October 17, 2024 • 45 mins
In 1991 at an Austin, Texas Frozen Yogurt Shop, 4 teenage girls were killed. The yogurt shop was then set on fire, and their bodies burned with it. The deaths of Amy Ayers, Eliza Thomas, Jennifer Harbison, and Sarah Harbison led to decades of baffling details and unanswered questions despite the FBI’s involvement. This case is full of investigative flaws and demonstrates organized behavior by the suspects. Despite breakthroughs in DNA testing, this chilling case still remains unsolved.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
D (00:00):
Hey guys.
Welcome to the Erie Side Podcastwith your host D, Sophia, and
Elena.
We appreciate you guys listeningand I hope you're ready to get
on the Erie Side.
(00:46):
Before we begin the show, wewould appreciate if you all
could give the podcast a followand make sure the bell
notification is turned on soyou'll be notified whenever we
drop an episode.
If you enjoy the show, we wouldlove to have you leave us a
review.
And if there's a case suggestionor any feedback you'd like to
(01:07):
share feel free to send us amessage in the text box below.
Share the podcast with family,friends, coworkers, or really
anyone you think will enjoy it.
Please follow us on Instagram,TikTok, and Facebook.
I picked this story because whenit happened, I was young myself
and for some reason it reallyaffected me.
(01:29):
All I can think of is how, ifyou're in the wrong place at the
wrong time, your life candrastically change.
On December 6th of 1991, at11:47 p.
m., a police officer on patrolreported a fire at the I Can
Believe It's a Yogurt shop inAustin, Texas.
So, the fire department arrivedand extinguished the fire.
(01:51):
They just thought it was only afire.
However, when the investigatorswent inside the store, they made
a gruesome discovery that hauntsthe city to this day.
They have found a quadruplehomicide.
Inside the yogurt shop were thecharred bodies of four teenage
girls ranging from 13 to 17years old.
Elena (02:12):
Wow.
D (02:13):
There were 13 year old Amy Ayers, 17 year old Eliza Thomas,
17 year old Jennifer Harbison,and Jennifer's 15 year old
sister Sarah.
Jennifer and Eliza were the shopemployees.
That night, Amy and Sarah walkedover from a nearby mall to meet
up with Jennifer, who wasclosing the shop with Eliza.
(02:35):
They were going to get a ridehome with Jennifer after it
closed at 11 p.
m.
I also had heard that Amy wasplanning on sleeping over at
Jennifer's and Sarah's housealso.
The reason that both of thosegirls were working at the yogurt
shop, because they were tryingto get money for their expenses,
(02:57):
and some of them were trying tobuy cars, so, they were there
because they just needed alittle extra money.
This is what we know.
Approximately one hour beforeclosing time, a man who had
tried to hustle customers, and Idon't know how he was bothering
them.
I don't know if he was beggingor pushing or whatever, was
permitted to use the toilet inthe back, which took a very long
(03:19):
time, and he may have jammed arear door open.
And that was noticeable by thecustomers.
A couple who left the shop justbefore 11 p.
m.
said that Jennifer locked thefront door to prevent more
customers from entering andreported seeing two men at the
table acting fruitfully.
Sophia (03:39):
What does that mean?
D (03:40):
They were acting slew and sly.
They weren't acting normal.
They even said they, they reallywere not acting normal.
It brought attention to them.
This is what happened.
The victims had been shot in thehead.
At least one of them had beenraped.
Gunshot wounds showed that twodifferent types of guns were
used.
A.22 and a.380 pistol.
(04:03):
The use of two different gunsalso made investigators suspect
multiple individuals wereinvolved in robbing the shop and
killing the girls.
The perpetrators, And I'm goingto say it plural because it is
really believed to be more thanone.
Probably exited out through theback door that was found
unlocked.
Investigators found no sign offorce entry.
(04:24):
When the firemen came, they knewthe front door was locked and
they did find the back doorunlocked.
That's why they think that theywent out the back door.
And the people who left did saythat Jennifer locked the front
door.
And that's exactly how theyfound it.
The firefighters discovered fournude bodies.
The girls had been made toremove all their clothes.
(04:46):
They had been gagged with theirown underwear and tied with
their own clothing.
Each had been shot in the headexecution 22 caliber lead
bullet.
Jennifer, Sarah, and Eliza hadbeen severely charred and found
in the storeroom and their nudebodies had been stacked up.
Unlike the others, Amy's bodywas found in a separate part of
(05:09):
the shop.
She was not charred, but she hadreceived second and very early
third degree burns on 25 to 30percent of her body.
Sophia (05:18):
So she was not as burned as the rest of them then, is
that correct?
Correct.
She seems like she was singledout, maybe.
D (05:26):
She was found with a sock like cloth around her neck from
being strangled, but not fatallyso.
She had been shot the same asthe others, however the first
bullet had missed her brain.
She also had a second bulletwhich had caused severe damage
to her brain, exiting throughthe lateral cheek and jaw line,
(05:47):
and it was the fatal shot.
Her gunshot wounds to the headwere made with two different
caliber pistols.
So, are you guys on board?
Do you have any questions?
Elena (05:58):
So she was shot in the head twice.
D (06:01):
Correct.
With two different
Elena (06:04):
guns.
Bullets.
Which is why they believe thatit was more than one person.
multiple people, yeah.
And then as for the other girls,do we know how they were?
D (06:13):
They were shot with a.22 caliber.
Okay.
They were the ones shot withonly the.22.
Elena (06:18):
Okay, so she was the only one that has a different bullet,
right?
D (06:21):
Right, she only has one different.
She had a.22.
Elena (06:25):
Okay.
D (06:26):
And the other thing is they were all killed execution style.
Sophia (06:30):
Although Amy seems to have had some sort of
strangulation whether that wasjust for fun, or they tried to
kill her.
It would did not end up killingher.
D (06:39):
She was not only one with ligatures, okay I'll continue
and you'll see the slugs werebadly damaged Make it an
impossible for investigators totell if they all had come from
the same weapon.
They found a ligature aroundJennifer Harbinson's neck and
the killer or killers.
And I'm going to go from here onhis killers had also sexually
(07:00):
assaulted Sarah Harbinson's Wow.
Police never recovered themurder weapons.
Sophia (07:06):
So far it's been confirmed that Sarah and Amy
have been sexually assaulted.
No,
D (07:10):
only Sarah.
They know of only Sarah.
They, are not positive about theother girls being sexually
assaulted, but they do know forsure Sarah
Elena (07:19):
was.
D (07:20):
And I don't know if it's because of the way the bodies,
and the smoke, or what.
Elena (07:24):
And Sarah was also the one that had the two, or no, she
didn't have the two bullets.
No, Amy did.
Amy did.
Okay, that's interesting thatAmy was pulled off to the side,
had two separate bullets, ButSarah was the one that was
assaulted.
D (07:38):
The reason they think Amy was pulled to the side is they think
that she fought them.
Elena (07:43):
Oh.
Aw, that's, that's so sad.
D (07:46):
Mm hmm.
Elena (07:47):
Cause she was the younger one.
D (07:48):
If you listen to the interview from her family, they
think that she, which I thinkthey received from the police,
that message that she was afighter and that she fought
them.
And that's probably maybe whythey moved her.
Oh, separated.
Separated her.
However, the police has never,in any of the interviews I read
from the police, have I learnedwhy they think she was
(08:10):
separated.
Elena (08:11):
Okay.
Did she have any defensivewounds on her Or will you'll get
into that later?
There
D (08:17):
is no mention of that.
Okay.
And I think it could be becauseof the burns, but Amy, I think
they could have seen that.
They never mentioned that.
I don't know how muchinformation the police are
keeping.
Okay.
Unknown to us.
Elena (08:30):
Okay.
Thanks.
D (08:31):
After committing the greasely killings, the teens killers
ignited a fire using paperplates, cups, and cardboard from
the yogurt shop, which had beensoaked in lighter fluid.
Inferno, as well as the waterfrom the responding firefighters
hoses, in the aftermath of theblaze destroyed countless clues
(08:54):
that could have aideddetectives.
Elena (08:56):
Wow, did they know that was going to happen when they
were doing it?
D (09:01):
Who?
Elena (09:01):
The fire department.
D (09:03):
The fire department didn't even know there were people in
there when they first came.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
The inferno as well as the fowater from responding
firefighters hoses in theaftermath of the blaze destroyed
countless clues that could haveaided detectives.
The fire had Reportedly burnt sohot that it melted the upper
(09:24):
rungs of the thick aluminumladder in the rear of the
business.
Now, I also heard someone saidthat not only did the fire burn,
And they lost evidence fromthat.
They also lost evidence becausethe sprinklers went on, but I
have a hard time believing thatthere were sprinklers in the
(09:45):
shop because it burnedeverything so bad.
And when.
You have sprinklers.
Once the heat reaches thesprinklers, they go off.
So, I don't think there were anysprinklers, even though, someone
in some interview mentionedthat.
I really don't think there weresprinklers in the shop.
Sophia (10:04):
Right.
I thought sprinklers are sopowerful that they're going to
damage in the process of course,saving your life, they're going
to damage everything in the homebecause of how much water they,
D (10:14):
they would have damaged it if they were sprinklers and they
had gone off.
I don't think there weresprinklers.
The police in any, none of theirinterviews talk about
sprinklers.
I was just reading all thedocumentation and some reporter
said that not only the fire, butthe sprinklers of the shop and
the fire hoses from the firemendestroyed any, you know,
(10:37):
evidence.
However, if there had beensprinklers the fire, by the time
the firemen had gone, would haveprobably turned off most of the
fire and when the fire wentthere, the fire was still going.
Sophia (10:52):
Yeah.
I think so too.
I just think, From what I'velearned about sprinklers in the
past is that they're prettypowerful and
D (10:59):
The sprinklers should have put the fire out.
Sophia (11:02):
Unless for some reason there was a malfunction and they
never turned on.
That's true.
D (11:07):
Yeah, I don't know if they even had sprinklers.
I don't know if it was amalfunction.
I have no idea.
At this point, I don't think itwould have saved the girls.
They were dead.
If they went on, it still wouldhave destroyed the evidence.
I don't see it because even thefireman hoses destroyed
evidence.
So just so you know, this was acrime like none in Austin had
(11:28):
seen before.
The police knew they neededhelp.
And from this scene, theycontacted the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, the FBIand the Texas Department of
Public Safety.
Sophia (11:41):
Wow.
And what made them decide thatthey needed to do that just
because of the brutality of it?
D (11:46):
Yes.
First of all just from the fireand the way things were done.
Sophia (11:52):
Did they think They knew that,
D (11:53):
they knew that this was a pretty bad scene.
At the
Sophia (11:57):
time, did they think these were not first time
offenders?
D (12:00):
I will read you a comment in a second.
So you know what they thought,and that's actually to me, the
comment is the most importantone and I'm going to tell you in
a second.
In the wake of the murders, anunprecedented call for
information from the public waslaunched.
Photos of the girls and requestsfor tips appeared on billboards
(12:21):
throughout the city and even onthe back of Austin, Texas taxi
cabs.
Now this comment for me is veryimportant and I think it
actually sums up in a way whodid it.
And I think the police lostsight of this comment.
Cause I think this was what itreally says at all.
(12:42):
According to one of the originaldetectives on the case, he said
the following the organizedmethod of operation Ability to
control the victims anddestruction of evidence by arson
pointed to an adult experiencedin crime rather than teenagers.
Elena (13:01):
Yeah, that makes sense.
I feel like because of how Itdoes seem like it was a little
bit more advanced than just acouple of teenagers.
D (13:09):
One of the things that, for me, told me that this was
planned, and someone reallyplanned and thought it through,
and not someone who just decidedto do this, was that they went
in the shop some way or another,or had it with them at some
point, was they had, lighterfluid with them.
Sophia (13:27):
Oh, wow.
Interesting.
How old were the men that thosewitnesses who left the shop
right before it closed?
D (13:35):
They just said young men, but they did not say teenagers.
Sophia (13:39):
Okay, so it could be like 20s.
D (13:42):
Mm hmm.
Or 30s.
Sophia (13:44):
30s too.
Because of the ages of thegirls, I initially, in my mind,
when I was thinking of the kindof, I'm gonna assume, Boys or
men who did this as I wasthinking of teenagers, but
seeing how Unless there werefour or five six of them, they
had to have known how to controlthem It was efficiency like you
said even if there's
D (14:05):
four or five or six in addition to controlling they
brought lighter fluid in thepolice said because of how they
thought it through I mean Theyhad him tied up with her
clothes.
They had him gagged with herclothes.
I don't know what otherinformation they, have not
shared with the public.
They did not think they wereteenagers.
(14:26):
And to me that makes sense,because someone thought through
that they have to get there.
They have to ask to go to thebathroom, either to leave the
door unlocked and jammed itunlocked, or to at least go back
and check the place out and knowwhere everything is.
Teenagers don't really thinkthese through.
(14:47):
Especially if this is theirfirst or second, even third.
Elena (14:49):
These people seem more sophisticated than your typical,
I guess, teenagers that aregonna come in, and they seemed
like they were ready to lightthe place on fire, they knew
how, they thought this through,which, to me, sounds like,
obviously, planning.
And with planning comesmaturity,
D (15:08):
correct.
And I also think that they hadbeen there before.
I don't know about inside, butoutside checked it out.
Elena (15:14):
Yeah, they may
D (15:15):
have been monitoring it.
That's my opinion.
Just because from the way thingswent down,
Elena (15:20):
they knew where to go and where to leave to
D (15:22):
write.
And they also knew that The daythey were going to do that, they
have to go in the back and checkit out also.
So either they went in the backto check out the room so they
know how they were going to takethis down or at least to leave
the door unlocked.
Elena (15:36):
Right.
D (15:36):
The thing is, in none of the articles I read, did they say
Oh, they had to leave the doorunlocked because, did they need
a key?
Usually you don't need a key forthose doors in the back.
What you need is just push themopen.
So I don't know why thepolicemen think that the person
who went to the restroom had todo something to leave it open
(15:57):
for them.
Sophia (15:59):
Did Amy and Sarah usually come to get dropped off
by Jennifer, or I guess pickJennifer up, or was that a
completely random occurrence?
No,
D (16:08):
this was not very common.
I don't even know if they everhad done it before.
Sophia (16:12):
So if they were as methodical as we're assuming
they are, then it seems likeJennifer and Eliza would be
their actual targets.
That's true.
D (16:24):
It was just a robbery.
Sophia (16:26):
A robbery?
Yeah,
D (16:27):
I really think it was just a robbery.
I think that, because it was arobbery.
I think they did steal moneyfrom the registers.
Sophia (16:33):
I'm just like floored that they would, yeah, take away
so many lives over a robbery.
Just for money is ridiculous.
And then of course they rapedSarah and, I mean, likely they
raped some of the other girls,if not all of them too.
D (16:45):
I think the girls just happened to be there.
Yeah.
And their goal was, I think, therobbery.
And they probably, it was not abig deal for them to rape them
and kill them.
Elena (16:55):
That's
Sophia (16:55):
just disgusting.
They just read them ascollateral.
But if this is somebody, orthese are people who have
experience doing this, then Iwould think there'd be a pattern
both previously and continuouslyin the future.
That's true.
People don't like,
Elena (17:10):
just go off and kill a bunch of Like four teenagers for
the first time that they've evercommitted a crime.
I'm gonna take a guess andassume that they've done stuff
before this.
D (17:21):
I agree.
Let me just continue as to whathappened.
At the time of the killings, Aknown serial killer named
Kenneth McDuff was in the area.
He had a history of multiplemurders involving teenagers, but
was soon, ruled out.
Austin police admit that over 50people, including McDuff, had
(17:41):
confessed to the yogurt shopmurders.
Sophia (17:44):
I would see ruled out.
D (17:46):
I am unaware.
Sophia (17:47):
Sometimes they rule people out and then you realize
it's just because they have analibi from a family member,
which is not really an alibi.
D (17:54):
Well, here's the thing.
McDuff, was going to be put todeath.
He was on death row.
And I think the night before thenight he was going to put to
death is when he confessed.
And you see that a lot of thesepeople will confess another
murder.
So they're not put to death toget them a few extra years to do
investigation.
Don't know why, but the policeknew that it wasn't McDuff.
(18:17):
Maybe they had checked him outalready, so when he did confess,
they already knew he was not theright one.
Elena (18:23):
That's true.
D (18:24):
Initial investigations have produced a large number of
persons of interest.
Among them was a 15 year oldnamed Maurice Pierce.
He was caught with a.22, calibergun.
It's not established to be themurder weapon, okay?
In a nearby mall days after thekillings.
And although he initially gavepromising information, after
(18:48):
tough questioning, thedetectives decided that he was
trying to get himself out of agun charge and eliminated him
and his three petty criminalfriends.
His three friends were MichaelScott, Robert Springsteen and
Forrest Welburn, whom he hadimplicated.
None of them were older than 17at the time.
(19:09):
So these four people were noteven 17 at the time because one
had a gun.
He implicated his three friends,but when the police went through
it, they're like, no, they'renot the ones.
And remember these four people.
Okay.
In the fall of 1992, two menwanted for an unrelated
(19:29):
kidnapping and sexual assault inAustin were arrested in Mexico.
One of the men seen here bore astriking resemblance to someone
witness reported seeing outsidethe yogurt shop on the night of
the murders.
So they had a sketch artist,draw someone that looked, who
was sitting outside the yogurtshop that looked like one of
(19:50):
these men, okay?
So when they questioned by theAustin investigators, the men
initially denied any involvementin the yogurt shop murders, but
were interrogated by Mexicanauthorities and they confessed.
This was later after the Austin.
Policemen investigated him.
They went down to Mexico, didsomething, and they were
(20:11):
arrested by Mexico police, andthe Mexico police interrogated
him, and they said, yes, theydid it.
However, details they gavedidn't match the evidence found
at the crime scene, and whenAustin detectives requested
them, the men, recanted and saidthey were forced to give their
confessions.
(20:31):
Several years later in 1999, anew detective on the case
theorized that the four teensfrom 1991 were credible
suspects.
And now remember in 1991, theseguys were teens.
Not like the original policemenhad said that this is someone
who's experienced an adult
Elena (20:50):
and older
D (20:51):
right by that time They were in their 20s in a string of
interrogations conducted byvarious detectives Confessions
were obtained from some of thesuspects The police said all
four, Robert Springsteen,Michael Scott, Maurice Pierce,
and Forrest Wellborn, hadparticipated in the murder.
(21:12):
Michael Scott went through a 20hour interrogation that took
place over the course of fourdays.
Days later Robert Springsteenalso confessed under
questioning.
No record of what was said tothe men in the 1991
interrogation made it impossibleto know whether the detectives
had supplied information to thesuspects in the initial
(21:35):
interrogations.
Such information could be usedto implicate the suspects in
later interrogations if theywere to reference it.
So they didn't know what theytold these young men in 1991.
Okay, so now they're being reasked, and they don't even know
what they were told in 1991.
So if they do tell themsomething, how do they know it
(21:57):
wasn't from the 1991questioning?
While Wahlberg and Pierce wereinitially charged, those charges
were eventually dropped due tothe lack of evidence.
Despite Springsteen and Scottlater claiming their confessions
were coerced, they wouldeventually both face trial.
Springsteen and Scott went totrial entirely due to their self
(22:20):
incriminating statements.
That's the only reason they wentto trial.
The prosecution went into greatdetail about the horrific nature
of the crimes against the youngvictims, but presented no hard
evidence other than theconfessions.
Elena (22:35):
They're essentially just going based off of their
confession.
D (22:40):
Correct.
Elena (22:40):
Nothing else.
D (22:41):
No.
Sophia (22:42):
Did you say how old they were when this crime happened?
D (22:45):
They were not even 17.
Sophia (22:47):
Not even 17.
And now they've returned to themat what ages?
Or how many years later?
They're 8 years later, sothey're adults.
8 years later.
Okay.
D (22:55):
So they're like 22 23 somewhere there.
Actually one of them was 15 tooat it they're still young men.
The two were convicted MichaelScott being sentenced to life
imprisonment in 2002 and RobertSpringsteen sentenced to death
in 2001 However, the prosecutiontactic of excerpts of each one's
(23:20):
alleged confessions at theother's trial was ruled to be
violating the ConfrontationClause because the co defendant
was not testifying.
So this is what that means.
Springsteen and Scott'sconfessions were used against
each other at their trials, butthey weren't allowed to question
each other in court.
(23:41):
As a result, five years aftereach man was found guilty, their
convictions were overturned onthe grounds that their
constitutional right to confronttheir accusers had been
violated.
Did you guys understand that?
Sophia (23:55):
I think so.
And it makes sense to me.
So because they played thatrecording, they're essentially
hearing the other ones speakagainst themselves, but their
attorneys had no opportunity tocross examine them.
D (24:05):
Correct.
Sophia (24:06):
I think that's a valid and fair, argument.
Yeah, I agree.
Elena (24:12):
It's still frustrating though for these individuals
because there's absolutely noevidence against them and yet
They've been found guilty,correct?
D (24:20):
Both convictions were overturned and the men were
freed, in 2009.
The prosecution insisted thatthey would be retried.
However, forensic investigationshowed that the DNA found in a
victim was not theirs, nor wasit that of the other two
implicated in their confessions.
Sophia (24:41):
This victim is Sarah?
D (24:43):
They don't say.
It could be Sarah.
Sophia (24:46):
Oh, okay.
I'm just curious what sort ofDNA evidence they have, whether
it's semen or something else.
D (24:53):
I think they do have semen in Sarah because they have no other
DNA evidence anywhere on thesebecause of the fire.
Right.
Okay.
But the DNA evidence when shewas raped was saved because it
was in her body, but nothingelse was.
Now they don't tell us if anyoneelse was raped or not.
(25:16):
They're not officially sayinganything There is a good
possibility that one of theother girls was.
They're just not releasing them.
Yeah, they're
Elena (25:24):
keeping things quiet Right
D (25:25):
So one of the DNA that they found in the victim did say that
none of these four men or whatit did say is they did not rape
the victims.
Elena (25:38):
Wow.
Why didn't they just test thatin the beginning if they had the
DNA all along?
D (25:43):
You need to understand, it's still early in DNA and even with
what they have, this DNA testingstill is not Accurate enough to
help them find the individualsor the individual.
Okay.
Let me explain more about this
Elena (25:59):
really quick.
This all started just becausethey were found with it the same
gun.
Yeah,
D (26:05):
which is a teenager with a gun.
Elena (26:07):
It was the same gun, but their ballistics like obviously
was not advanced enough to beable to confirm the
D (26:12):
ballistics wasn't advanced enough.
The bullets were damaged in thefire.
They could not get anything outof the bullets.
Elena (26:18):
What I'm saying is the ballistics weren't advanced
enough for them to tell if thegun that kid had was the gun
used.
D (26:25):
Actually, they did have the answer to that.
Let me just keep going.
Okay.
So the prosecution consequentlyabandoned plans for a retrial
and the charges were dismissed.
Texas courts, however, laterdecided that those released were
not entitled to compensation asthey had not proven they did not
commit the crime.
Sophia (26:45):
Wow.
This is just ridiculous.
What do they need to be foundinnocent or not guilty in a
court of law?
To prove that they haven't donethe crime.
D (26:56):
I don't know.
I do know, even though the DNAtesting they did is not as
advanced as other tests, the DNAtesting does for sure eliminate
them as raping the girls, or oneof the girls, it does not
eliminate them for not beingthere.
Elena (27:15):
Technically all the evidence says is, they didn't
rape the girl, not that theyweren't there.
D (27:20):
Right.
Yeah.
If you listen to the, some ofthe family, they still think
these four guys were there.
Sophia (27:26):
Interesting.
And they think maybe it
D (27:27):
was another person that raped the girls, but let's be
realistic.
These people even confessedbeing there.
If they confess they were there,they would have confessed the
fifth person then.
And the police are forgettingwhat the initial investigator
said this is something an adultwould have done, not teenagers.
(27:48):
However, because the police hadno suspects.
I think they just decided tograsp on the young guys and go
with it.
Elena (27:57):
Yeah, it was a high profile case, and so they
probably had a lot of pressureto find someone, arrest them,
and just close this case.
D (28:06):
Yes, I think there was a lot of pressure to this.
I do think, though, that nomatter how much pressure you
have, you have to get the rightperson.
Elena (28:14):
100%.
Yeah.
D (28:16):
One of the detectives in the interrogations with the four
guys was Hector Polanco, and hehad been accused of coercing
false confessions in a previousnotorious case involving
exonerated defendants,Christopher Ochoa and Richard
(28:36):
Denziger.
Both were released after 13years in prison.
And was assaulted in prisonwhich resulted in permanent
brain damage.
Wow.
So now they know that One of thedetectives is good at getting
false confessions.
(28:57):
Now there's more to this.
In addition, there was anotherproblem with the case.
A detective had held a gun toScott's head during his pivotal
multi day interrogation.
What?
Yes.
And another detective admittedto withholding key information
for more than a year that allbut ruled out Pierce's gun as
(29:21):
the murder weapon.
So one, they took a gun toScott's head.
So no wonder he gave them aconfession.
Yeah.
And the other is they knew that,pierce's gun was not even the
murder weapon.
Elena (29:33):
This is just ridiculous.
D (29:34):
It's a case where they had no one and they just try to create
a story, in, I mean, there'speople jail.
It's a
Elena (29:40):
gross
Sophia (29:40):
injustice.
Elena (29:41):
Yeah.
There's one thing to just.
So,
D (29:58):
the investigators also dredged the Colorado River
looking for another gunsupposedly dumped there almost a
decade earlier, but they didn'tfind it.
Seven of the jurors from thetrials have stated that they
would not have convicted Scottand Springsteen had this
evidence been available at thetime.
If they knew about the gun, ifthey knew about the coercion, if
(30:20):
they knew how they did all this.
So they would not even have putthese guys on trial or said they
were guilty.
Now, in 2008, this is about theDNA, a new type of DNA testing
Y-STR, revealed that none of thefour men originally arrested for
this crime were a match for theDNA found at the crime scene.
(30:41):
Scott and Springsteen werereleased on bond in June of
2009, and their charges weredismissed.
Now, originally that DNA samplefrom the crime scene was not a
complete DNA profile, and I donot know why, and I do not know
what's the reason behind this.
So it was just a Y-STR that isthe male portion of the DNA.
(31:05):
So they only tested the maleportion of the DNA.
Elena (31:08):
So only the Y.
D (31:10):
Correct.
Elena (31:11):
Okay.
D (31:11):
One of the reasons was because the DNAs were mixed
together.
Let's just say it was Sarah'sDNA and this nowadays I know
they can pull that apart.
Right.
I don't know where they are withthat.
But anyways, and it was not avery detailed sample having just
16 markers.
So on the Y chromosome, theyonly had 16 markers, 16 STRs,
(31:36):
which is the markers is not avery powerful match and there
could be millions of people withthe same profile.
Oh, wow yet it eliminated thefour guys.
Oh, okay.
That's incredible so in geneticgenealogy They usually use 67 or
111 markers, or maybe even more.
(31:57):
Oh wait, how many?
67 to 111 markers, and maybeeven more.
Years later, with more advancedDNA testing, they were able to
identify 25 markers.
Wow.
Okay.
Austin Police Department has DNAfrom an unknown male as a result
(32:17):
of the rapes.
And now don't forget there are25 markers.
A Y chromosome match for theperpetrator DNA had been found
in a research database of theFBI.
But the FBI has declined toreveal the identity of the man
by law of anonimity.
For donors, and becausethousands of men could bear this
(32:41):
fragment of DNA which is unableto identify individuals.
So, because the 25 markers isnot enough, just because the
police department found anindividual that matches on the
FBI database, it is not enoughto say it is this person.
Sophia (32:59):
Okay.
I understand that.
Okay.
But I'm also like, how many arethese people are going to be
showing up in the FBI databaseif they're not doing something?
D (33:08):
They're not.
The new profile containedresults from a total of 25, like
I said, Y dash STR markers.
In addition to the original 16markers analyzed, this profile
contained nine new Y S.
chromosome markers.
In other words, this was a moredetailed version of Austin's
(33:29):
police department's originalY-STR profile queried against
the U.
S.
Y-STR database.
So this is more detailed.
However, it's still not enough.
The FBI understood that and toldthem this does not mean this man
is guilty
Elena (33:47):
okay.
I see what's going on.
So it's just not enough.
It's
D (33:50):
not enough.
With DNA research advancinginvestigators hope there will be
a match that solves the case.
Y-STR is a tool that caneliminate almost everyone.
It should eliminate everybodybut the suspect.
Because of where the DNA wasfound, if the Y-STR does not
(34:10):
match, they can be eliminated assuspects.
Because this DNA was foundinside one of the suspects, they
know for sure That it is theindividual who was there.
Right.
If they have found it, maybe ona cabinet or something.
Right.
It couldn't be proven.
But because everything else wasdestroyed, and they found that
(34:34):
inside one of the victims, theyknow for sure that if they can
match it, they know that it isone of the suspects.
Elena (34:44):
Which is good for them If they do ever find the link.
D (34:47):
I think they should do some detailed DNA testing now,
because they're, they are ableto do more.
Like genealogical, you'resaying?
Yes, they can do it.
I'm almost positive they coulddo more.
Sophia (35:00):
I think they just have to decide to pay for it, because
that's why a lot of them haven'tbeen done, is what I've heard,
is that it's expensive forpolice departments to do it, and
so a lot of times they don't doit for that reason.
And it's time consuming.
D (35:12):
Time consuming doesn't matter they have time they've been
sitting on this for so many.
Oh,
Elena (35:16):
I mean for this case, yeah, I was talking about I know
why for older cases I've heardthat sometimes that's why they
may not do
D (35:24):
and now
Elena (35:24):
Could
D (35:26):
I think it's more about the financial aspect of it than the
time.
Elena (35:30):
I think the time is what makes it so You financially
expensive.
That's what I'm starting to say.
D (35:34):
You guys do know that this is over 30 years old now.
Yeah.
A side note on December 23,2010, Austin Police Officer
Frank Wilson and his rookiepartner Bradley Smith conducted
a traffic stop on a vehicledriven by Maurice Pierce.
Do you guys remember Maurice?
He was a gentleman who had theoriginal gun that
Elena (35:57):
Oh, he was young?
Yeah.
D (35:59):
Okay.
In the northern part of thecity, after a brief foot
pursuit.
Pierce struggled with Wilson,which is one of the policemen,
before removing a knife from hisbelt and stabbing Wilson in the
neck.
Oh my gosh.
Wilson, who survived his injury,subsequently pulled out his gun
and shot and killed Pierce.
Wow.
(36:20):
I think Pierce at this point wasso damaged that he was afraid of
the police.
Yeah, I really do think that'swhat happened.
Sophia (36:26):
So sad because
D (36:27):
it was only a, traffic stop.
So on August 3 of 2022,President Joe Biden signed the
Homicide Victims Family RightsAct into law, which was
motivated by the yogurt shopmurders.
The law is intended to helpensure the federal law
enforcement reviews cold casefiles and applies the latest
(36:49):
technologies and investigativestandards.
The logistics are not clear inthe bill.
However, it states that requestscan be made for a cold case
review by federal agencies.
Elena (37:00):
Oh, that's nice.
D (37:02):
this is where we stand with, this unsolved case, actually.
Sophia (37:07):
I wonder how much law enforcement is going to follow
that law and get all these codecases up to date with the latest
technology as much as possible.
D (37:17):
The police department asked for assistance early on, and
they did ask the FBI to helpthem with the DNA, whether or
not this person was a suspect.
I am assuming they know they canask for more help.
Elena (37:30):
It's just crazy to me that this Type of crime as
horrific heinous and how publicit was that it still has gone
unsolved this long
D (37:39):
It's because all the evidence was burned and destroyed by the
fire and the water Now, as faras the families, they were
devastated.
Jennifer's and Sarah's mom losther children completely because
there were two siblings.
Sophia (37:53):
It's just awful.
My God.
D (37:55):
And it was very, very tragic and painful for the families.
Sophia (37:59):
They didn't have any other siblings, Jennifer and
Sarah?
D (38:02):
No, no.
Oh
Sophia (38:02):
god, that's just, that's terrible.
D (38:04):
The families are hoping maybe with DNA they can get an answer.
Elena (38:09):
I feel pretty like optimistic about this cold case
cause they have a pretty goodclear like DNA sample.
They just have to find someonethat matches it.
D (38:20):
Correct, but I think it's gonna have to be, if it's not
someone in the database, I thinkit's gonna have to be more
genetics, genealogy.
Elena (38:29):
Yeah, I would agree.
D (38:31):
Which actually does cost probably a little bit more than
just a test to see if you cancompare DNAs.
Elena (38:37):
Cause I don't think it's done through, Like the police or
anything like that.
I think it's done through athird party, right?
For genealogy?
D (38:46):
Yes, it's done by a third party.
Elena (38:48):
Exactly.
D (38:48):
The other thing is these individuals, if they were in
their 20s or 30s, they're oldermen at this point, if they are
even alive.
Sophia (38:56):
A lot of times for now because of all the latest
technology, we're seeing allthese old men put into prison
because of the crimes theycommitted when they were young.
Given how brutal this case is,it's very haunting that it still
hasn't been solved.
Elena (39:09):
You would hope that a case like this would have gotten
solved, but.
D (39:12):
This one really bothered me when I was young because These
girls didn't do anything wrong.
They were just at work.
They closed their shop and theywere gonna go home.
There's a few more stories likethat.
I probably will cover thembecause they really made me stop
and think.
I just don't understand.
I mean if they wanted the money,why didn't they just go in, ask
(39:34):
for the money and leave?
Elena (39:35):
Right?
Like why do you have to justtorture them and then on top of
it all take their lives away?
I think
D (39:43):
I know the answer to that because they have done this
before and maybe had beenarrested before.
Elena (39:48):
Oh
Sophia (39:49):
yeah.
D (39:49):
So they was if I'm going to do this again, I'm going to make
sure no one finds out it's me.
Sophia (39:53):
They could have worn masks though.
You know
Elena (39:55):
what I'm saying?
And Well still you risk, riskleaving a witness and then I
guess your DNA.
Yeah, and then obviously theycan call the police right away
so you don't have enough time toleave.
D (40:07):
I think they've done this before.
Yeah,
Elena (40:09):
I agree.
And I think
D (40:09):
they've learned from their mistakes and they didn't want to
get caught this time.
I don't know why they thoughtthe yogurt shop is going to have
so much money for them though.
Elena (40:16):
Yeah.
Or just wait until they leaveand then break in.
D (40:20):
There's alarm probably, that's why.
Elena (40:23):
Yeah, I would agree, but it seems like they are making
things more difficult forthemselves by killing, four
innocent people who've had likeabsolutely nothing to do with
this.
D (40:39):
At this point they That proves to me they didn't care.
Elena (40:42):
Oh yeah, I would agree.
Okay.
Yeah.
D (40:44):
That whatever their motive is, whether it's for them to rob
and get money.
They didn't, they didn't careabout the individual.
Elena (40:51):
Unless their motive was essentially rob and rape, which
In that case, they would have tobe
D (40:57):
motives, right?
Yeah, it could be
Sophia (41:00):
Also, if this has been a pattern, why haven't we seen or
at least the police scenecontinued occurrences of these
sorts of murders, arsons, etc.
happening.
The yogurt shop,
Elena (41:13):
just, it got way too big publicly and then they realize
they couldn't do it again unlessthey are doing it, but they're
doing it in like different waysLike maybe they're doing a gas
station
Sophia (41:25):
FBI would would be able to see a pattern whether it's
across the country.
Elena (41:30):
That's true
D (41:31):
Maybe it got too heated like the FBI got involved.
Yeah other agencies gotinvolved.
Elena (41:36):
Yeah, they may
D (41:37):
not have Expected the results they got
Elena (41:40):
yeah, If it got too big, then maybe they had to, change
how they did things instead oftheir motive being rob and rape.
Maybe they had to, split thosetwo motives and deal with them
separately.
Like rob a gas station and notkill anyone and then maybe do
something else to solve theirother motives.
So maybe they had to adjust theway that they did things that go
(42:02):
under based on how much heatthat they were getting from
this.
D (42:05):
Now, here's another idea.
Maybe they would have beenarrested.
They did something else.
Oh, yeah.
And they would have beenarrested or in jail, but they
can't identify them becausethere's not enough markers.
Oh, that's weird.
Don't forget, someone wasidentified in the DNA of the
FBI.
The FBI said, There's not enoughinformation
Elena (42:25):
and it could be that the person may already be in prison.
D (42:28):
We don't know because we just don't know if they continued
this However, if they wereadults and have done this before
and thought it through They alsoknow if they have to stop they
should also be know right tostop.
Elena (42:42):
They might have found other ways to like relive their
sick fantasies, and because theyare adults, they're mature
enough to realize, Okay, thisisn't working.
There's too much heat on me.
I need to stop and figure outanother way to do this.
Sophia (42:58):
Unless it wasn't an impulse, and specifically the
robbery.
The robbery, if it wasn't animpulse, I think it would have
been easier to remove therobbery, but also I've
definitely heard cases of menkilling and raping women in say
their 20s and 30s and then theyget married and then they
refrain from that and it comesback to bite them in the
D (43:18):
The thing is we don't know.
There's a lot of speculations wecould do, but we have no idea
who they are, why they did it,and whether they stopped or not.
They could have been arrested,maybe they did stop.
To me, listening to the story,it's not impulsive.
They planned it.
Because they were probablysitting out there watching,
seeing how they work.
(43:39):
They went in for yogurt.
They didn't leave when they knewthe store was closing.
They went back to the bathroomand they had lighter fluid.
So to me, it was not animpulsive decision.
I would be really surprised ifand when they arrest them that
they find, they say it wasimpulsive, they just decided to
do it.
Elena (43:55):
Yeah, I feel like this, to me, sounds like it was
planned.
It
D (43:58):
was somewhat planned.
You don't To some
Elena (44:00):
degree, yeah.
D (44:01):
Do you carry lighter fluid with you the whole time?
No.
Or gasoline?
No.
I mean, you can
Elena (44:05):
carry a lighter, but not lighter fluid.
Sophia (44:07):
I think they planned it.
It's even sadder because Amy andSarah Didn't necessarily have to
be there.
They just came that time and ifit had been any other night,
they may not have been involved.
D (44:21):
Correct.
Sophia (44:22):
True.
D (44:23):
So any more comments anybody?
Elena (44:25):
I hope one day that they're able to figure out and
get a DNA match.
D (44:30):
I'm hoping the same thing.
Okay.
I want to thank you forlistening to us this week.
We love our listeners andbecause of you, we do this
podcast.
Your help and engagement reallyhelps the podcast grow.
If you enjoyed this episode,please text a friend and family
member to listen to ourpodcasts.
(44:51):
Until next time, make sure youstay on the Erie side.
Bye bye.
Elena (44:56):
Bye.
Bye guys.
Be safe.
Hey guys.
Welcome to the Erie Side Podcastwith your host D, Sophia, and
Elena.
We appreciate you guys listeningand I hope you're ready to get
on the Erie Side.
(00:46):
Before we begin the show, wewould appreciate if you all
could give the podcast a followand make sure the bell
notification is turned on soyou'll be notified whenever we
drop an episode.
If you enjoy the show, we wouldlove to have you leave us a
review.
And if there's a case suggestionor any feedback you'd like to
(01:07):
share feel free to send us amessage in the text box below.
Share the podcast with family,friends, coworkers, or really
anyone you think will enjoy it.
Please follow us on Instagram,TikTok, and Facebook.
I picked this story because whenit happened, I was young myself
and for some reason it reallyaffected me.
(01:29):
All I can think of is how, ifyou're in the wrong place at the
wrong time, your life candrastically change.
On December 6th of 1991, at11:47 p.
m., a police officer on patrolreported a fire at the I Can
Believe It's a Yogurt shop inAustin, Texas.
So, the fire department arrivedand extinguished the fire.
(01:51):
They just thought it was only afire.
However, when the investigatorswent inside the store, they made
a gruesome discovery that hauntsthe city to this day.
They have found a quadruplehomicide.
Inside the yogurt shop were thecharred bodies of four teenage
girls ranging from 13 to 17years old.
Elena (02:12):
Wow.
D (02:13):
There were 13 year old Amy Ayers, 17 year old Eliza Thomas,
17 year old Jennifer Harbison,and Jennifer's 15 year old
sister Sarah.
Jennifer and Eliza were the shopemployees.
That night, Amy and Sarah walkedover from a nearby mall to meet
up with Jennifer, who wasclosing the shop with Eliza.
(02:35):
They were going to get a ridehome with Jennifer after it
closed at 11 p.
m.
I also had heard that Amy wasplanning on sleeping over at
Jennifer's and Sarah's housealso.
The reason that both of thosegirls were working at the yogurt
shop, because they were tryingto get money for their expenses,
(02:57):
and some of them were trying tobuy cars, so, they were there
because they just needed alittle extra money.
This is what we know.
Approximately one hour beforeclosing time, a man who had
tried to hustle customers, and Idon't know how he was bothering
them.
I don't know if he was beggingor pushing or whatever, was
permitted to use the toilet inthe back, which took a very long
(03:19):
time, and he may have jammed arear door open.
And that was noticeable by thecustomers.
A couple who left the shop justbefore 11 p.
m.
said that Jennifer locked thefront door to prevent more
customers from entering andreported seeing two men at the
table acting fruitfully.
Sophia (03:39):
What does that mean?
D (03:40):
They were acting slew and sly.
They weren't acting normal.
They even said they, they reallywere not acting normal.
It brought attention to them.
This is what happened.
The victims had been shot in thehead.
At least one of them had beenraped.
Gunshot wounds showed that twodifferent types of guns were
used.
A.22 and a.380 pistol.
(04:03):
The use of two different gunsalso made investigators suspect
multiple individuals wereinvolved in robbing the shop and
killing the girls.
The perpetrators, And I'm goingto say it plural because it is
really believed to be more thanone.
Probably exited out through theback door that was found
unlocked.
Investigators found no sign offorce entry.
(04:24):
When the firemen came, they knewthe front door was locked and
they did find the back doorunlocked.
That's why they think that theywent out the back door.
And the people who left did saythat Jennifer locked the front
door.
And that's exactly how theyfound it.
The firefighters discovered fournude bodies.
The girls had been made toremove all their clothes.
(04:46):
They had been gagged with theirown underwear and tied with
their own clothing.
Each had been shot in the headexecution 22 caliber lead
bullet.
Jennifer, Sarah, and Eliza hadbeen severely charred and found
in the storeroom and their nudebodies had been stacked up.
Unlike the others, Amy's bodywas found in a separate part of
(05:09):
the shop.
She was not charred, but she hadreceived second and very early
third degree burns on 25 to 30percent of her body.
Sophia (05:18):
So she was not as burned as the rest of them then, is
that correct?
Correct.
She seems like she was singledout, maybe.
D (05:26):
She was found with a sock like cloth around her neck from
being strangled, but not fatallyso.
She had been shot the same asthe others, however the first
bullet had missed her brain.
She also had a second bulletwhich had caused severe damage
to her brain, exiting throughthe lateral cheek and jaw line,
(05:47):
and it was the fatal shot.
Her gunshot wounds to the headwere made with two different
caliber pistols.
So, are you guys on board?
Do you have any questions?
Elena (05:58):
So she was shot in the head twice.
D (06:01):
Correct.
With two different
Elena (06:04):
guns.
Bullets.
Which is why they believe thatit was more than one person.
multiple people, yeah.
And then as for the other girls,do we know how they were?
D (06:13):
They were shot with a.22 caliber.
Okay.
They were the ones shot withonly the.22.
Elena (06:18):
Okay, so she was the only one that has a different bullet,
right?
D (06:21):
Right, she only has one different.
She had a.22.
Elena (06:25):
Okay.
D (06:26):
And the other thing is they were all killed execution style.
Sophia (06:30):
Although Amy seems to have had some sort of
strangulation whether that wasjust for fun, or they tried to
kill her.
It would did not end up killingher.
D (06:39):
She was not only one with ligatures, okay I'll continue
and you'll see the slugs werebadly damaged Make it an
impossible for investigators totell if they all had come from
the same weapon.
They found a ligature aroundJennifer Harbinson's neck and
the killer or killers.
And I'm going to go from here onhis killers had also sexually
(07:00):
assaulted Sarah Harbinson's Wow.
Police never recovered themurder weapons.
Sophia (07:06):
So far it's been confirmed that Sarah and Amy
have been sexually assaulted.
No,
D (07:10):
only Sarah.
They know of only Sarah.
They, are not positive about theother girls being sexually
assaulted, but they do know forsure Sarah
Elena (07:19):
was.
D (07:20):
And I don't know if it's because of the way the bodies,
and the smoke, or what.
Elena (07:24):
And Sarah was also the one that had the two, or no, she
didn't have the two bullets.
No, Amy did.
Amy did.
Okay, that's interesting thatAmy was pulled off to the side,
had two separate bullets, ButSarah was the one that was
assaulted.
D (07:38):
The reason they think Amy was pulled to the side is they think
that she fought them.
Elena (07:43):
Oh.
Aw, that's, that's so sad.
D (07:46):
Mm hmm.
Elena (07:47):
Cause she was the younger one.
D (07:48):
If you listen to the interview from her family, they
think that she, which I thinkthey received from the police,
that message that she was afighter and that she fought
them.
And that's probably maybe whythey moved her.
Oh, separated.
Separated her.
However, the police has never,in any of the interviews I read
from the police, have I learnedwhy they think she was
(08:10):
separated.
Elena (08:11):
Okay.
Did she have any defensivewounds on her Or will you'll get
into that later?
There
D (08:17):
is no mention of that.
Okay.
And I think it could be becauseof the burns, but Amy, I think
they could have seen that.
They never mentioned that.
I don't know how muchinformation the police are
keeping.
Okay.
Unknown to us.
Elena (08:30):
Okay.
Thanks.
D (08:31):
After committing the greasely killings, the teens killers
ignited a fire using paperplates, cups, and cardboard from
the yogurt shop, which had beensoaked in lighter fluid.
Inferno, as well as the waterfrom the responding firefighters
hoses, in the aftermath of theblaze destroyed countless clues
(08:54):
that could have aideddetectives.
Elena (08:56):
Wow, did they know that was going to happen when they
were doing it?
D (09:01):
Who?
Elena (09:01):
The fire department.
D (09:03):
The fire department didn't even know there were people in
there when they first came.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
The inferno as well as the fowater from responding
firefighters hoses in theaftermath of the blaze destroyed
countless clues that could haveaided detectives.
The fire had Reportedly burnt sohot that it melted the upper
(09:24):
rungs of the thick aluminumladder in the rear of the
business.
Now, I also heard someone saidthat not only did the fire burn,
And they lost evidence fromthat.
They also lost evidence becausethe sprinklers went on, but I
have a hard time believing thatthere were sprinklers in the
(09:45):
shop because it burnedeverything so bad.
And when.
You have sprinklers.
Once the heat reaches thesprinklers, they go off.
So, I don't think there were anysprinklers, even though, someone
in some interview mentionedthat.
I really don't think there weresprinklers in the shop.
Sophia (10:04):
Right.
I thought sprinklers are sopowerful that they're going to
damage in the process of course,saving your life, they're going
to damage everything in the homebecause of how much water they,
D (10:14):
they would have damaged it if they were sprinklers and they
had gone off.
I don't think there weresprinklers.
The police in any, none of theirinterviews talk about
sprinklers.
I was just reading all thedocumentation and some reporter
said that not only the fire, butthe sprinklers of the shop and
the fire hoses from the firemendestroyed any, you know,
(10:37):
evidence.
However, if there had beensprinklers the fire, by the time
the firemen had gone, would haveprobably turned off most of the
fire and when the fire wentthere, the fire was still going.
Sophia (10:52):
Yeah.
I think so too.
I just think, From what I'velearned about sprinklers in the
past is that they're prettypowerful and
D (10:59):
The sprinklers should have put the fire out.
Sophia (11:02):
Unless for some reason there was a malfunction and they
never turned on.
That's true.
D (11:07):
Yeah, I don't know if they even had sprinklers.
I don't know if it was amalfunction.
I have no idea.
At this point, I don't think itwould have saved the girls.
They were dead.
If they went on, it still wouldhave destroyed the evidence.
I don't see it because even thefireman hoses destroyed
evidence.
So just so you know, this was acrime like none in Austin had
(11:28):
seen before.
The police knew they neededhelp.
And from this scene, theycontacted the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, the FBIand the Texas Department of
Public Safety.
Sophia (11:41):
Wow.
And what made them decide thatthey needed to do that just
because of the brutality of it?
D (11:46):
Yes.
First of all just from the fireand the way things were done.
Sophia (11:52):
Did they think They knew that,
D (11:53):
they knew that this was a pretty bad scene.
At the
Sophia (11:57):
time, did they think these were not first time
offenders?
D (12:00):
I will read you a comment in a second.
So you know what they thought,and that's actually to me, the
comment is the most importantone and I'm going to tell you in
a second.
In the wake of the murders, anunprecedented call for
information from the public waslaunched.
Photos of the girls and requestsfor tips appeared on billboards
(12:21):
throughout the city and even onthe back of Austin, Texas taxi
cabs.
Now this comment for me is veryimportant and I think it
actually sums up in a way whodid it.
And I think the police lostsight of this comment.
Cause I think this was what itreally says at all.
(12:42):
According to one of the originaldetectives on the case, he said
the following the organizedmethod of operation Ability to
control the victims anddestruction of evidence by arson
pointed to an adult experiencedin crime rather than teenagers.
Elena (13:01):
Yeah, that makes sense.
I feel like because of how Itdoes seem like it was a little
bit more advanced than just acouple of teenagers.
D (13:09):
One of the things that, for me, told me that this was
planned, and someone reallyplanned and thought it through,
and not someone who just decidedto do this, was that they went
in the shop some way or another,or had it with them at some
point, was they had, lighterfluid with them.
Sophia (13:27):
Oh, wow.
Interesting.
How old were the men that thosewitnesses who left the shop
right before it closed?
D (13:35):
They just said young men, but they did not say teenagers.
Sophia (13:39):
Okay, so it could be like 20s.
D (13:42):
Mm hmm.
Or 30s.
Sophia (13:44):
30s too.
Because of the ages of thegirls, I initially, in my mind,
when I was thinking of the kindof, I'm gonna assume, Boys or
men who did this as I wasthinking of teenagers, but
seeing how Unless there werefour or five six of them, they
had to have known how to controlthem It was efficiency like you
said even if there's
D (14:05):
four or five or six in addition to controlling they
brought lighter fluid in thepolice said because of how they
thought it through I mean Theyhad him tied up with her
clothes.
They had him gagged with herclothes.
I don't know what otherinformation they, have not
shared with the public.
They did not think they wereteenagers.
(14:26):
And to me that makes sense,because someone thought through
that they have to get there.
They have to ask to go to thebathroom, either to leave the
door unlocked and jammed itunlocked, or to at least go back
and check the place out and knowwhere everything is.
Teenagers don't really thinkthese through.
(14:47):
Especially if this is theirfirst or second, even third.
Elena (14:49):
These people seem more sophisticated than your typical,
I guess, teenagers that aregonna come in, and they seemed
like they were ready to lightthe place on fire, they knew
how, they thought this through,which, to me, sounds like,
obviously, planning.
And with planning comesmaturity,
D (15:08):
correct.
And I also think that they hadbeen there before.
I don't know about inside, butoutside checked it out.
Elena (15:14):
Yeah, they may
D (15:15):
have been monitoring it.
That's my opinion.
Just because from the way thingswent down,
Elena (15:20):
they knew where to go and where to leave to
D (15:22):
write.
And they also knew that The daythey were going to do that, they
have to go in the back and checkit out also.
So either they went in the backto check out the room so they
know how they were going to takethis down or at least to leave
the door unlocked.
Elena (15:36):
Right.
D (15:36):
The thing is, in none of the articles I read, did they say
Oh, they had to leave the doorunlocked because, did they need
a key?
Usually you don't need a key forthose doors in the back.
What you need is just push themopen.
So I don't know why thepolicemen think that the person
who went to the restroom had todo something to leave it open
(15:57):
for them.
Sophia (15:59):
Did Amy and Sarah usually come to get dropped off
by Jennifer, or I guess pickJennifer up, or was that a
completely random occurrence?
No,
D (16:08):
this was not very common.
I don't even know if they everhad done it before.
Sophia (16:12):
So if they were as methodical as we're assuming
they are, then it seems likeJennifer and Eliza would be
their actual targets.
That's true.
D (16:24):
It was just a robbery.
Sophia (16:26):
A robbery?
Yeah,
D (16:27):
I really think it was just a robbery.
I think that, because it was arobbery.
I think they did steal moneyfrom the registers.
Sophia (16:33):
I'm just like floored that they would, yeah, take away
so many lives over a robbery.
Just for money is ridiculous.
And then of course they rapedSarah and, I mean, likely they
raped some of the other girls,if not all of them too.
D (16:45):
I think the girls just happened to be there.
Yeah.
And their goal was, I think, therobbery.
And they probably, it was not abig deal for them to rape them
and kill them.
Elena (16:55):
That's
Sophia (16:55):
just disgusting.
They just read them ascollateral.
But if this is somebody, orthese are people who have
experience doing this, then Iwould think there'd be a pattern
both previously and continuouslyin the future.
That's true.
People don't like,
Elena (17:10):
just go off and kill a bunch of Like four teenagers for
the first time that they've evercommitted a crime.
I'm gonna take a guess andassume that they've done stuff
before this.
D (17:21):
I agree.
Let me just continue as to whathappened.
At the time of the killings, Aknown serial killer named
Kenneth McDuff was in the area.
He had a history of multiplemurders involving teenagers, but
was soon, ruled out.
Austin police admit that over 50people, including McDuff, had
(17:41):
confessed to the yogurt shopmurders.
Sophia (17:44):
I would see ruled out.
D (17:46):
I am unaware.
Sophia (17:47):
Sometimes they rule people out and then you realize
it's just because they have analibi from a family member,
which is not really an alibi.
D (17:54):
Well, here's the thing.
McDuff, was going to be put todeath.
He was on death row.
And I think the night before thenight he was going to put to
death is when he confessed.
And you see that a lot of thesepeople will confess another
murder.
So they're not put to death toget them a few extra years to do
investigation.
Don't know why, but the policeknew that it wasn't McDuff.
(18:17):
Maybe they had checked him outalready, so when he did confess,
they already knew he was not theright one.
Elena (18:23):
That's true.
D (18:24):
Initial investigations have produced a large number of
persons of interest.
Among them was a 15 year oldnamed Maurice Pierce.
He was caught with a.22, calibergun.
It's not established to be themurder weapon, okay?
In a nearby mall days after thekillings.
And although he initially gavepromising information, after
(18:48):
tough questioning, thedetectives decided that he was
trying to get himself out of agun charge and eliminated him
and his three petty criminalfriends.
His three friends were MichaelScott, Robert Springsteen and
Forrest Welburn, whom he hadimplicated.
None of them were older than 17at the time.
(19:09):
So these four people were noteven 17 at the time because one
had a gun.
He implicated his three friends,but when the police went through
it, they're like, no, they'renot the ones.
And remember these four people.
Okay.
In the fall of 1992, two menwanted for an unrelated
(19:29):
kidnapping and sexual assault inAustin were arrested in Mexico.
One of the men seen here bore astriking resemblance to someone
witness reported seeing outsidethe yogurt shop on the night of
the murders.
So they had a sketch artist,draw someone that looked, who
was sitting outside the yogurtshop that looked like one of
(19:50):
these men, okay?
So when they questioned by theAustin investigators, the men
initially denied any involvementin the yogurt shop murders, but
were interrogated by Mexicanauthorities and they confessed.
This was later after the Austin.
Policemen investigated him.
They went down to Mexico, didsomething, and they were
(20:11):
arrested by Mexico police, andthe Mexico police interrogated
him, and they said, yes, theydid it.
However, details they gavedidn't match the evidence found
at the crime scene, and whenAustin detectives requested
them, the men, recanted and saidthey were forced to give their
confessions.
(20:31):
Several years later in 1999, anew detective on the case
theorized that the four teensfrom 1991 were credible
suspects.
And now remember in 1991, theseguys were teens.
Not like the original policemenhad said that this is someone
who's experienced an adult
Elena (20:50):
and older
D (20:51):
right by that time They were in their 20s in a string of
interrogations conducted byvarious detectives Confessions
were obtained from some of thesuspects The police said all
four, Robert Springsteen,Michael Scott, Maurice Pierce,
and Forrest Wellborn, hadparticipated in the murder.
(21:12):
Michael Scott went through a 20hour interrogation that took
place over the course of fourdays.
Days later Robert Springsteenalso confessed under
questioning.
No record of what was said tothe men in the 1991
interrogation made it impossibleto know whether the detectives
had supplied information to thesuspects in the initial
(21:35):
interrogations.
Such information could be usedto implicate the suspects in
later interrogations if theywere to reference it.
So they didn't know what theytold these young men in 1991.
Okay, so now they're being reasked, and they don't even know
what they were told in 1991.
So if they do tell themsomething, how do they know it
(21:57):
wasn't from the 1991questioning?
While Wahlberg and Pierce wereinitially charged, those charges
were eventually dropped due tothe lack of evidence.
Despite Springsteen and Scottlater claiming their confessions
were coerced, they wouldeventually both face trial.
Springsteen and Scott went totrial entirely due to their self
(22:20):
incriminating statements.
That's the only reason they wentto trial.
The prosecution went into greatdetail about the horrific nature
of the crimes against the youngvictims, but presented no hard
evidence other than theconfessions.
Elena (22:35):
They're essentially just going based off of their
confession.
D (22:40):
Correct.
Elena (22:40):
Nothing else.
D (22:41):
No.
Sophia (22:42):
Did you say how old they were when this crime happened?
D (22:45):
They were not even 17.
Sophia (22:47):
Not even 17.
And now they've returned to themat what ages?
Or how many years later?
They're 8 years later, sothey're adults.
8 years later.
Okay.
D (22:55):
So they're like 22 23 somewhere there.
Actually one of them was 15 tooat it they're still young men.
The two were convicted MichaelScott being sentenced to life
imprisonment in 2002 and RobertSpringsteen sentenced to death
in 2001 However, the prosecutiontactic of excerpts of each one's
(23:20):
alleged confessions at theother's trial was ruled to be
violating the ConfrontationClause because the co defendant
was not testifying.
So this is what that means.
Springsteen and Scott'sconfessions were used against
each other at their trials, butthey weren't allowed to question
each other in court.
(23:41):
As a result, five years aftereach man was found guilty, their
convictions were overturned onthe grounds that their
constitutional right to confronttheir accusers had been
violated.
Did you guys understand that?
Sophia (23:55):
I think so.
And it makes sense to me.
So because they played thatrecording, they're essentially
hearing the other ones speakagainst themselves, but their
attorneys had no opportunity tocross examine them.
D (24:05):
Correct.
Sophia (24:06):
I think that's a valid and fair, argument.
Yeah, I agree.
Elena (24:12):
It's still frustrating though for these individuals
because there's absolutely noevidence against them and yet
They've been found guilty,correct?
D (24:20):
Both convictions were overturned and the men were
freed, in 2009.
The prosecution insisted thatthey would be retried.
However, forensic investigationshowed that the DNA found in a
victim was not theirs, nor wasit that of the other two
implicated in their confessions.
Sophia (24:41):
This victim is Sarah?
D (24:43):
They don't say.
It could be Sarah.
Sophia (24:46):
Oh, okay.
I'm just curious what sort ofDNA evidence they have, whether
it's semen or something else.
D (24:53):
I think they do have semen in Sarah because they have no other
DNA evidence anywhere on thesebecause of the fire.
Right.
Okay.
But the DNA evidence when shewas raped was saved because it
was in her body, but nothingelse was.
Now they don't tell us if anyoneelse was raped or not.
(25:16):
They're not officially sayinganything There is a good
possibility that one of theother girls was.
They're just not releasing them.
Yeah, they're
Elena (25:24):
keeping things quiet Right
D (25:25):
So one of the DNA that they found in the victim did say that
none of these four men or whatit did say is they did not rape
the victims.
Elena (25:38):
Wow.
Why didn't they just test thatin the beginning if they had the
DNA all along?
D (25:43):
You need to understand, it's still early in DNA and even with
what they have, this DNA testingstill is not Accurate enough to
help them find the individualsor the individual.
Okay.
Let me explain more about this
Elena (25:59):
really quick.
This all started just becausethey were found with it the same
gun.
Yeah,
D (26:05):
which is a teenager with a gun.
Elena (26:07):
It was the same gun, but their ballistics like obviously
was not advanced enough to beable to confirm the
D (26:12):
ballistics wasn't advanced enough.
The bullets were damaged in thefire.
They could not get anything outof the bullets.
Elena (26:18):
What I'm saying is the ballistics weren't advanced
enough for them to tell if thegun that kid had was the gun
used.
D (26:25):
Actually, they did have the answer to that.
Let me just keep going.
Okay.
So the prosecution consequentlyabandoned plans for a retrial
and the charges were dismissed.
Texas courts, however, laterdecided that those released were
not entitled to compensation asthey had not proven they did not
commit the crime.
Sophia (26:45):
Wow.
This is just ridiculous.
What do they need to be foundinnocent or not guilty in a
court of law?
To prove that they haven't donethe crime.
D (26:56):
I don't know.
I do know, even though the DNAtesting they did is not as
advanced as other tests, the DNAtesting does for sure eliminate
them as raping the girls, or oneof the girls, it does not
eliminate them for not beingthere.
Elena (27:15):
Technically all the evidence says is, they didn't
rape the girl, not that theyweren't there.
D (27:20):
Right.
Yeah.
If you listen to the, some ofthe family, they still think
these four guys were there.
Sophia (27:26):
Interesting.
And they think maybe it
D (27:27):
was another person that raped the girls, but let's be
realistic.
These people even confessedbeing there.
If they confess they were there,they would have confessed the
fifth person then.
And the police are forgettingwhat the initial investigator
said this is something an adultwould have done, not teenagers.
(27:48):
However, because the police hadno suspects.
I think they just decided tograsp on the young guys and go
with it.
Elena (27:57):
Yeah, it was a high profile case, and so they
probably had a lot of pressureto find someone, arrest them,
and just close this case.
D (28:06):
Yes, I think there was a lot of pressure to this.
I do think, though, that nomatter how much pressure you
have, you have to get the rightperson.
Elena (28:14):
100%.
Yeah.
D (28:16):
One of the detectives in the interrogations with the four
guys was Hector Polanco, and hehad been accused of coercing
false confessions in a previousnotorious case involving
exonerated defendants,Christopher Ochoa and Richard
(28:36):
Denziger.
Both were released after 13years in prison.
And was assaulted in prisonwhich resulted in permanent
brain damage.
Wow.
So now they know that One of thedetectives is good at getting
false confessions.
(28:57):
Now there's more to this.
In addition, there was anotherproblem with the case.
A detective had held a gun toScott's head during his pivotal
multi day interrogation.
What?
Yes.
And another detective admittedto withholding key information
for more than a year that allbut ruled out Pierce's gun as
(29:21):
the murder weapon.
So one, they took a gun toScott's head.
So no wonder he gave them aconfession.
Yeah.
And the other is they knew that,pierce's gun was not even the
murder weapon.
Elena (29:33):
This is just ridiculous.
D (29:34):
It's a case where they had no one and they just try to create
a story, in, I mean, there'speople jail.
It's a
Elena (29:40):
gross
Sophia (29:40):
injustice.
Elena (29:41):
Yeah.
There's one thing to just.
So,
D (29:58):
the investigators also dredged the Colorado River
looking for another gunsupposedly dumped there almost a
decade earlier, but they didn'tfind it.
Seven of the jurors from thetrials have stated that they
would not have convicted Scottand Springsteen had this
evidence been available at thetime.
If they knew about the gun, ifthey knew about the coercion, if
(30:20):
they knew how they did all this.
So they would not even have putthese guys on trial or said they
were guilty.
Now, in 2008, this is about theDNA, a new type of DNA testing
Y-STR, revealed that none of thefour men originally arrested for
this crime were a match for theDNA found at the crime scene.
(30:41):
Scott and Springsteen werereleased on bond in June of
2009, and their charges weredismissed.
Now, originally that DNA samplefrom the crime scene was not a
complete DNA profile, and I donot know why, and I do not know
what's the reason behind this.
So it was just a Y-STR that isthe male portion of the DNA.
(31:05):
So they only tested the maleportion of the DNA.
Elena (31:08):
So only the Y.
D (31:10):
Correct.
Elena (31:11):
Okay.
D (31:11):
One of the reasons was because the DNAs were mixed
together.
Let's just say it was Sarah'sDNA and this nowadays I know
they can pull that apart.
Right.
I don't know where they are withthat.
But anyways, and it was not avery detailed sample having just
16 markers.
So on the Y chromosome, theyonly had 16 markers, 16 STRs,
(31:36):
which is the markers is not avery powerful match and there
could be millions of people withthe same profile.
Oh, wow yet it eliminated thefour guys.
Oh, okay.
That's incredible so in geneticgenealogy They usually use 67 or
111 markers, or maybe even more.
(31:57):
Oh wait, how many?
67 to 111 markers, and maybeeven more.
Years later, with more advancedDNA testing, they were able to
identify 25 markers.
Wow.
Okay.
Austin Police Department has DNAfrom an unknown male as a result
(32:17):
of the rapes.
And now don't forget there are25 markers.
A Y chromosome match for theperpetrator DNA had been found
in a research database of theFBI.
But the FBI has declined toreveal the identity of the man
by law of anonimity.
For donors, and becausethousands of men could bear this
(32:41):
fragment of DNA which is unableto identify individuals.
So, because the 25 markers isnot enough, just because the
police department found anindividual that matches on the
FBI database, it is not enoughto say it is this person.
Sophia (32:59):
Okay.
I understand that.
Okay.
But I'm also like, how many arethese people are going to be
showing up in the FBI databaseif they're not doing something?
D (33:08):
They're not.
The new profile containedresults from a total of 25, like
I said, Y dash STR markers.
In addition to the original 16markers analyzed, this profile
contained nine new Y S.
chromosome markers.
In other words, this was a moredetailed version of Austin's
(33:29):
police department's originalY-STR profile queried against
the U.
S.
Y-STR database.
So this is more detailed.
However, it's still not enough.
The FBI understood that and toldthem this does not mean this man
is guilty
Elena (33:47):
okay.
I see what's going on.
So it's just not enough.
It's
D (33:50):
not enough.
With DNA research advancinginvestigators hope there will be
a match that solves the case.
Y-STR is a tool that caneliminate almost everyone.
It should eliminate everybodybut the suspect.
Because of where the DNA wasfound, if the Y-STR does not
(34:10):
match, they can be eliminated assuspects.
Because this DNA was foundinside one of the suspects, they
know for sure That it is theindividual who was there.
Right.
If they have found it, maybe ona cabinet or something.
Right.
It couldn't be proven.
But because everything else wasdestroyed, and they found that
(34:34):
inside one of the victims, theyknow for sure that if they can
match it, they know that it isone of the suspects.
Elena (34:44):
Which is good for them If they do ever find the link.
D (34:47):
I think they should do some detailed DNA testing now,
because they're, they are ableto do more.
Like genealogical, you'resaying?
Yes, they can do it.
I'm almost positive they coulddo more.
Sophia (35:00):
I think they just have to decide to pay for it, because
that's why a lot of them haven'tbeen done, is what I've heard,
is that it's expensive forpolice departments to do it, and
so a lot of times they don't doit for that reason.
And it's time consuming.
D (35:12):
Time consuming doesn't matter they have time they've been
sitting on this for so many.
Oh,
Elena (35:16):
I mean for this case, yeah, I was talking about I know
why for older cases I've heardthat sometimes that's why they
may not do
D (35:24):
and now
Elena (35:24):
Could
D (35:26):
I think it's more about the financial aspect of it than the
time.
Elena (35:30):
I think the time is what makes it so You financially
expensive.
That's what I'm starting to say.
D (35:34):
You guys do know that this is over 30 years old now.
Yeah.
A side note on December 23,2010, Austin Police Officer
Frank Wilson and his rookiepartner Bradley Smith conducted
a traffic stop on a vehicledriven by Maurice Pierce.
Do you guys remember Maurice?
He was a gentleman who had theoriginal gun that
Elena (35:57):
Oh, he was young?
Yeah.
D (35:59):
Okay.
In the northern part of thecity, after a brief foot
pursuit.
Pierce struggled with Wilson,which is one of the policemen,
before removing a knife from hisbelt and stabbing Wilson in the
neck.
Oh my gosh.
Wilson, who survived his injury,subsequently pulled out his gun
and shot and killed Pierce.
Wow.
(36:20):
I think Pierce at this point wasso damaged that he was afraid of
the police.
Yeah, I really do think that'swhat happened.
Sophia (36:26):
So sad because
D (36:27):
it was only a, traffic stop.
So on August 3 of 2022,President Joe Biden signed the
Homicide Victims Family RightsAct into law, which was
motivated by the yogurt shopmurders.
The law is intended to helpensure the federal law
enforcement reviews cold casefiles and applies the latest
(36:49):
technologies and investigativestandards.
The logistics are not clear inthe bill.
However, it states that requestscan be made for a cold case
review by federal agencies.
Elena (37:00):
Oh, that's nice.
D (37:02):
this is where we stand with, this unsolved case, actually.
Sophia (37:07):
I wonder how much law enforcement is going to follow
that law and get all these codecases up to date with the latest
technology as much as possible.
D (37:17):
The police department asked for assistance early on, and
they did ask the FBI to helpthem with the DNA, whether or
not this person was a suspect.
I am assuming they know they canask for more help.
Elena (37:30):
It's just crazy to me that this Type of crime as
horrific heinous and how publicit was that it still has gone
unsolved this long
D (37:39):
It's because all the evidence was burned and destroyed by the
fire and the water Now, as faras the families, they were
devastated.
Jennifer's and Sarah's mom losther children completely because
there were two siblings.
Sophia (37:53):
It's just awful.
My God.
D (37:55):
And it was very, very tragic and painful for the families.
Sophia (37:59):
They didn't have any other siblings, Jennifer and
Sarah?
D (38:02):
No, no.
Oh
Sophia (38:02):
god, that's just, that's terrible.
D (38:04):
The families are hoping maybe with DNA they can get an answer.
Elena (38:09):
I feel pretty like optimistic about this cold case
cause they have a pretty goodclear like DNA sample.
They just have to find someonethat matches it.
D (38:20):
Correct, but I think it's gonna have to be, if it's not
someone in the database, I thinkit's gonna have to be more
genetics, genealogy.
Elena (38:29):
Yeah, I would agree.
D (38:31):
Which actually does cost probably a little bit more than
just a test to see if you cancompare DNAs.
Elena (38:37):
Cause I don't think it's done through, Like the police or
anything like that.
I think it's done through athird party, right?
For genealogy?
D (38:46):
Yes, it's done by a third party.
Elena (38:48):
Exactly.
D (38:48):
The other thing is these individuals, if they were in
their 20s or 30s, they're oldermen at this point, if they are
even alive.
Sophia (38:56):
A lot of times for now because of all the latest
technology, we're seeing allthese old men put into prison
because of the crimes theycommitted when they were young.
Given how brutal this case is,it's very haunting that it still
hasn't been solved.
Elena (39:09):
You would hope that a case like this would have gotten
solved, but.
D (39:12):
This one really bothered me when I was young because These
girls didn't do anything wrong.
They were just at work.
They closed their shop and theywere gonna go home.
There's a few more stories likethat.
I probably will cover thembecause they really made me stop
and think.
I just don't understand.
I mean if they wanted the money,why didn't they just go in, ask
(39:34):
for the money and leave?
Elena (39:35):
Right?
Like why do you have to justtorture them and then on top of
it all take their lives away?
I think
D (39:43):
I know the answer to that because they have done this
before and maybe had beenarrested before.
Elena (39:48):
Oh
Sophia (39:49):
yeah.
D (39:49):
So they was if I'm going to do this again, I'm going to make
sure no one finds out it's me.
Sophia (39:53):
They could have worn masks though.
You know
Elena (39:55):
what I'm saying?
And Well still you risk, riskleaving a witness and then I
guess your DNA.
Yeah, and then obviously theycan call the police right away
so you don't have enough time toleave.
D (40:07):
I think they've done this before.
Yeah,
Elena (40:09):
I agree.
And I think
D (40:09):
they've learned from their mistakes and they didn't want to
get caught this time.
I don't know why they thoughtthe yogurt shop is going to have
so much money for them though.
Elena (40:16):
Yeah.
Or just wait until they leaveand then break in.
D (40:20):
There's alarm probably, that's why.
Elena (40:23):
Yeah, I would agree, but it seems like they are making
things more difficult forthemselves by killing, four
innocent people who've had likeabsolutely nothing to do with
this.
D (40:39):
At this point they That proves to me they didn't care.
Elena (40:42):
Oh yeah, I would agree.
Okay.
Yeah.
D (40:44):
That whatever their motive is, whether it's for them to rob
and get money.
They didn't, they didn't careabout the individual.
Elena (40:51):
Unless their motive was essentially rob and rape, which
In that case, they would have tobe
D (40:57):
motives, right?
Yeah, it could be
Sophia (41:00):
Also, if this has been a pattern, why haven't we seen or
at least the police scenecontinued occurrences of these
sorts of murders, arsons, etc.
happening.
The yogurt shop,
Elena (41:13):
just, it got way too big publicly and then they realize
they couldn't do it again unlessthey are doing it, but they're
doing it in like different waysLike maybe they're doing a gas
station
Sophia (41:25):
FBI would would be able to see a pattern whether it's
across the country.
Elena (41:30):
That's true
D (41:31):
Maybe it got too heated like the FBI got involved.
Yeah other agencies gotinvolved.
Elena (41:36):
Yeah, they may
D (41:37):
not have Expected the results they got
Elena (41:40):
yeah, If it got too big, then maybe they had to, change
how they did things instead oftheir motive being rob and rape.
Maybe they had to, split thosetwo motives and deal with them
separately.
Like rob a gas station and notkill anyone and then maybe do
something else to solve theirother motives.
So maybe they had to adjust theway that they did things that go
(42:02):
under based on how much heatthat they were getting from
this.
D (42:05):
Now, here's another idea.
Maybe they would have beenarrested.
They did something else.
Oh, yeah.
And they would have beenarrested or in jail, but they
can't identify them becausethere's not enough markers.
Oh, that's weird.
Don't forget, someone wasidentified in the DNA of the
FBI.
The FBI said, There's not enoughinformation
Elena (42:25):
and it could be that the person may already be in prison.
D (42:28):
We don't know because we just don't know if they continued
this However, if they wereadults and have done this before
and thought it through They alsoknow if they have to stop they
should also be know right tostop.
Elena (42:42):
They might have found other ways to like relive their
sick fantasies, and because theyare adults, they're mature
enough to realize, Okay, thisisn't working.
There's too much heat on me.
I need to stop and figure outanother way to do this.
Sophia (42:58):
Unless it wasn't an impulse, and specifically the
robbery.
The robbery, if it wasn't animpulse, I think it would have
been easier to remove therobbery, but also I've
definitely heard cases of menkilling and raping women in say
their 20s and 30s and then theyget married and then they
refrain from that and it comesback to bite them in the
D (43:18):
The thing is we don't know.
There's a lot of speculations wecould do, but we have no idea
who they are, why they did it,and whether they stopped or not.
They could have been arrested,maybe they did stop.
To me, listening to the story,it's not impulsive.
They planned it.
Because they were probablysitting out there watching,
seeing how they work.
(43:39):
They went in for yogurt.
They didn't leave when they knewthe store was closing.
They went back to the bathroomand they had lighter fluid.
So to me, it was not animpulsive decision.
I would be really surprised ifand when they arrest them that
they find, they say it wasimpulsive, they just decided to
do it.
Elena (43:55):
Yeah, I feel like this, to me, sounds like it was
planned.
It
D (43:58):
was somewhat planned.
You don't To some
Elena (44:00):
degree, yeah.
D (44:01):
Do you carry lighter fluid with you the whole time?
No.
Or gasoline?
No.
I mean, you can
Elena (44:05):
carry a lighter, but not lighter fluid.
Sophia (44:07):
I think they planned it.
It's even sadder because Amy andSarah Didn't necessarily have to
be there.
They just came that time and ifit had been any other night,
they may not have been involved.
D (44:21):
Correct.
Sophia (44:22):
True.
D (44:23):
So any more comments anybody?
Elena (44:25):
I hope one day that they're able to figure out and
get a DNA match.
D (44:30):
I'm hoping the same thing.
Okay.
I want to thank you forlistening to us this week.
We love our listeners andbecause of you, we do this
podcast.
Your help and engagement reallyhelps the podcast grow.
If you enjoyed this episode,please text a friend and family
member to listen to ourpodcasts.
(44:51):
Until next time, make sure youstay on the Erie side.
Bye bye.
Elena (44:56):
Bye.
Bye guys.
Be safe.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.