?
Speaker 3 (34:32):
know what I wonder, now that you bring that up, neil
.
I wonder if he was workingnight shift at the call out.
Speaker 4 (34:40):
He might have been.
I'm sure the police alreadyknow this.
Should we tell them, yeah?
Speaker 1 (34:51):
Do they know?
Now, I remember the arrest.
So let's genetic genealogy.
You know, god bless it.
It has solved a lot of crimes.
I sat down with a Texas Rangera couple years back who solved a
crime after 38 years using thistype of tracing to find out
(35:12):
suspects.
You know, austin yogurt shopmurders.
Gosh, if we could just getAustin PD and the FBI on the
same page.
They do have a little bit ofgenetic information that came
back, but because of the way thelaw is written when it comes to
people submitting their DNA,sometimes that information is
(35:35):
not released by the police.
But this is how this case wassolved.
So do you want to talk a littlebit more about that and how
they caught this guy?
Speaker 3 (35:43):
Sure, yeah, if I understand this right, at some
point the law enforcementagencies, the different county
enforcement agencies, startedconnecting, well into the 2000s
I think, or maybe around 2000.
(36:04):
And there was still some pushand pull from some of the
agencies not willing to shareinformation or not willing to
entertain the idea that some ofthese crimes were connected.
But there were folks that justfelt like in my gut, I know this
is connected, some of thedetectives.
So at some point, and there's agenealogy expert that was key
(36:36):
in this she was working with Ithink it was that Detective,
paul Holes, and they were ableto.
Her name is Barbara Rae Ventner, that's right, venter, and she
had helped police in anotherstate, I think, solve a crime
using genetic genealogy.
So anyway, they finally startedconnecting the dots and
(36:58):
utilizing her expertise and theywere able to.
It's a long process, apparently, because at some point you're
able to figure out that thisperpetrator was connected to
this person 900 years ago andthen maybe you do a little more
testing and you gradually bringit together and you're able to
(37:19):
find familial DNA connectionswith family members.
It's pretty impressive and now,of course, now they're doing it
everywhere all the time.
Speaker 1 (37:52):
But that's how they were able to track them down and
it's pretty expensive to do.
A lot of these companies arefunded by donations and
supporters and it also, like yousaid, it takes time and
resources and it also takespeople submitting their DNA
(38:13):
right and people being in thesystem and sometimes it's not a
perfect match.
Sometimes, like you said, it'sfour generations, three
generations, maybe it's not evena direct correlation, maybe
it's not a brother or sister,maybe it's a second or third
cousin and, like you said, theyhave to kind of narrow it down
(38:35):
until they really can, can honein on.
Sometimes it's the area we'veseen people caught based on the
area this family was, you know,was in, so they could map it out
.
I mean, it's just some reallygreat, wild, wonderful things
that they're going to be doingfor families, because I feel
like I look at Facebook everyday and genetic genealogy is
solving something new and newand new which is so great to see
, and I hope, from a legalstandpoint and from a law
(38:59):
enforcement you know, victimstandpoint, that they're able to
use this in the future forreally good things.
Speaker 3 (39:07):
Oh, absolutely.
I mean, I remember when,probably about five years ago,
my brother asked me if I haddone the 23andMe or the Ancestry
sent in my spit, neil, you'dask me if I'd done it, because
you've done some.
I found some relatives I didn'tknow I had.
Yeah, my brother's like yeah,she's got stories, maybe we'll
(39:31):
do do it might have to clearthat with the relatives.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
Hey, I need to be on that.
I need to be on that episode.
Speaker 3 (39:36):
Yeah, I need to be on that episode because I've got
some stories, too, about somegenetic genealogy coming back so
I remember asking brotherbecause he said he sent his in
and I asked him has the fbiknocked on your door?
And he said, well, no, why?
And I?
Okay, then I'll do it.
Speaker 4 (39:52):
And I do have another story about how that was used
to solve a crime here a murderhere.
That was quite close to myfamily.
But, yeah, I mean, what also Ithink is really awesome is that
even decades ago, they werepreserving DNA, assuming that
someday it would be of value,and if they hadn't have done
(40:14):
that, they wouldn't have beenable to use this genetic right
to connect.
Speaker 1 (40:19):
Yeah, Well, and I think it's wonderful that they
didn't lose the DNA right ormisplace the DNA or things like
this that we see happen over somany years of shuff of you know,
shuffling things around andthings get lost, so it's just
great that they were able tohold on to it.
I do want to talk about youknow.
(40:40):
I remember seeing him ontelevision showing up in the
wheelchair thought, and I alwaysthink about this when I see
perpetrators being brought intocourt or to have their day in
court they look like the victimright.
I always find it interestingthat they go in looking sad and
(41:02):
sick and helpless and feel sorryfor me, when we in fact know
that he had a neighbor back in2017 that witnessed him actually
doing some yard work or heavylifting or something.
Speaker 2 (41:17):
So again it kind of goes with like the facade.
Speaker 1 (41:21):
Yeah, it kind of goes with like this facade of maybe
who he thought he was throughoutthis whole you know, his whole
time of the spree versus reallywho he is is how he showed up in
court.
So I just always find itinteresting.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
Probably for leniency , I would imagine, to make
himself appear as an old man andyou know not to put him away.
Speaker 1 (41:42):
Yeah, I know, but still, he's not the only one who
does it.
Speaker 4 (41:47):
He's not the only one .
He's not the only one who doesit.
He's not the only one who doesit.
After the plea deal was reached, the district attorney released
a video from inside his jailcell and also from the hallway
leading to the courtroom, andeven though he would go into the
(42:08):
courtroom and he'd be in awheelchair, he wasn't in the
wheelchair the whole time.
He walked down the hall, thengot in the wheelchair and went
into the courtroom and in hiscell he was doing gymnastics, if
you will, moving from the bunkto the desk to a light, to all
around.
He was perfectly fine.
Speaker 3 (42:24):
Yeah, he was like Park Goat.
He was so adept at climbing andmoving his body Right, but then
he would show up in courtalmost catatonic, mm-hmm, what a
manipulator.
Speaker 1 (42:37):
I don't buy it.
I wonder yeah, I'm not verygood at it.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
It's kind of like when Brandy does her nails
before.
There's a lot of cleaning to doaround the house.
Speaker 4 (42:45):
You know I can't do this, Nails.
Speaker 2 (42:50):
This is keeping me from you know.
Speaker 1 (42:52):
Sounds like we need to do an episode about that,
Chris.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
My handicap.
Speaker 4 (42:58):
I can't.
Speaker 2 (42:58):
I just got my nails done.
Speaker 3 (43:02):
That's a good thing too.
Speaker 2 (43:05):
I'm trying to figure out what my out's going to be.
I don't know, I can't.
Speaker 4 (43:09):
Have a beauty time.
Speaker 1 (43:10):
I don't know, I can't .
Maybe you should get a manicure, have a beauty check, yeah, all
right.
So what do you?
Do you want to mention anythingabout the?
He took a plea, right, he isactually alive.
Somebody asked me when I wastalking to somebody last week
that we were going to be doingthis case this week, and
somebody said is he alive?
And I said, yeah, he's alive.
(43:37):
In prison, um, consecutive lifesentences.
He is, he's in.
I think he's like 70 in hisseventies, right, 76, 77, maybe
now or maybe even a little bitolder, but, um, you know, uh,
pretty certain he's going to diein prison.
Um, that is the plan, they so.
But do you?
You know, I know we have likestatute of limitations.
There were so many victims inthis case, you know, do, do.
(43:57):
Did they just not know where tostart?
Did they know that some ofthese had happened so long ago?
You know, I want to say thisbefore we get too far into it.
You know, a lot of people don'trealize that it costs a lot of
money to go to trial.
Most attorneys will tell youthey want you to settle, they
don't want to go to court.
A lot actually goes into that.
(44:19):
So if they can mediate and finda happy medium, they will.
And a lot of families get upsetbecause you know DAs and people
involved in this case don'twant to take things to trial.
We just saw this in the Idahomurders.
There was a lot of disagreementin the families.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
It's a guaranteed win for them if the person takes a
plea deal so.
I dealt with this on anotherinstance on a personal level.
That sure you want to seejustice, the DA doesn't?
I mean they want justice, the dawants a win on their record and
so if a plea deal is copped, um, it's still a win in their book
(44:59):
and so I mean, it's nodifferent than, like all those,
um, the three kids from the uh,from arkansas, all the people
who were finally released um theyou know, whatever Arkansas
Supreme Court or whatever it was, would still never admit any
wrongdoing or that they did.
They just let them out of jailbecause they did not want to
(45:19):
take that judgment away.
I mean, basically, they werejust let go set free, but they
never really admitted that theyhad made this big faux pas and,
as you know, yeah, well, I thinkI think his age.
Speaker 1 (45:31):
I don't know about you, what you two think, but I
think his age.
I think the amount of crimes, Ithink that the time span that
went by since the crimesoccurred, having to try each
individual I think it was justmaybe a conglomerate of all of
it and his age and just beingable to say well did you do it
and he says yes, and then youcan kind of give it the evidence
you have to get the people.
Speaker 2 (45:52):
You win some cases, you lose some cases.
How are they?
Are they all getting um?
You know, tried concurrently.
I just think, like him making aplea deal he is older gentlemen
, but also to just coming upwith that it does kind of put um
well.
Speaker 1 (46:05):
And if you try him for murder and he gets you know
a not guilty, that's Well.
And if you try him for murderand he gets you know not guilty,
then he can't try him foranother one.
Speaker 2 (46:11):
The finality he's never going to see the light of
day or anything like that.
But you know, I still feel likethat's mental justice.
Speaker 4 (46:18):
A lot of the crimes were past the statute of
limitations and he couldn't betried on those.
However, in the plea deal hepled to those crimes anyway.
However, in the plea deal hepled to those crimes anyway and
the victims issuing victimimpact statements were allowed
to make them even though thestatute of limitations had been
exceeded in their particularsituation.
(46:39):
So they did have a voice there.
But you know, a lot of peoplewere not happy about it.
They wanted to see the trialand I know that it's really a
catch.
I think the evidence spoke foritself.
And then you have to balancethat with the cost of a trial,
which can run into the millions,and you have to bring in all
these experts and all this typeof thing, and the end result is
(47:04):
he's in prison for the rest ofhis life either way, and he
didn't spend millions andmillions of dollars.
And they did have theopportunity to get their impact
statement.
Speaker 3 (47:15):
There was some negotiations in that plea deal.
The victims were able tonegotiate that even for the
cases that were not chargeablebecause the statute of
limitations had expired, theynegotiated and I think they did
some of this negotiation withthe defense team, which was
interesting, but they negotiatedthat he would have to admit to
(47:40):
even the non-chargeable crimes,like those rapes, that
unfortunately the statute oflimitations had expired, and so
that's why the hearingssurrounding the victim impact
statements and the I don't evenknow what you call it his
(48:01):
admitting to all of these crimeswere hours and hours long, like
five hours.
I heard six hours, because theyread every single crime, even
if it wasn't being charged, andhe had to admit to it.
Speaker 4 (48:23):
He had to say, yeah, everybody was watching their TV
or their computer and listeningto everything happen, because
this consumed, consumed thiscommunity for decades.
And and then this happened andnobody was going to miss a beat,
because everybody, everybodywas impacted one way or another
and the way we live changed.
Speaker 1 (48:46):
Yeah, and you know, I think of Michelle McNamara.
We know that she was a victimadvocate, she was a researcher.
She started, you know I alwayssay like true crime podcasters.
You know I think back.
Oh, I don't know, michelleMcNamara was writing true crime
(49:09):
blogs, you know, 15 years ago,20 years ago, about different
things, and she starts writingabout Golden State and then she
starts really researching thiscase and unfortunately, you know
, she passes away in 2016.
He's arrested in 17.
You know a lot of people willsay that because of her work and
because of her research, youknow this was there, was.
(49:31):
They were just one step closerto finding out who was doing
this.
So, being that she was inCalifornia and researching this
on, you know what were thethoughts about her with police?
I mean, do y'all know anythingabout that or had any feelings
(49:51):
about that?
Speaker 3 (49:53):
I understand that she was working pretty closely with
Paul holes at some point and umI recently listened to an
interview he did a while back,um, I think it was for the, the
HBO series, and um, he said heat one point he gave her an
interview and he told her thathe would disclose some
(50:14):
information that she could notprint in her magazine article.
I think she was writing for amagazine at the time but she was
clearly blogging, I think,about this case and she was
obsessed with it and he trustedher and she held his trust and
so they continued to worktogether.
(50:36):
I understand, I know that shewas.
I don't know the details, but Iknow that she was an integral
part of this case being pushedand, pushed, and pushed.
In fact, she was the one whocame up with the name golden
state killer and Paul Holes saidhe kind of was a little bit
resistant.
He didn't want to insult her, Ithink, but he was a little bit
resistant about another name forthis person and he said she
(51:00):
convinced me and I think that itwas probably because this guy
went all over the state ofCalifornia.
He know he went where he wantedand committed these horrible
crimes.
Speaker 4 (51:13):
I mean, I can't even imagine what these victims went
through, but yeah, I feel likeher work and her research on
this brought the light back tothe case because, like I said,
everybody thought that he wasdead or in prison or whatever,
and she really shined a light onit and what?
(51:33):
Because of her work.
Then suddenly, uh, a reward wasoffered and and people started
talking about it again and Ithink that that was a huge part
in making people go.
Hmm, maybe we need to look alittle deeper into this and her
work itself with the DNA.
If it hadn't been for that, I'msure he'd still be down the
(51:57):
street.
Yeah, you know, I'm sure of it.
I mean, that was an amazingtask to take on and very
insightful to even think aboutdoing DNA using DNA, because it
was so new.
It's not so new now yeah, andyou can't make for it yeah.
Speaker 1 (52:17):
Everybody's got it.
Something we all share.
Speaker 4 (52:21):
Different than mine.
So, yeah, we all share it.
I think she was really thefactor that got this case solved
.
Speaker 3 (52:32):
And I mean he didn't even have his DNA out there,
Mm-mm.
So they honed in on who wasliving these areas at these
times.
After they connected the DNAbetween the crimes in Southern
California, Central Valley andSacramento area, Then they
(52:54):
started with the familial DNAand figuring out, well, who
could have been related to thisfamily, who in this family was
living in that area, this areaand these areas at the time.
So that's kind of how they didit.
He didn't even have his DNA outthere.
They had to go get his trash atthe time.
So that's kind of how they didit.
He didn't even have his DNA outthere.
Speaker 1 (53:15):
They had to go get his trash, they had to start his
house, yeah, and then DNA thatway, yeah, and we were talking
about the.
The area thing has been a big,especially if there isn't any
DNA out there and you're lookingfor family or relatives or
people, and I mean, my gosh, youwould have to think too, you
know, was this sort of a big?
You know how long did thisactually take?
When you have him moving aroundso much, when you have someone
(53:36):
who has been committing crimesall over the state of California
, you know, how do you even honein on where they're living or
who they're related to?
So, gosh, it it's a, it'sdefinitely a, a, a feat that
they did with um having to lookall of this up and but he is
caught.
Um, it, I, I, I would like to, I.
(54:00):
You know, ladies, are there anydocumentaries out there you
would recommend anything I wouldlike to know.
Um, maybe I'm just, maybe it'sjust some deep research for
myself.
You know what changed for him?
Was it the working of thenights?
You know, I would.
Um, there's a profiler I've hadon my show before who actually
had met with Ted Bundy, and um,I would, really.
(54:23):
I think this would be a veryinteresting conversation with
him to um to really just kind oftalk about.
You know, why do you think hestopped?
You know what are, what aresome of those reasons.
And then and then he getscaught.
You know, then he doesn'tcommit any crime.
(54:43):
Was he guilt?
Was he um?
Was he just?
Was he bored?
It just wasn't doing for himanymore?
Did or, you know, was it hiskids growing up and looking them
in the face and knowing what hewas doing?
I don't know if we'll ever know, but any recommendations on
what our listeners can go andcheck out that he might be on?
I know we can.
Michelle's book.
They can go grab that.
It's called I'll Be Gone in theDark, which will, yeah, very
(55:05):
insightful into this case.
Speaker 3 (55:08):
HBO did a series called I'll Be Gone in the Dark
podcast, and then there'sanother one called man in the
Window and that was done by theLA Times.
Yeah, you can look up prettymuch in this day and age, just
Google it.
There's so much out there onthis.
(55:29):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (55:35):
Well.
Speaker 3 (55:35):
Monica, neil, it's been a treat.
Oh yeah, no, go ahead.
I was gonna say one of thethings we didn't do is we didn't
talk about what wine we'redrinking.
What are you sipping over there?
Speaker 1 (55:43):
okay.
So today I'm having um, I'msorry we we are having a malbec
from 4-h Winery, which is inMunster, texas.
You know, chris, I have to sayI probably have had less than
three Malbecs from Texas, and soI'm glad I'm having another one
(56:05):
because this is absolutelydelicious.
I mean, do we get a lot ofMalbec?
I feel like we don't have a lotof Malbec when we go and travel
around to our wineries.
Speaker 2 (56:13):
I was trying to think .
I want to say Edge of the Lakedid not have a Malbec right.
Speaker 1 (56:21):
No, I don't think they had a Malbec.
There's not very many Texas, Ithink grape selection is pretty
key here and so you just don'tsee a lot of people growing it,
and so I'm going to go do alittle research on my 4-H winery
See if they because they are avineyard too, so they could have
(56:43):
grown their Malbec grapes andthen just harvested from the
vineyards.
Speaker 2 (56:46):
But I have a strong feeling.
Edge of Lake has one as welltoo.
Speaker 1 (56:50):
They probably do.
They have all the deliciouswine okay, ladies so that is
what we are sipping on.
What are you sipping on?
Speaker 4 (56:56):
well, well, first off , I think we need to go to texas
, yeah, and go do some wine Imean, that's one of the things I
had no idea texas had a winescene oh man, we are second in
tourism in the country behindCalifornia.
Speaker 1 (57:11):
We are fifth in production.
We have California winerywinemakers moving to Texas to
settle in.
So there's yeah, there's a lotof action happening in Texas
around the wine industry.
Speaker 3 (57:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (57:26):
Well, I think I know turning people on to Texas wines
has always been a challengesince we kind of started this
endeavor because you know we'rehaving to find kind of
replacements, you know, because,like, not a lot of Chardonnay
here, so a lot of people haveViognier all around.
Oh, it's kind of like aChardonnay, oh it's kind of like
a Cab, you know.
The Tempranillo, oh, it's kindof like I don't even know what
(57:49):
people know?
Speaker 1 (57:51):
I just know I like it .
Speaker 2 (57:52):
And so that was like when we first started drinking
too, like what the heck is thisTempranillo, the Spanish grape?
What is?
Why are we?
Why does so many of these whitemakers have this particular
grape?
And well, you know, it justgrows well in Texas, and so a
lot of them use, you know, thearea to area, you know the
grapes that grow to theiradvantage, you know and kind of
make these interesting blendsand things like that.
(58:14):
And so, yeah, we had no ideathat Texas had great wines
either.
Honestly, I think we alwaysjoked too when Brandy first said
, oh, we're going to do thispodcast and we're only going to
have Texas wine, and I thoughtwe would have seven to 12
episodes and be done with it.
Speaker 4 (58:30):
However, pretty early we learned that there was this
tremendous need and I thought wewould have seven to 12 episodes
and be done with it.
Speaker 2 (58:31):
Pretty early we learned there was this
tremendous, yeah I mean, but youknow it was just.
It was really eyeopening to usbecause you know there's, I
think now that currently I knowa lot of wineries have closed,
but I still think there'supwards of 350 in Texas.
Speaker 1 (58:47):
Oh no, we're.
It's way more than that.
It's about 700 now in Texas.
Oh no, it's way more than that,it's about 700 now.
Speaker 2 (58:52):
I disagree with those numbers.
It's high, it was about 400acres.
Speaker 1 (58:57):
Yeah, you just come on, we'll tell you exactly where
you need to go.
Speaker 2 (59:05):
There's lots of places to go.
The people are all veryfriendly.
I think we've been to bigwinemakers and small micro
wineries.
There's so many people thatdon't even have the means to you
know they're going to.
They don't grow the grapes,they go and buy fruit and they
go someplace else to process itand that place to bottle it, and
so you do kind of get this bigcollective of all these
different you know vintners thatare getting together and coming
(59:25):
together because a lot ofpeople will collaborate and make
a blend between two differentlittle wineries.
And so, yeah, it is a very coolscene and we've met some really
great people and drank a lot ofdelicious wines.
Speaker 1 (59:35):
You must go visit, you must.
Speaker 3 (59:38):
Okay, what are you?
Speaker 1 (59:38):
spending time on.
Speaker 4 (59:40):
We are drinking Baker Family Wines, a Syrah, and this
is actually.
I don't know if you're baseballpeople, but this is Dusty
Baker's winery and he's fromArlington and his winery is just
in Sacramento, but the Syrahgrape is grown on his property
in the area also, so it's prettydarn good.
(01:00:03):
He has quite a variety of 19Crimes Snoop Dogg's 19.
Speaker 3 (01:00:19):
Crimes Snoop Dogg's.
Speaker 1 (01:00:23):
Actually, it's actually pretty good I am
actually kind of obsessed withthe bottling and all the labels.
I'm a labels person, kind ofobsessed with the bottling and
all the labels.
I'm a labels person.
So I like when families andwineries share their art on
their labels and how family havecreated some of the labels.
It's just really cool.
So that is the one thing aboutthat wine Snoop Dogg.
(01:00:44):
They make some awesome labelsfor their wine.
I just love them.
Speaker 4 (01:00:46):
They're very affordable for their wine.
Speaker 1 (01:00:48):
I just love that.
It's very affordable.
Yes, yes, all right, ladies,where can people find your
podcast?
Are you everywhere Spotifypodcast, just everywhere where
people listen to their music?
Speaker 4 (01:01:00):
That's what I always say, right, we're on Apple and
Spotify at Wine Camp Podcast.
Yes, and we have Instagram also, right, yeah, so easy enough to
find us and, uh, and we arepretty chatty kathy's on those,
so it's always a good time yeah,and we love listening to you,
so keep it up oh yes, thank youall so much and thank you for
(01:01:25):
reaching out.
Speaker 1 (01:01:26):
I'm glad.
I'm glad we got to do thisepisode together.
Um, Please, friends, go checkout Wine Camp Podcast with
Monica and Neil and ladies, ifyou'll raise your glass, we're
going to end this show how weend all of our shows.
Until next time, friends, staysafe, have fun and cheers to
next time.
Cheers.
Speaker 3 (01:01:45):
Cheers folks, Thank you so much.
Thank you Thank you.
Welcome all of you wine and true crime lovers.
I'm Brandi.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
And I'm Chris.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
And this is Texas Wine and True Crime.
Thank you for being here,friends, for this week's episode
.
The Golden State Killer, heyChris, hey Brandi.
Today we have guests joining usfor a little collaboration
episode, if you will.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
We absolutely do.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
We have Monica and Neil from the Wine Camp Podcast.
Ladies, ladies, welcome toTexas Wine and True Crime.
I am so happy to have both ofyou here and to be talking about
the Golden State Killer which,when we all started talking
(00:57):
about doing this case, I toldyou wow, this is a monster of a
case.
There's so many monster of acase.
There's so many well, not justvictims, but just areas and
years, and there's just reallyso much to this one man, and so
I'm just so excited to have youboth here to talk about this.
(01:19):
So, Monica and Neil, welcome tothe show.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Welcome guys.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Thank you, thank you.
We're very happy to be here.
This is our first time doing acollaboration with anyone and
you were our first thought, sothank you for accepting and
welcoming us.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Excellent.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Well, that makes us feel very nice and thanks for
choosing us to collaborate withand I'm excited.
Well, one let's talk about yourpodcast.
You're not just here to talkabout this case.
You actually have a podcast, sotell us more about it.
Speaker 4 (01:55):
Right, we're a wine, we do wine camp podcast and
we're very wine adjacent, soit's not just about the wine.
We don't know anything aboutmaking wine.
It is about the stories behindthe wine, the people that make
the wine, serve the wine, ourown shenanigans and experiences
with wine and that's just prettymuch it.
(02:16):
It's just very adjacent and wejust happen to like wine, so
that's our gig.
Speaker 3 (02:23):
Yeah, we've met some interesting people along the way
, but we don't know how theymake wine, and we don't care how
they make wine.
We don't want to know how theymake wine.
There's 142 podcasts out therethat talk about making wine, so
so what are you okay?
Speaker 1 (02:40):
So when you drink your wine cause we're both
drinking wine tonight tell uswhat are you sipping on, what do
you normally sip on and why didyou choose to do a wine podcast
or actually have wine in yourpodcast?
Speaker 3 (02:54):
Well, we started this idea.
Neil and I retired a coupleyears ago, and I think it was
late one night I was sitting onmy couch at my house having a
glass of wine.
She was doing the same at herhouse and she texted me with
this idea of wine camp,something we could do together
when we retired.
So we have spent a lot of time.
We visited a lot of winerieslet's just say that, mostly in
(03:17):
California, but a little bitabroad too and we sort of
conceptualized somethingentirely different and then
finally settled on a podcast,and so that's kind of how we
started this but it's been a lotof fun.
Speaker 4 (03:30):
We feel that nobody has a bad experience wine
tasting or sitting aroundvisiting with friends drinking a
glass of wine.
It's always a good experienceand that's kind of what we want
to do.
So it's called Wine Campbecause we think about the times
that we sat around a campfire,the times we've known each other
for almost 40 years, that we'vesat around campfires drinking
(03:52):
wine, telling stories and ourshared experience and that's
what this is kind of like.
So it's essentially it's a winecampfire.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
We're just chatting and sharing information and
visiting with only californiastories no do you guys only
drink california wine becauseyou mentioned going abroad.
Speaker 4 (04:13):
No, we drink, we do.
We we've had some really goodcroatian wines and italian wines
and uh, we've had I don't know.
It's just we like what we like,so we're're not stuck to a
region, if you will.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Right, and we mostly do our interviews on site, so
that's why most of our episodeswhere we are featuring a winery
have been California wines.
Speaker 2 (04:40):
Understood.
That's so cool.
That's where we are Well.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
Thank you again.
Nothing like a good crime story.
Now who doesn't like a littletrue crime and why?
That's right, exactly Well.
And you know it's funny becausea lot of people you know they
always said like why true crimeand why wine?
And it's exactly what you said.
(05:05):
It's two people having aconversation, telling a story,
sharing.
You know, wine kind of bringspeople together, sometimes in
(05:28):
joyous occasions and sometimesnot.
So it's great what you're doing.
We need more wine podcasts outthere.
We need more of in really anyregion.
I know we predominantly doTexas wine, but we love I'm like
a big old world wine, so I likethe Spanish big old world wine,
so I like the Spanish old worldstuff.
So that's just so cool.
(05:49):
You're bringing your knowledgeand your travels and everything
else to the Wine Camp podcast.
So okay, ladies.
Well, we are here today to talkabout the Golden State Killer.
Now I was taking well, you andI and I'm sorry us we were all
talking about this case, yourarea you mentioned you're both
(06:09):
in California.
You're about to share with theaudience, our listeners, your
listeners, really about justthis case in general, but not
only that what the area was like, how people were thinking what
they were feeling, how thingswere evolving, how the case was
evolving?
Were they getting closer to asuspect?
(06:32):
But gosh, we're talking aboutso many years, monica and Neil.
So all of this, and, by the way,this person, he ends up going
in different areas of California.
And I don't know about you, butI feel like when you have
someone who is committing crimesacross county lines, across in
(06:56):
different cities and differentareas, it becomes very difficult
to track them down.
And you had murders, you hadsexual assaults, sometimes one
crime wasn't the same.
Even harder to then narrowsomeone in particular down.
So did this start in like theearly 1970, 73, 74 timeline?
(07:20):
Right Is when the perpetratorbegan committing crimes, right
right, and he started.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
If you think about this, he started.
It's classic escalation becausehe started burglarizing in the
Central Valley early on and thatwas the time that later
discovered he was working forthe city of Exeter and he was
burglarizing homes in the cityof Visalia, which is a
(07:47):
neighboring town, and got thenickname the Visalia Ransacker,
because apparently he would justransack homes when he burglared
them.
But then he escalated.
Of course, he later left Exeter, moved to the town of Auburn,
(08:09):
which is about a half hour upinto the hills from the
Sacramento area.
Right, he started working inAuburn, right.
Right, started working, workingin Auburn.
Yeah, I don't know where heactually lived at the time, but
you're right, he was working inAuburn as a police officer.
Yeah, I don't know where heactually lived at the time, but
you're right, he was working inAuburn as a police officer.
Speaker 4 (08:32):
And that's when the sexual assault started in the
Sacramento area, to be known asthe East Area Rapist, and to
just give an idea of what thisarea was like back in the early
mid-70s it's quite broad rightnow.
All the communities areattached.
It's quite broad right now.
All the communities areattached.
But what we have here is wehave community borders
essentially set up by rivers andfreeways.
So we have Sacramento River,the American River, we have
(08:57):
Interstate 80, 50, 99.
And so the area is verysegregated along those lines
right.
So you have a community pocket.
So when there were attacks inthe Sacramento area it wasn't
just like it was, just theperson was just moving from
(09:17):
easily from one neighborhood tothe other.
There were rivers and freewaysand all that that were crossed.
It was quite a span of area andit was all very agricultural.
There were lots of tomatofields, strawberry fields,
ranches, that type of thing.
So it wasn't just an easy justdown the street and around the
corner thing.
So whoever this was, it wasvery hard.
(09:39):
It crossed legal jurisdictions,so it was hard for those law
enforcement agencies tocommunicate.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Well, and we also can't forget, he is and will be
once he's arrested and they findout who he is.
Speaker 3 (09:55):
Yeah, Right, yeah, and we'll get into this a little
bit more.
But the detectives working thecase back in the day some of
them did think that, you know,they did think he had.
Maybe he had a law enforcementbackground or a military
background Right, we have a lotof.
Speaker 4 (10:13):
At that time we had several military bases located
in Sacramento, and so theythought it could be a military
person.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
Yeah, so yeah, now, neil lived here during the time
I did it, but she has a betteruh understanding of what the
community was going through atthe time so where are all these
places really, was it?
Speaker 1 (10:40):
you said ranches and different things in the area, so
were things just spread out?
Was he able to when he became,when he was the ransacker, for
instance, and he was escalatingthen into sexual assaults?
Was he able?
Did he know these people Likewas?
Was he?
I know he was a police officerin some of these towns he worked
(11:02):
in, but did he know a lot ofthese people?
Were there certain targets?
What do we know about his earlydays?
Was it just like tiptoeing intowhat he was going to progress
to?
What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 4 (11:19):
Well, I've never heard anything that he knew who
these people were, whose victimswere.
I don't.
I've never heard anything thathe knew who these people were,
who his victims were.
I what I've always heard isthat he, he basically stalked
people and learned theirroutines, their coming and going
, who was in the house, whatthey have.
Sometimes he would go in whilethey were gone, figure out you
(11:39):
know how their home was set up.
If there were weapons, he would, or he would leave his own
equipment and weapons there.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Yeah, he would hide things in some of the.
I mean he was creative and diddifferent things in different
houses.
So I think it was verydifficult for law enforcement,
for the detectives, to connectthe dots back then or to even
start to connect the dots.
But they did.
But he did do different thingsin houses.
Sometimes he would plantsomething, hide it in their
(12:09):
house and sometimes he wouldn't.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
Well, as a police officer, it's probably very
advantageous for him to know thepolice officer's routine and,
even with these areas beingseparated by different format,
you know, like said, rivers,highways and stuff knowing how
to skirt the law, I guess, andthe policies and procedures and
how they would look at things,and so that kind of kept people
(12:35):
guessing as well too, bouncingaround and then also, like you
mentioned, at the crime sceneshiding things, planning things
to essentially hide his identity.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
And it's interesting.
Well, and when you change it upit's hard to target to one
person.
You know what I mean when youhave different.
When you have someone, you knowtypically if you're a burglar
you don't typically go in tosexually assault someone.
You're a burglar.
So you're going in and takethings and you're leaving.
But then there's thatescalation.
But it's like he already kindof knew.
I think he kind of knew wherethis maybe progression was going
(13:10):
, or it just wasn't entertainingenough.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
Well, he wasn't leaving a calling card to note
that it was him each time.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
I see on here the original Night Stalker.
That reminds me of the NightStalker.
He used to stalk his prey tooand know their routine and would
sometimes go in the homes andobserve and then leave and just
creepy.
Speaker 3 (13:30):
Well, that was him.
Yeah, yeah, were you living inSouthern California at that time
.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Brandy.
So I was living.
So yeah, I was actually livingin Ventura when the Night
Stalker was out and I rememberjust being a little girl and
riding her bike and not beingable to stay out past, you know,
before you know when, likebefore, it's dark, you come
inside.
One of the things I knew aboutthe Night Stalker was that, for
(13:58):
whatever reason, he would findhomes that were very close to
the freeway, maybe to get backto downtown Los Angeles, because
we know that's where he wasliving.
Most of the time was indowntown LA, um, and and
multiple on the streets inhotels, Um.
So you know, I I think it's justhard, you know, but with the
Night Stalker, and and why Ithink the Golden State Killer is
(14:22):
so different than really anyany really killer, Chris, that I
have, and I mean like serialserial murderers, sexual
assaults, burglary, it's almostlike he knew he was a law
enforcement agent, you know, heknew what his job was, he knew
(14:44):
how, like you said, to skirt thelaw, he knew what they would be
looking for if they looked, ifall the crimes look the same,
and then I think he, you know,this guy, was an everyday man.
We'll come to find out right,With children and family and
people who would never thinkthis about him, which is which,
to me, is like the worst of theworst.
(15:05):
Right Like you, go through yourwhole life and the things he
did and the things he wascapable of, and for nobody.
I mean, am I right about that,ladies?
Nobody knew in his family,right?
Speaker 4 (15:17):
Yeah, he's hiding in plain sight, right, just
blending in.
And it's crazy because, um,when this was all going on, my
father worked up in Auburn andthat's about 30 minutes from
where we lived up in thefoothills and one of the Auburn
police officers said to myfather because he knew where we
(15:39):
lived and I have no idea whothis police officer was, I'm
just going to throw that inthere but he told my father he
goes.
We think it's a police officer,we think it's that, that, that
somebody that knows our routinesand how we do things.
Keep in mind the guy theyarrested.
He worked for the Auburn PoliceDepartment, uplifting rope and
(16:02):
duct tape or something like that.
But yeah, I mean, these arethings that just happen.
Then there's people that justblend in and there was no
communication between the lawenforcement agencies to know oh,
we've been having this happenand you've been having that
happen in order to connect thedots.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
Yeah Right, and I want to add to that that, while
there wasn't the level of, youknow, the technology and
communication that we currentlyhave today, as a police officer
not only did he know oftechniques, ideas, he probably
had, you know, studied somecriminals before, but he was
(16:43):
privy to information that thepolice would be privy to, so,
you know, as an insider right.
And then, in addition to that,yeah, I know that in the
Sacramento area, um detectiveCarol Daly was the lead
detective on the uh East arearapist cases and they would hold
(17:04):
these public forums at thelocal high schools with hundreds
of people showing up, and youknow they were probably put on
television.
So I'm sure he saw those too.
And then, or he could have evenbeen in attendance.
Right, he could have been inattendance because, like I said,
he was hiding in plain sight.
There was one instance where aman got up to speak at one of
(17:27):
those town halls and what did hesay?
Speaker 4 (17:29):
Neal.
It was something along thelines and we're no experts on
this, but it was something alongthe lines of that.
There was some doubt, if youwill, that this person existed,
that these things were happening, and within a week or so, he
and his spouse were attacked.
And this was around the timethat what the perpetrator
started doing was it used to bejust when a woman was alone in
(17:53):
the house or she had a smallchild and then it escalates
where there was a man in thehouse and he would tie up the
man, put dishes on him to, youknow, be hurting, be rattling.
So you know this caused so muchfear in the communities and not
trying to take anything awayfrom the victims of this at all,
(18:13):
this is just to give ourperspectives of how living here,
what things were like, and itwas.
Everybody was a suspect,everybody was afraid.
You didn't know because this issomebody you had no idea who it
was.
Anybody that even looked kindof like a sketch, like one of
the sketches, was a suspect.
It was just a terrifying timeand it went on forever For me.
(18:40):
Where we lived, we didn't haveair conditioning in our house
and this is during the summer.
It gets to be 110.
Everybody in the areas hadtheir windows open.
Doors were unlocked.
It was just a very gentlecommunity feel, right.
But now we had to lock ourwindows and we had no air
(19:01):
conditioning and it was somiserable.
You know, my my dad was wassmart.
He went out and bought us aswamp cooler and installed it,
so now it was just hot and humidin the house.
Speaker 3 (19:23):
That's what good another perspective sentimental
valley is.
While it gets hot here in thedaytime in the summer, we get
that delta breeze in the evening.
So that's why everyone, youhave your windows open it just
isn't a natural air conditioner.
Speaker 4 (19:40):
For the most part I was miserable, but yeah, it was
just.
It changed how we allinteracted and, um, our trust
level and um you know, it wasjust such a change in how we we
lived that to this day you cantalk to people that lived
through it and everybody willtell you the same type of thing.
(20:00):
It just you know, it's just wemade us.
Everybody was a suspect.
We don't trust anybody and welock everything up.
Speaker 1 (20:10):
So, speaking of how the area was feeling at the time
and the difference, so we knowthere were 38 attacks in the
Sacramento area.
Um, you were you.
Were you both teenagers at thistime, living through this?
Yeah, you know, 14, 15, 16 yearolds what was it like being
that age when this was starting?
(20:31):
I mean, and this went on foryears.
Did it ever change?
Did the community ever feeldifferently?
Was there ever a time when youthought they're never going to
catch him.
He's going to continue to dothis?
Did they always think this wasdifferent people?
And then people were shockedwhen they found out this was one
person.
(20:52):
Did the environment and feelever change.
Speaker 4 (20:55):
Everybody pretty felt it was much felt it was one
person, and it went on for solong that we wondered what
happened to this person.
It was never solved for, youknow, for all those years and it
was just like hanging like acloud.
Where is this person?
They speculated that he died.
He moved, he was in prison, notthat he was still here, I mean,
(21:19):
he obviously moved around andcommitted crimes throughout the
state, but he eventually endedup back here again, about a half
a mile from where I lived.
So it was when that broke outand it's funny because my dad
and all the other neighborhooddads it was not uncommon to have
(21:40):
the men going out patrollingtheir neighborhoods at night
just looking for anybody.
My dad and our neighbors didthat, and so to find out that he
was actually living for many,many years, just honestly, down
the street from us I'm sayinghalf a mile, as a crow flies, I
(22:03):
would drive by that area all thetime.
It was just like when theycaught him, it was a shock
because we didn't know that hewas still around and it's like,
after all these years we thought, oh well, this is going to be,
you know, an unsolved crime.
And then they solved it and wewere just like are you kidding
(22:26):
us?
Speaker 2 (22:27):
it was amazing to us yeah, and he moved closer to you
, or I mean, I guess, initially,when a lot of these place that
was this like a secondaryresidence or you know what I had
heard?
Speaker 4 (22:42):
that he had bought this house, that he was arrested
at like 30 years previous, buthe hadn't always lived in it,
that he'd moved around um, butthere he was living right there
like just kind of wondering,like, where is he like looking
for?
Speaker 2 (23:01):
you know, victim, victim, wise, um, you know, how
close in proximity were theyoccurring?
Were all these crimes occurringclose to where he was actually
living?
So was he going, you know, fararound and kind of keeping his
powder dry, so to speak where hewas living at.
Speaker 4 (23:18):
There was one I know of in the, just not far from,
not necessarily far from wherehe lived, but there was.
The rest were a little, alittle bit away.
But you know we're talkingseveral miles, we're not talking
20, always 20 miles.
I mean to get from where he wasliving to say Rancho Cordova.
(23:39):
You know it could be as far as20 miles, or like Davis, that's
a ways that's probably like 40miles, 30 miles, yeah, something
like that, something alongthose lines.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
Unlike Neil who lived here at the time.
I didn't, but after he wascaught I learned that one of his
teenage victims was two doorsdown from where I currently live
.
And it was after he was caughtthat my neighbors started
buzzing and I said I can'tbelieve that no one told us that
before.
Well, there's still some of theoriginal homeowners in my
(24:12):
neighborhood and for whateverreason, it never came up after
all these years.
But yeah, two doors down.
And then I discovered also thatum Bonnie, who is the woman he
had been engaged to before allthis started, um, her daughter
(24:32):
attends my church.
In fact, she works at ourchurch as well.
Um, so then I found out thatconnection too.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
It's a small it means yeah, it's a small.
It's.
It's really essentially a smalltown.
You might as well be in theMidwest, you know, and it's less
than six degrees of separation.
Everybody has a connection tosomebody else, so yeah, it was a
a.
It was a time of a lot of fear.
And I'll tell you, as a kid,teenager, you know, suddenly,
(25:02):
you know, my parents were likeyou'd be very careful and I
still got to go out and dothings, but I had to be very
careful.
You know, like I would.
I would ride my bike, you know,as we all did as a teenager,
like 10 speed from from where II live to to the lake, to my
friend's house at the lake.
So I would, I'd ride my bike.
There was probably eight milesto her house and then we'd ride
(25:24):
somewhere else along the lakeand ride to another friend's
house and come back again withat a time when we didn't have
cell phones and nobody had awater bottle, nobody had a tire
repair kit, you know.
But you know there was stillthat weird element.
Oh no, I'll be fine.
This is just an offshoot and itonly happens at night, so I'll
(25:46):
be fine during the day.
You know, I mean this ismindset that you have and
teenagers are invincible, that'sright.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
That's right, and I think we never think it's going
to happen to us, right?
No-transcript.
(26:26):
I did not know that he actuallywrote into the newspapers and
even wrote letters.
Maybe you can talk more aboutthat and I also did not know
that he would actually call hisvictims after he victimized them
.
So these were two things that II didn't know he actually was
doing.
Um, can you, can you talk aboutthose a little bit?
Speaker 4 (26:49):
Well, I know that the letters that were written, they
were written to, uh, I believethem, like the mayor and one of
the news outlets, um, and thatwas the first that anybody heard
about.
And at that point they didn'tcontact the sheriff's office and
and they're like what's goingon?
And you know, it was uh, lipssealed, nobody said.
(27:09):
And finally it was like eitheryou come forward with this or
we're going to come forward withthis.
And that's when they startedletting information out and
having the community meetingsand things like that, because
the news was going we can't keepthis from people and you
shouldn't be keeping it frompeople.
(27:34):
And, unfortunately, views of howwomen were treated as victims
in legal situations are muchdifferent than they are now.
And these assaults wereshameful and of no fault of
these women at all.
But you know how the law waswritten and how, unfortunately,
(27:59):
many law enforcement officerstalked about it.
It was just, you know, I thinkat that point it was a
misdemeanor, right, you know.
So it was just a very sad timefor that.
And so then it started comingout and it changed.
The laws have changed a lothere and the mindsets about
(28:20):
these type of crimes havechanged.
So there was that, but then,yeah, we did hear that people
were getting calls.
Even before he was captured,these people were saying that
they were getting calls.
How terrifying.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
Yeah, sometimes years after they had been victimized
he would call them.
Speaker 4 (28:40):
And what's crazy also about that is you're talking at
a time when there really wasn'tthe internet to go look
somebody up.
So where is he getting thephone numbers?
Speaker 2 (28:50):
You know, yeah.
Yeah, I mean, I think just Imean if he had any still, any
attachments to law enforcement,but I think too, just knowing
the address, it was relativelyeasy.
You know, everybody had a homephone too, so there was a pretty
good chance that you know withcorrelating address, regardless
of what the name was, somebodywas going to pick up.
Speaker 1 (29:08):
Yeah, it is interesting, though, that it's
like returning to the scene ofthe crime without returning to
the scene of the crime.
It's like connecting yourselfonce again to something, um, to
continually torment thesevictims.
Yeah, it's like it's not enoughright, like feeding something
inside of him that just wasincomplete.
(29:30):
I mean, what would make himthink about that years later?
Well it's considering how manyvictims he's had over the years
right.
Speaker 2 (29:37):
I'm not even sure there's a dwelling on that.
You could trace a phone callback then too.
I'm not sure if there was evena capability to see where the
number came from.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
There are some recordings.
There are some recordings ofsome of his calls because some
of the victims were givenrecording devices but the ones
probably that came years laterwere not and I don't know when
they became able to trace calls,but remember that was a process
.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
Yeah, I don't know, yeah it was, and not only that,
he would know how long he hasuntil he needs to get off the
phone.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
I mean, if there's anyone who knows how to, well, I
mean, I think before, if youwere tracing, you had to like
know when the person was calling, and then they would have to
you know.
So you literally almost have tohave I'm guessing law
enforcement there when the phonecall comes through somebody
else yeah, because there was nono caller id, things like that,
(30:37):
where they could even call back.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
Magic Mind is a nootropic productivity drink
that contains ingredients aimedat enhancing focus, energy,
calmness and memory.
It's often marketed as acomplement to coffee, which,
chris, as you know, it is thecomplement to my coffee every
morning.
Some of those key ingredientsinclude matcha, that natural
caffeine, adaptogens, nootropics, lion mane, mushroom and
(30:59):
turmeric.
So I've been taking itconsistently for about five or
six months.
Focus and productivity is oneof the top things I notice,
chris my energy levels, smoothenergy, no coffee crashes mood
and calmness, less anxiety, moreemotional balance when you have
those busy, busy days and that.
Sharper mental clarity, easierdeep work and less
(31:22):
procrastination all in just onelittle shot.
So head over to magicmindcomand use the code TexasWine20 for
20% off.
That's magicmindcom code,texaswine20.
Stay curious, stay focused.
Reclaim your brain with MagicMind.
Okay, ladies, so we are talkingabout a 40-year span from when
(31:46):
these crimes sort of well gosh.
I would say even maybe morelike a 40 to 43-year span of
when these crimes actuallystarted to when there was an
arrest that was actually made inthis case.
So how do you know how long?
Because I know there wereperiods when there was no crimes
happening.
Right, like you said, was he injail?
(32:06):
Did something happen to him?
Did he move?
Do you feel like when thosesilent periods were there, was
he just doing somethingdifferent?
Like when those silent periodswere there, was he just doing
something different moving,switching jobs, having kids?
Do you know or have you heardany thoughts around like why
some of this would stop and thenit would pick up again?
Speaker 3 (32:29):
I've heard speculation that you know when
the crimes would stop.
He was in transit, you know,maybe between careers or
starting his family, I don'tknow.
There were definitely somebreaks.
And then you know the end ofhis terror reign, I think was
around 86.
But then he wasn't caught.
(32:52):
Until what?
Is it 2018?
Speaker 1 (32:55):
Yeah, 2017, 2018,.
Which is so wild that you havesomeone go that long without
committing another crime, or atleast see that's something
interesting too.
Was there actually crimescommitted that we just don't
know about?
Or maybe they didn't correlatethem to him, it's?
(33:16):
It's just so mind boggling tothink that you do all of this
and then you don't do it anymore, right?
Speaker 3 (33:25):
Someone who starts out with yeah, yeah, and you
know, if you think about um,that he actually started out
committing even smaller, pettycrimes, but always someone who
hurts animals.
That is such a red flag.
So he did that for years.
I don't know how often he didit, but there are stories about
(33:49):
him harming animals and killinganimals, terrible things and
then he went on to burglarizingand then to sexual assault and
then murder and sexual assault,and I don't even know when the
lines crossed.
You know when the level of hiscrimes crossed.
Speaker 4 (34:08):
I'm sure there's some overlap, I'm sure there's some
back and forth, but he, he didwork for many years at a
warehouse in right roseville,like many, many years, so I
don't know what was going onwith his life at that point that
, um, he didn't commit crimes ordidn't commit the same, uh,
(34:30):
traceable type of crimes, youknow, do you?
Speaker 3 (34:32):
know what I wonder, now that you bring that up, neil
.
I wonder if he was workingnight shift at the call out.
Speaker 4 (34:40):
He might have been.
I'm sure the police alreadyknow this.
Should we tell them, yeah?
Speaker 1 (34:51):
Do they know?
Now, I remember the arrest.
So let's genetic genealogy.
You know, god bless it.
It has solved a lot of crimes.
I sat down with a Texas Rangera couple years back who solved a
crime after 38 years using thistype of tracing to find out
(35:12):
suspects.
You know, austin yogurt shopmurders.
Gosh, if we could just getAustin PD and the FBI on the
same page.
They do have a little bit ofgenetic information that came
back, but because of the way thelaw is written when it comes to
people submitting their DNA,sometimes that information is
(35:35):
not released by the police.
But this is how this case wassolved.
So do you want to talk a littlebit more about that and how
they caught this guy?
Speaker 3 (35:43):
Sure, yeah, if I understand this right, at some
point the law enforcementagencies, the different county
enforcement agencies, startedconnecting, well into the 2000s
I think, or maybe around 2000.
(36:04):
And there was still some pushand pull from some of the
agencies not willing to shareinformation or not willing to
entertain the idea that some ofthese crimes were connected.
But there were folks that justfelt like in my gut, I know this
is connected, some of thedetectives.
So at some point, and there's agenealogy expert that was key
(36:36):
in this she was working with Ithink it was that Detective,
paul Holes, and they were ableto.
Her name is Barbara Rae Ventner, that's right, venter, and she
had helped police in anotherstate, I think, solve a crime
using genetic genealogy.
So anyway, they finally startedconnecting the dots and
(36:58):
utilizing her expertise and theywere able to.
It's a long process, apparently, because at some point you're
able to figure out that thisperpetrator was connected to
this person 900 years ago andthen maybe you do a little more
testing and you gradually bringit together and you're able to
(37:19):
find familial DNA connectionswith family members.
It's pretty impressive and now,of course, now they're doing it
everywhere all the time.
Speaker 1 (37:52):
But that's how they were able to track them down and
it's pretty expensive to do.
A lot of these companies arefunded by donations and
supporters and it also, like yousaid, it takes time and
resources and it also takespeople submitting their DNA
(38:13):
right and people being in thesystem and sometimes it's not a
perfect match.
Sometimes, like you said, it'sfour generations, three
generations, maybe it's not evena direct correlation, maybe
it's not a brother or sister,maybe it's a second or third
cousin and, like you said, theyhave to kind of narrow it down
(38:35):
until they really can, can honein on.
Sometimes it's the area we'veseen people caught based on the
area this family was, you know,was in, so they could map it out
.
I mean, it's just some reallygreat, wild, wonderful things
that they're going to be doingfor families, because I feel
like I look at Facebook everyday and genetic genealogy is
solving something new and newand new which is so great to see
, and I hope, from a legalstandpoint and from a law
(38:59):
enforcement you know, victimstandpoint, that they're able to
use this in the future forreally good things.
Speaker 3 (39:07):
Oh, absolutely.
I mean, I remember when,probably about five years ago,
my brother asked me if I haddone the 23andMe or the Ancestry
sent in my spit, neil, you'dask me if I'd done it, because
you've done some.
I found some relatives I didn'tknow I had.
Yeah, my brother's like yeah,she's got stories, maybe we'll
(39:31):
do do it might have to clearthat with the relatives.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
Hey, I need to be on that.
I need to be on that episode.
Speaker 3 (39:36):
Yeah, I need to be on that episode because I've got
some stories, too, about somegenetic genealogy coming back so
I remember asking brotherbecause he said he sent his in
and I asked him has the fbiknocked on your door?
And he said, well, no, why?
And I?
Okay, then I'll do it.
Speaker 4 (39:52):
And I do have another story about how that was used
to solve a crime here a murderhere.
That was quite close to myfamily.
But, yeah, I mean, what also Ithink is really awesome is that
even decades ago, they werepreserving DNA, assuming that
someday it would be of value,and if they hadn't have done
(40:14):
that, they wouldn't have beenable to use this genetic right
to connect.
Speaker 1 (40:19):
Yeah, Well, and I think it's wonderful that they
didn't lose the DNA right ormisplace the DNA or things like
this that we see happen over somany years of shuff of you know,
shuffling things around andthings get lost, so it's just
great that they were able tohold on to it.
I do want to talk about youknow.
(40:40):
I remember seeing him ontelevision showing up in the
wheelchair thought, and I alwaysthink about this when I see
perpetrators being brought intocourt or to have their day in
court they look like the victimright.
I always find it interestingthat they go in looking sad and
(41:02):
sick and helpless and feel sorryfor me, when we in fact know
that he had a neighbor back in2017 that witnessed him actually
doing some yard work or heavylifting or something.
Speaker 2 (41:17):
So again it kind of goes with like the facade.
Speaker 1 (41:21):
Yeah, it kind of goes with like this facade of maybe
who he thought he was throughoutthis whole you know, his whole
time of the spree versus reallywho he is is how he showed up in
court.
So I just always find itinteresting.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
Probably for leniency , I would imagine, to make
himself appear as an old man andyou know not to put him away.
Speaker 1 (41:42):
Yeah, I know, but still, he's not the only one who
does it.
Speaker 4 (41:47):
He's not the only one .
He's not the only one who doesit.
He's not the only one who doesit.
After the plea deal was reached, the district attorney released
a video from inside his jailcell and also from the hallway
leading to the courtroom, andeven though he would go into the
(42:08):
courtroom and he'd be in awheelchair, he wasn't in the
wheelchair the whole time.
He walked down the hall, thengot in the wheelchair and went
into the courtroom and in hiscell he was doing gymnastics, if
you will, moving from the bunkto the desk to a light, to all
around.
He was perfectly fine.
Speaker 3 (42:24):
Yeah, he was like Park Goat.
He was so adept at climbing andmoving his body Right, but then
he would show up in courtalmost catatonic, mm-hmm, what a
manipulator.
Speaker 1 (42:37):
I don't buy it.
I wonder yeah, I'm not verygood at it.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
It's kind of like when Brandy does her nails
before.
There's a lot of cleaning to doaround the house.
Speaker 4 (42:45):
You know I can't do this, Nails.
Speaker 2 (42:50):
This is keeping me from you know.
Speaker 1 (42:52):
Sounds like we need to do an episode about that,
Chris.
Speaker 2 (42:55):
My handicap.
Speaker 4 (42:58):
I can't.
Speaker 2 (42:58):
I just got my nails done.
Speaker 3 (43:02):
That's a good thing too.
Speaker 2 (43:05):
I'm trying to figure out what my out's going to be.
I don't know, I can't.
Speaker 4 (43:09):
Have a beauty time.
Speaker 1 (43:10):
I don't know, I can't .
Maybe you should get a manicure, have a beauty check, yeah, all
right.
So what do you?
Do you want to mention anythingabout the?
He took a plea, right, he isactually alive.
Somebody asked me when I wastalking to somebody last week
that we were going to be doingthis case this week, and
somebody said is he alive?
And I said, yeah, he's alive.
(43:37):
In prison, um, consecutive lifesentences.
He is, he's in.
I think he's like 70 in hisseventies, right, 76, 77, maybe
now or maybe even a little bitolder, but, um, you know, uh,
pretty certain he's going to diein prison.
Um, that is the plan, they so.
But do you?
You know, I know we have likestatute of limitations.
There were so many victims inthis case, you know, do, do.
(43:57):
Did they just not know where tostart?
Did they know that some ofthese had happened so long ago?
You know, I want to say thisbefore we get too far into it.
You know, a lot of people don'trealize that it costs a lot of
money to go to trial.
Most attorneys will tell youthey want you to settle, they
don't want to go to court.
A lot actually goes into that.
(44:19):
So if they can mediate and finda happy medium, they will.
And a lot of families get upsetbecause you know DAs and people
involved in this case don'twant to take things to trial.
We just saw this in the Idahomurders.
There was a lot of disagreementin the families.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
It's a guaranteed win for them if the person takes a
plea deal so.
I dealt with this on anotherinstance on a personal level.
That sure you want to seejustice, the DA doesn't?
I mean they want justice, the dawants a win on their record and
so if a plea deal is copped, um, it's still a win in their book
(44:59):
and so I mean, it's nodifferent than, like all those,
um, the three kids from the uh,from arkansas, all the people
who were finally released um theyou know, whatever Arkansas
Supreme Court or whatever it was, would still never admit any
wrongdoing or that they did.
They just let them out of jailbecause they did not want to
(45:19):
take that judgment away.
I mean, basically, they werejust let go set free, but they
never really admitted that theyhad made this big faux pas and,
as you know, yeah, well, I thinkI think his age.
Speaker 1 (45:31):
I don't know about you, what you two think, but I
think his age.
I think the amount of crimes, Ithink that the time span that
went by since the crimesoccurred, having to try each
individual I think it was justmaybe a conglomerate of all of
it and his age and just beingable to say well did you do it
and he says yes, and then youcan kind of give it the evidence
you have to get the people.
Speaker 2 (45:52):
You win some cases, you lose some cases.
How are they?
Are they all getting um?
You know, tried concurrently.
I just think, like him making aplea deal he is older gentlemen
, but also to just coming upwith that it does kind of put um
well.
Speaker 1 (46:05):
And if you try him for murder and he gets you know
a not guilty, that's Well.
And if you try him for murderand he gets you know not guilty,
then he can't try him foranother one.
Speaker 2 (46:11):
The finality he's never going to see the light of
day or anything like that.
But you know, I still feel likethat's mental justice.
Speaker 4 (46:18):
A lot of the crimes were past the statute of
limitations and he couldn't betried on those.
However, in the plea deal hepled to those crimes anyway.
However, in the plea deal hepled to those crimes anyway and
the victims issuing victimimpact statements were allowed
to make them even though thestatute of limitations had been
exceeded in their particularsituation.
(46:39):
So they did have a voice there.
But you know, a lot of peoplewere not happy about it.
They wanted to see the trialand I know that it's really a
catch.
I think the evidence spoke foritself.
And then you have to balancethat with the cost of a trial,
which can run into the millions,and you have to bring in all
these experts and all this typeof thing, and the end result is
(47:04):
he's in prison for the rest ofhis life either way, and he
didn't spend millions andmillions of dollars.
And they did have theopportunity to get their impact
statement.
Speaker 3 (47:15):
There was some negotiations in that plea deal.
The victims were able tonegotiate that even for the
cases that were not chargeablebecause the statute of
limitations had expired, theynegotiated and I think they did
some of this negotiation withthe defense team, which was
interesting, but they negotiatedthat he would have to admit to
(47:40):
even the non-chargeable crimes,like those rapes, that
unfortunately the statute oflimitations had expired, and so
that's why the hearingssurrounding the victim impact
statements and the I don't evenknow what you call it his
(48:01):
admitting to all of these crimeswere hours and hours long, like
five hours.
I heard six hours, because theyread every single crime, even
if it wasn't being charged, andhe had to admit to it.
Speaker 4 (48:23):
He had to say, yeah, everybody was watching their TV
or their computer and listeningto everything happen, because
this consumed, consumed thiscommunity for decades.
And and then this happened andnobody was going to miss a beat,
because everybody, everybodywas impacted one way or another
and the way we live changed.
Speaker 1 (48:46):
Yeah, and you know, I think of Michelle McNamara.
We know that she was a victimadvocate, she was a researcher.
She started, you know I alwayssay like true crime podcasters.
You know I think back.
Oh, I don't know, michelleMcNamara was writing true crime
(49:09):
blogs, you know, 15 years ago,20 years ago, about different
things, and she starts writingabout Golden State and then she
starts really researching thiscase and unfortunately, you know
, she passes away in 2016.
He's arrested in 17.
You know a lot of people willsay that because of her work and
because of her research, youknow this was there, was.
(49:31):
They were just one step closerto finding out who was doing
this.
So, being that she was inCalifornia and researching this
on, you know what were thethoughts about her with police?
I mean, do y'all know anythingabout that or had any feelings
(49:51):
about that?
Speaker 3 (49:53):
I understand that she was working pretty closely with
Paul holes at some point and umI recently listened to an
interview he did a while back,um, I think it was for the, the
HBO series, and um, he said heat one point he gave her an
interview and he told her thathe would disclose some
(50:14):
information that she could notprint in her magazine article.
I think she was writing for amagazine at the time but she was
clearly blogging, I think,about this case and she was
obsessed with it and he trustedher and she held his trust and
so they continued to worktogether.
(50:36):
I understand, I know that shewas.
I don't know the details, but Iknow that she was an integral
part of this case being pushedand, pushed, and pushed.
In fact, she was the one whocame up with the name golden
state killer and Paul Holes saidhe kind of was a little bit
resistant.
He didn't want to insult her, Ithink, but he was a little bit
resistant about another name forthis person and he said she
(51:00):
convinced me and I think that itwas probably because this guy
went all over the state ofCalifornia.
He know he went where he wantedand committed these horrible
crimes.
Speaker 4 (51:13):
I mean, I can't even imagine what these victims went
through, but yeah, I feel likeher work and her research on
this brought the light back tothe case because, like I said,
everybody thought that he wasdead or in prison or whatever,
and she really shined a light onit and what?
(51:33):
Because of her work.
Then suddenly, uh, a reward wasoffered and and people started
talking about it again and Ithink that that was a huge part
in making people go.
Hmm, maybe we need to look alittle deeper into this and her
work itself with the DNA.
If it hadn't been for that, I'msure he'd still be down the
(51:57):
street.
Yeah, you know, I'm sure of it.
I mean, that was an amazingtask to take on and very
insightful to even think aboutdoing DNA using DNA, because it
was so new.
It's not so new now yeah, andyou can't make for it yeah.
Speaker 1 (52:17):
Everybody's got it.
Something we all share.
Speaker 4 (52:21):
Different than mine.
So, yeah, we all share it.
I think she was really thefactor that got this case solved
.
Speaker 3 (52:32):
And I mean he didn't even have his DNA out there,
Mm-mm.
So they honed in on who wasliving these areas at these
times.
After they connected the DNAbetween the crimes in Southern
California, Central Valley andSacramento area, Then they
(52:54):
started with the familial DNAand figuring out, well, who
could have been related to thisfamily, who in this family was
living in that area, this areaand these areas at the time.
So that's kind of how they didit.
He didn't even have his DNA outthere.
They had to go get his trash atthe time.
So that's kind of how they didit.
He didn't even have his DNA outthere.
Speaker 1 (53:15):
They had to go get his trash, they had to start his
house, yeah, and then DNA thatway, yeah, and we were talking
about the.
The area thing has been a big,especially if there isn't any
DNA out there and you're lookingfor family or relatives or
people, and I mean, my gosh, youwould have to think too, you
know, was this sort of a big?
You know how long did thisactually take?
When you have him moving aroundso much, when you have someone
(53:36):
who has been committing crimesall over the state of California
, you know, how do you even honein on where they're living or
who they're related to?
So, gosh, it it's a, it'sdefinitely a, a, a feat that
they did with um having to lookall of this up and but he is
caught.
Um, it, I, I, I would like to, I.
(54:00):
You know, ladies, are there anydocumentaries out there you
would recommend anything I wouldlike to know.
Um, maybe I'm just, maybe it'sjust some deep research for
myself.
You know what changed for him?
Was it the working of thenights?
You know, I would.
Um, there's a profiler I've hadon my show before who actually
had met with Ted Bundy, and um,I would, really.
(54:23):
I think this would be a veryinteresting conversation with
him to um to really just kind oftalk about.
You know, why do you think hestopped?
You know what are, what aresome of those reasons.
And then and then he getscaught.
You know, then he doesn'tcommit any crime.
(54:43):
Was he guilt?
Was he um?
Was he just?
Was he bored?
It just wasn't doing for himanymore?
Did or, you know, was it hiskids growing up and looking them
in the face and knowing what hewas doing?
I don't know if we'll ever know, but any recommendations on
what our listeners can go andcheck out that he might be on?
I know we can.
Michelle's book.
They can go grab that.
It's called I'll Be Gone in theDark, which will, yeah, very
(55:05):
insightful into this case.
Speaker 3 (55:08):
HBO did a series called I'll Be Gone in the Dark
podcast, and then there'sanother one called man in the
Window and that was done by theLA Times.
Yeah, you can look up prettymuch in this day and age, just
Google it.
There's so much out there onthis.
(55:29):
Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (55:35):
Well.
Speaker 3 (55:35):
Monica, neil, it's been a treat.
Oh yeah, no, go ahead.
I was gonna say one of thethings we didn't do is we didn't
talk about what wine we'redrinking.
What are you sipping over there?
Speaker 1 (55:43):
okay.
So today I'm having um, I'msorry we we are having a malbec
from 4-h Winery, which is inMunster, texas.
You know, chris, I have to sayI probably have had less than
three Malbecs from Texas, and soI'm glad I'm having another one
(56:05):
because this is absolutelydelicious.
I mean, do we get a lot ofMalbec?
I feel like we don't have a lotof Malbec when we go and travel
around to our wineries.
Speaker 2 (56:13):
I was trying to think .
I want to say Edge of the Lakedid not have a Malbec right.
Speaker 1 (56:21):
No, I don't think they had a Malbec.
There's not very many Texas, Ithink grape selection is pretty
key here and so you just don'tsee a lot of people growing it,
and so I'm going to go do alittle research on my 4-H winery
See if they because they are avineyard too, so they could have
(56:43):
grown their Malbec grapes andthen just harvested from the
vineyards.
Speaker 2 (56:46):
But I have a strong feeling.
Edge of Lake has one as welltoo.
Speaker 1 (56:50):
They probably do.
They have all the deliciouswine okay, ladies so that is
what we are sipping on.
What are you sipping on?
Speaker 4 (56:56):
well, well, first off , I think we need to go to texas
, yeah, and go do some wine Imean, that's one of the things I
had no idea texas had a winescene oh man, we are second in
tourism in the country behindCalifornia.
Speaker 1 (57:11):
We are fifth in production.
We have California winerywinemakers moving to Texas to
settle in.
So there's yeah, there's a lotof action happening in Texas
around the wine industry.
Speaker 3 (57:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (57:26):
Well, I think I know turning people on to Texas wines
has always been a challengesince we kind of started this
endeavor because you know we'rehaving to find kind of
replacements, you know, because,like, not a lot of Chardonnay
here, so a lot of people haveViognier all around.
Oh, it's kind of like aChardonnay, oh it's kind of like
a Cab, you know.
The Tempranillo, oh, it's kindof like I don't even know what
(57:49):
people know?
Speaker 1 (57:51):
I just know I like it .
Speaker 2 (57:52):
And so that was like when we first started drinking
too, like what the heck is thisTempranillo, the Spanish grape?
What is?
Why are we?
Why does so many of these whitemakers have this particular
grape?
And well, you know, it justgrows well in Texas, and so a
lot of them use, you know, thearea to area, you know the
grapes that grow to theiradvantage, you know and kind of
make these interesting blendsand things like that.
(58:14):
And so, yeah, we had no ideathat Texas had great wines
either.
Honestly, I think we alwaysjoked too when Brandy first said
, oh, we're going to do thispodcast and we're only going to
have Texas wine, and I thoughtwe would have seven to 12
episodes and be done with it.
Speaker 4 (58:30):
However, pretty early we learned that there was this
tremendous need and I thought wewould have seven to 12 episodes
and be done with it.
Speaker 2 (58:31):
Pretty early we learned there was this
tremendous, yeah I mean, but youknow it was just.
It was really eyeopening to usbecause you know there's, I
think now that currently I knowa lot of wineries have closed,
but I still think there'supwards of 350 in Texas.
Speaker 1 (58:47):
Oh no, we're.
It's way more than that.
It's about 700 now in Texas.
Oh no, it's way more than that,it's about 700 now.
Speaker 2 (58:52):
I disagree with those numbers.
It's high, it was about 400acres.
Speaker 1 (58:57):
Yeah, you just come on, we'll tell you exactly where
you need to go.
Speaker 2 (59:05):
There's lots of places to go.
The people are all veryfriendly.
I think we've been to bigwinemakers and small micro
wineries.
There's so many people thatdon't even have the means to you
know they're going to.
They don't grow the grapes,they go and buy fruit and they
go someplace else to process itand that place to bottle it, and
so you do kind of get this bigcollective of all these
different you know vintners thatare getting together and coming
(59:25):
together because a lot ofpeople will collaborate and make
a blend between two differentlittle wineries.
And so, yeah, it is a very coolscene and we've met some really
great people and drank a lot ofdelicious wines.
Speaker 1 (59:35):
You must go visit, you must.
Speaker 3 (59:38):
Okay, what are you?
Speaker 1 (59:38):
spending time on.
Speaker 4 (59:40):
We are drinking Baker Family Wines, a Syrah, and this
is actually.
I don't know if you're baseballpeople, but this is Dusty
Baker's winery and he's fromArlington and his winery is just
in Sacramento, but the Syrahgrape is grown on his property
in the area also, so it's prettydarn good.
(01:00:03):
He has quite a variety of 19Crimes Snoop Dogg's 19.
Speaker 3 (01:00:19):
Crimes Snoop Dogg's.
Speaker 1 (01:00:23):
Actually, it's actually pretty good I am
actually kind of obsessed withthe bottling and all the labels.
I'm a labels person, kind ofobsessed with the bottling and
all the labels.
I'm a labels person.
So I like when families andwineries share their art on
their labels and how family havecreated some of the labels.
It's just really cool.
So that is the one thing aboutthat wine Snoop Dogg.
(01:00:44):
They make some awesome labelsfor their wine.
I just love them.
Speaker 4 (01:00:46):
They're very affordable for their wine.
Speaker 1 (01:00:48):
I just love that.
It's very affordable.
Yes, yes, all right, ladies,where can people find your
podcast?
Are you everywhere Spotifypodcast, just everywhere where
people listen to their music?
Speaker 4 (01:01:00):
That's what I always say, right, we're on Apple and
Spotify at Wine Camp Podcast.
Yes, and we have Instagram also, right, yeah, so easy enough to
find us and, uh, and we arepretty chatty kathy's on those,
so it's always a good time yeah,and we love listening to you,
so keep it up oh yes, thank youall so much and thank you for
(01:01:25):
reaching out.
Speaker 1 (01:01:26):
I'm glad.
I'm glad we got to do thisepisode together.
Um, Please, friends, go checkout Wine Camp Podcast with
Monica and Neil and ladies, ifyou'll raise your glass, we're
going to end this show how weend all of our shows.
Until next time, friends, staysafe, have fun and cheers to
next time.
Cheers.
Speaker 3 (01:01:45):
Cheers folks, Thank you so much.
Thank you Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.