October 31, 2023 • 37 mins
Venturing into a time when victims and law enforcement had to make do without modern methods and communication, we brave the complex labyrinth of evidence that befell detectives in the case of the crotchless killing of Jane Doe. Laverne Pavlinac's ever-changing stories lead detectives down a confusing cascade of lie upon lie—leading detectives everywhere but toward the truth. Is the person that Ms. Pavlinac names as the monster of this story, and the culprit behind this heinous act of strange murder-really a monster at all?
Come along with me, JK Richards, as I peel back the layers of this true crime tale, fraught with chilling revelations, insidious twists, and depraved deceit—to probe the terrifying circumstances of this crime, as well as its investigation.
Even as we approach the cliffhanger for part two of this gripping saga, the suspense is palpable. We examine the potential suspects and the unnerving evidence the police. The stage is set for the next episode and I promise, the ride will only get more twisted, bothersome, and spine-chilling. Stay tuned, as we strive to uncover the truth behind the mysterious and crotchless murder of Jane Doe.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
I am JK Richards, the founder, creator and host of
your beloved True Crime series,where we treat crimes seriously
as your mysterious, murderousand macabre podcast In the past
and still to this day.
I am a criminal defenseattorney where I view, assess,
investigate, analyze andreassess evidence again and
again.
If you are one looking for truestories of mystery, intrigue,
(00:49):
vice, corruption, may himviolent malevolence, jealousy,
greed, assault, insult, murderand the macabre, well, you are
in the right place.
Quite the introduction, don'tyou think?
(01:11):
I'm so excited to have you herefor our first ever episode, the
Cronchless Killing of Jane Doe.
And again, I am JK Richards andI am your host of the Triple M
Podcast, mystery, murder and theMacabre.
Jumping into this episode,imagine that you are a woman
living in Portland, oregon inthe United States, in 1990.
(01:33):
It wouldn't be for anotherthree years on April 30th 1993,
that the internet would launchfor the public at large.
Finding your way across anunknown city or town in the
United States or anywhere in theworld required the use of a map
and grid system.
Rating businesses or decidingwho you would hire for any kind
(01:53):
of work relied almostexclusively on word of mouth.
Email was really only used bythe government, big businesses
and universities.
Text messaging on cell phoneswouldn't exist for another nine
years.
Social media didn't exist andcash and checkbooks were the
most common way to pay foranything that you bought.
In many ways, the world in 1990was a much, much larger, colder
(02:16):
and more lonely place.
It was easy to get totally lostand it was so easy to disappear
without a trace, including anyelectronic trace, that others
could follow.
On the cold and I imagine it asa foggy morning of January 21st
1990, in Portland, oregon in theUnited States, detective John
(02:39):
Ingram, with the MultnomahCounty Sheriff's Office, was
called out to investigate theoddest and probably what proved
to be the most infamous homicidecase of his career.
Detective Ingram was tasked togo to the Columbia Gorge, which
is approximately 17 miles eastof Portland.
Now you have to understand that, especially at that time, this
(03:02):
is an obscure, out-of-the-wayand heavily wooded area.
Detective Ingram traveled up along, winding dirt road in the
gorge where he met up with otherofficers and investigators.
And off to the side of thatlonely dirt road, detective
Ingram and his companions beganinvestigating reports of a dead
body in the woods.
The body was only about 10 feetfrom the road, but you could
(03:23):
not see the body from the road.
The body apparently belonged toan attractive young woman,
likely in her 20s Young womanhad been asphyxiated to death
and a choke rope was found closeto the body.
The body had been leftsemi-undressed, with her jeans
pulled down around her waist toher ankles, which caused
Detective Ingram and others tobelieve that a sex crime had
also been committed.
(03:43):
And among the most worrisomeaspects related to the body was
the fact that there wasabsolutely no identification to
be found on or near the body.
Detective Ingram and hiscounterparts had no idea how
they were going to possiblyidentify this woman, and I am
certain that from the outset,they worried that this could
become just another horrible,unsolved homicide cold case.
(04:06):
This is where, once again, youneed to remember the time period
when this investigation wastaking place and how hard it
could likely be to find theidentity of this young woman.
As luck would have it, theywouldn't have to wait long for
help, or would they?
The final and most disconcertingaspect of this unidentifiable
(04:29):
young girl's dead body that wasdumped in the woods, this is the
fact that presumably the killerhad cut the crotch out of her
jeans before leaving the body inthe woods.
Detective Ingram has said thathe has never seen anything like
this in his career before.
Now a question for you, thelistener what concern does this
(04:52):
fact cause, in other words, thecrotch being cut out of the
jeans Give rise to?
We already have a dead youngwoman casually discarded off the
side of the road in the woodswithout any respect for human
life or human remains.
She was left with her jeanspulled down around her ankles.
She was choked to death,possibly one of the most
(05:14):
horrific ways to die.
Young girl had noidentification on her and,
beyond all of this, it appearsthat the killer took a souvenir
for themselves the crotch cutout of her jeans.
Souvenirs taken from the bodiesof someone murdered are
generally only taken by serialkillers.
(05:35):
I can only imagine the horrorand the worry and the concern
that this caused DetectiveIngram and law enforcement.
Without the internet, socialmedia and the like, identifying
the Columbia Gorge body would betremendously difficult.
So detective Ingram and lawenforcement caused a rough
pencil sketch of the victim'sface to be commissioned by a
(05:55):
sketch artist which wascirculated in the local media,
newspapers and local televisionand the like.
This sketch is on the Triple MPodcasts website and I strongly
encourage you to go take a lookat it.
It is a very, very rough sketch.
Without intending anydisrespect to the sketch artist,
(06:16):
the sketch really doesn't lookanything like the woman found by
Detective Ingram in theColumbia Gorge east of Portland.
Now, at this point, remember,as I said before, it wouldn't
take long before DetectiveIngram and law enforcement
received help in identifying thebody.
But as they often say, becareful what you wish for.
(06:36):
Possibly I'm providing morealluding for you than I should.
In this case, I would employthe counsel.
Be careful what you focus on.
About a week after the sketchwas published, a woman contacted
Detective Ingram and statedthat she believed the woman in
the sketch was her daughter.
Detective Ingram met with arelative of the female caller,
(07:00):
who also knew the woman'sdaughter, and took this relative
to the medical examiner'soffice.
And, sure enough, this relativepositively identified the body
as belonging to the daughter ofthe woman who had contacted
Detective Ingram.
The young female murderedvictim was Tanya Bennett.
She was a 23-year-old woman andshe lived with her mother.
(07:23):
Tanya's mother described Tanyaas very loving, very kind, but
she liked to party, she likedthe bar scene and it wasn't
uncommon for Tanya to meet a manin a bar and spend a night or
two with him.
Now, if you thought theidentification of the victim it
being 1990, and noidentification being on the body
(07:44):
came quickly, you're gonna beamazed at how quickly the
initial suspect was identified.
Just remember the warnings thatI've given you before.
A few days later, that is, a fewdays after the identification
of Tanya Bennett's body, a callcame into the detectives area of
the Sheriff's office, butseemingly not directly to
(08:05):
Detective Ingram.
It was a female caller statingthat she knows who committed the
murder of the woman in thesketch and that his name is John
Sosnovsky.
Seemingly officers didn't takedown the name or number of the
person who called and left thetip.
Detective Ingram only had thename of John Sosnovsky, so he
went to their police databasesand began running various and
(08:27):
different spellings of the lastname Sosnovsky, and finally he
found John Sosnovsky, andluckily he was on probation.
Detective Ingram then calledJohn Sosnovsky's probation
officer, who told DetectiveIngram that he too had received
a phone call from JohnSosnovsky's girlfriend, laverne
(08:48):
Pavlenak.
Miss Pavlenak had told theprobation officer that her
boyfriend, john Sosnovsky, wasthe person responsible for the
murder of the woman in thesketch.
Miss Pavlenak told theprobation officer that she had
heard John Sosnovsky tellinganother person in a bar that he
had met Tonya Bennett.
He said he picked her up and hemurdered her later that night
(09:12):
and that he then dumped her bodynear Vista House in the
Columbia Gorge.
And with that Detective Ingramand law enforcement thought all
right, we've got something to goon here now.
We have enough details now toinitiate an investigation
against a specific perpetrator.
Now, just to be clear, I'm notsaying that any of them said
(09:33):
this.
Rather, this is the kind ofthing they thought, which is
evident from what happened nextin the case and how the
investigation progressed fromthis point forward.
Next, detective Ingram and hispartner went to Laverne
Pavlenak's home and theyinterviewed her there.
Detective Ingram has statedthat his impression of Laverne
(09:53):
Pavlenak was that she was apleasant, kind and older lady
and that he found her to behonest and believable.
When they asked why she hadn'tcome forward immediately with
the information that she hadabout this case, miss Pavlenak
explained that she is afraid ofher boyfriend, john Sosnovsky,
that he has a temper, that he isan alcoholic and that he has
(10:16):
abused and harmed her in thepast.
She also stated, seemingly outof the blue that Mr Sosnovsky
has an odd tick or behavior ofincessantly tying all kinds of
knots into rope.
Miss Pavlenak was approximately58 years old at this time and,
oddly, mr Sosnovsky wasapproximately 40 years of age at
(10:37):
this time, so quite an age gapbetween the two.
Detective Ingram asked LavernePavlenak what she was doing on
the evening of January 21st, towhich Miss Pavlenak stated that
John had asked her to take himto JB's Lounge in Wilsonville,
oregon.
Laverne claimed that she thenwent home and that John arrived
(10:57):
home between 1.30 and 2 am andimmediately took a shower.
Miss Pavlenak also stated thatthe next morning she noticed
that John had a bruise on hisleft hip and that he was
complaining about his hands andwrist hurting him.
The detectives asked if MissPavlenak would consent to a
search of her residence and MissPavlenak gave permission for
(11:20):
the search.
Detective Ingram has statedthat while searching in the
bedroom he found an envelopeaddressed to John Sosnovsky and
on the back of the envelope waswritten, quote T, period Bennett
, good peace, end.
Quote Peace spelled P-I-E-C-E.
(11:44):
Detective Ingram has stated thatat this point things were
looking pretty bad for JohnSosnovsky.
To offer a counterpoint, Iwould point out that things seem
to be lining up really, reallywell.
Things aren't always as theyseem to be, but sometimes they
are, so let's just take a minuteand recap here.
(12:06):
Let's go over the evidence thatwe have so far.
A young girl, later identifiedas Tonya Bennett, is found dead
at the Columbia Gorge, east ofPortland.
A sex crime is believed to haveoccurred and the manner of
death was a sphixiation bystrangulation by a choke rope.
Presumably, some or many ofthese details were provided in
(12:28):
various releases by the press.
As murder is always a hot topicin the news, a mere few days
after the body is identified, awoman calls the Sheriff's Office
where Detective Ingram works,as well as Mr Sosnovsky's
probation officer, informingboth that John Sosnovsky is the
person who killed Tonya Bennett.
(12:49):
Furthermore, this individualstated that she knows this
because she overheard him, lateron discovered to be her
boyfriend, admitting to all ofthis openly in a bar to another
person.
And, upon being interviewed,this woman, laverne Pavlenak,
(13:09):
points out John's tick of tyingknots into rope, that he
complained of his hands andwrist hurting the morning after
Miss Bennet had been murderedand that he had a bruise on his
left hip.
And furthermore, the detectivesfind an envelope with the
murder victim's name written onthe back of the envelope which
(13:31):
was addressed to John Sosnowski.
It certainly and absolutelyseems like the criminal
investigation gods are smilingupon law enforcement, with all
of these things just fallinginto place perfectly, the way
they seemingly never do.
While still at Miss Pavlenak'shome during the interview with
(13:55):
her, and after the detectiveshad searched her home, john
Pavlenak arrived at the house.
The detectives identifiedthemselves as police officers
and Mr Sosnowski volunteered togo with them to be interviewed.
The following is an audiorecording of the interview with
Mr Sosnowski.
(14:24):
So, when confronted with theenvelope, Mr Sosnowski, responds
stating I cannot answer that infull honestness with regard to
(14:46):
whether or not it was hisprinting stating T period Bennet
, good piece on the back of theenvelope, generally and across
the board.
Any criminal defense attorneywill tell you never speak with
the police.
Now, this is not out ofdisrespect for the police or in
an attempt to beobstructionistic, but rather
this is based in the fact thathumans do not have perfect
(15:08):
recall.
Humans also have an innatequality of filling in the gaps
with whatever they can grasp atthe moment.
So, even in a situation wheresomeone desires to be, and is
trying to be, honest and frankand forthright, they fill in the
gaps.
They tell a story based on whatthey can remember in the moment
, but then, at a later point intime, after thinking about it
(15:30):
more, they remember more and atsome point in the future the
story changes.
Once that happens, you'reabsolutely considered to be a
liar.
You've changed the story.
So, while Mr Sosnowski shouldnot have gone and spoken with
the officers voluntarily any ofit if they would have taken him
in for questioning which theycan do involuntarily, to a
(15:51):
degree at least until a personasserts their right to legal
counsel, which cuts off anyinterrogation or questioning by
police.
The fact that Mr Sosnowski wentwith them and voluntarily was
willing to be interviewed andquestioned without legal counsel
present in my opinion isindicative of one of two things
(16:12):
Either he thinks he's sointelligent that he can trick
the police, or it's indicativeof innocence and in my opinion
Mr Sosnowski does not strike meas an overly intelligent person
or someone who thinks that he'soverly intelligent.
Now this is where in this storya new law enforcement entity
(16:38):
comes into the case.
On February 19th 1990, jimMcIntyre's boss came to him and
told him that they had this deadbody that was found on January
21st, that investigators hadbeen working the case, but that
he, jim McIntyre's boss, neededthe investigation to be moved
forward.
Jim McIntyre was an assistantdistrict attorney.
His boss, the district attorney, in Jim McIntyre's own words,
(17:02):
his boss viewed him as someonewho was a little bit reckless, a
little bit over the edge,someone who would start
directing people and startpushing people around to get
things done.
In a certain way, detectiveIngram briefed Jim McIntyre on
the case and where they hadgotten up to.
At that point Mr McIntyre wassurprised that the detectives
seemed to be stuck in theirinvestigation and stalling out.
(17:22):
Mr McIntyre directed them tofind a way to corroborate Ms
Pavlenak's claims and story, inother words, that John Sosnowski
is guilty, or to disprove thatJohn Sosnowski was involved in
Tonya Bennett's death and murder.
Now this is quite disconcertingbecause now you've got the
prosecuting authority, thedistrict attorney's office,
essentially directing theinvestigation, the ongoing
(17:45):
investigation of this case.
In other words, you have thosewith the expertise that know
exactly how to prove a case,what it's going to take,
directing where theinvestigation goes and how the
investigation proceeds.
On the defense side of things,If defense attorneys ever did
something like this, it would beconsidered witness tampering or
evidence tampering.
(18:05):
Now, legally.
I'm not saying that thedistrict attorney's office or
law enforcement in this case,did anything illegal.
This is actually fairly common.
But just because it's commondoesn't mean it's not a problem,
and it is a problem.
It's a very big problem.
Generally speaking, the waythis is supposed to work is that
law enforcement conducts theinvestigation.
(18:25):
They look into whatever wasreported to law enforcement,
they gather the evidence, theyinterview the witnesses, they
put the case together.
Once they've done that, theythen refer the case to the
district attorney's office orthe prosecuting office and an
attorney with the prosecutingoffice will review the case to
determine whether or not theybelieve the probable cause
(18:47):
exists, to then ask a court toallow them to file charges or to
convene a grand jury.
Shortly after Assistant DAMcIntyre came into this case and
became involved, detectiveIngram received a follow-up
phone call from Laverne Pavlenak.
She stated that she had foundsome items that she thought
would be of interest to lawenforcement and to the
(19:09):
investigation.
So once again, detective Ingramand his partner went out to
Laverne Pavlenak's home.
Upon arriving there, msPavlenak gave Detective Ingram
an old-style brown paper grocerybag which was stapled shut, and
in it Detective Ingram found apurse.
And in the purse DetectiveIngram found a cut-out crotch
(19:32):
section of a pair of acid-washedjeans.
Detective Ingram claims thatthis set off alarms for him and
it seemed too good to be true.
But they still had to interviewJohn Sosnovsky again and
unfortunately the following isthe interview that ensued in
John Sosnovsky's own recordedstatements.
(19:53):
I make the above statementfreely and voluntarily.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
I have been right of my rights, which I understand.
I have seen T-Bandard at JB'struck stop on several occasions.
The last time was 21 January1990.
I was visiting with Chuck whowas playing darts.
Later on in the evening Chucklived and T-Bandard left shortly
(20:19):
after.
I believe she left to go to amotor hotel room to have fun
with Chuck.
Later that evening I saw Chuckand asked him for a ride.
I believe I saw a body in theback of the car.
I got into the front passengerseat.
The body was wrapped in ablanket.
(20:42):
The body was going to workfemale on both Dirtless ride
home.
The dead female was in the backof the car.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
So now we've gone from Sosnowski not knowing Tanya
Bennett at all and knowingabsolutely nothing about her
death or murder To he got a ridehome from his buddy, chuck, who
had a dead body in the backseatof the car, which apparently
Chuck didn't feel that he neededto hide from John Sosnowski,
and Sosnowski's reaction to thiswas essentially hey, can I get
(21:18):
a ride home with you?
Oh, there's a dead body in yourcar.
Well, that's fine, just take mehome.
Thanks, chuck.
It's not credible, it's notbelievable, it's utterly farce
and ridiculous.
But it didn't deter lawenforcement or supposedly
intelligent attorneys in theprosecutor's office and I can't
fathom why someone beinginvestigated who knows they're
(21:40):
being investigated for a murderor in relation to a murder would
change their story in thismanner.
Knowingly, going from I don'tknow her at all to I saw her
dead body in the back of a carand I didn't call the cops and
it was my buddy and he was finewith telling me and I just had
him give me a ride home.
It just seems like somethingwas in the water, causing
everyone involved in this caseto be stupid.
(22:00):
But of course and one of thereasons I picked this case
things are going to get a lotmore stupid than they already
have been, if you can believethat.
Not long after the secondinterview with John Sosnowski,
where he drastically changes hisstory, detective Ingram's
partner informs him that the labhad returned the results for
the cut out crotch section ofacid washed jeans that Laverne
(22:23):
Pavlenak had given to them.
The crotch section of the jeansgiven to them by Laverne
Pavlenak were not a match to thejeans on Tanya Bennett's body
when law enforcement found herbody in the woods.
Again, the only conclusion Ican come to is that there's
something in the water.
It's universal.
Every single person involved inthis case seems affected by the
(22:44):
same intellectual problem anddeficiency.
I feel like I have to explainthis again because it's just so
mind-blowingly stupid.
So, in short, laverne Pavlenakpreviously had given the law
enforcement officers, detectiveIngram and his partner, a cut
out crotch section from acidwashed jeans.
This again was in the stapledbrown paper grocery bag that
(23:08):
Laverne Pavlenak gave to them.
Specifically, the crotchsection of the jeans was in a
purse and the purse was in thebrown paper grocery sack.
So, in other words, the onlyconclusion that we can come to
is that Laverne knowingly gavefalse evidence to the law
enforcement officers, whicheveryone knows is a crime in and
(23:32):
of itself.
So Detective Ingram and hispartner go out to Laverne
Pavlenak's home once again andthey confront her with the
results from the crime lab thatdefinitively determined that the
cut out crotch section of jeansprovided to law enforcement by
Laverne Pavlenak had nothingwhatsoever to do with Tonya
Bennett's death, her murder andher clothing that was on her
(23:55):
body when she was found.
Immediately upon beingconfronted, laverne caved and
admitted that she had providedthe crotch section of the jeans
fraudulently to Detective Ingramand his partner.
As her excuse, laverneexplained that she is just so
terribly scared of JohnSasnowski that he had harmed her
(24:17):
so horribly in the past andthat she really wanted him to
get caught for the murder thathe did commit, meaning Tonya
Bennett's murder.
And so she explained to thedetectives that she decided to
make it easy on the police byproviding the false cut out
crotch section of jeans toDetective Ingram and his partner
(24:38):
, with Laverne providing thisexplanation.
Detective Ingram has statedthat he felt bad for Laverne and
he felt that John Sasnowskimust be a truly horrific monster
, and so they somewhat wiped theslate clean with Laverne and
they interviewed her Again, andhere is what Laverne Pavlinak
(25:01):
said this time.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
What happened during the evening hours of January
21st 1990?
.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
Laverne and John Sasnowski calling To tell him it
was in trouble then to comefast and to bring something
large to wrap something in.
What did you take with you whenyou went to see John at the J&B
Lab?
A little shot.
When you arrived there, laverne, what did you find?
(25:40):
A female.
She was lying on her side, veryclose, very quiet.
And John Sasnowski came up tothe window.
I asked if she said he's hisworst man.
I said I think we need to takeher to a hospital.
(26:08):
We need to report this to her.
He says no, no, who did this,bro?
You will not do it because Iwill kill you and your harbors
family and your grandchildren.
He opened the back door on thepassenger side and pulled her
(26:33):
out.
He went off into the woods andhe was gone about 15 minutes.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
So first John Sasnowski changes his story,
which I won't deliver again, andnow Laverne changes her story,
from dropping John off at thebar, with John then returning
home between 1.30 and 2.00 am,to John calling Laverne, telling
her to come quickly, that shegoes to him.
The Tanya Bennett is dead uponher arrival, laverne telling
(27:04):
John that she thinks that theyshould take the girl, the body,
to the hospital, with John thenthreatening to kill her, her
family and her grandchildren ifshe tries to force that or if
she tells on him because hewould go to death row for Tanya
Bennett's death.
And finally, with John goingoff into the woods, being gone
(27:24):
for about 15 minutes and himthen returning to the car alone,
to say the very least.
Here, once again, vastly,vastly different stories.
Also, I really want to pointout that supposedly, according
to this new story from Laverne,john was gone for 15 minutes but
(27:47):
the body was found 10 feet offthe road.
How's this possible?
Just something I want you tothink about as we move forward.
It's at this point thatDetective Ingram and his partner
and law enforcement besidebelieve that they have enough
(28:09):
evidence to arrest JohnSasnowski for the murder of
Tanya Bennett, and Mr Sasnowskiwas arrested at that time.
Now, at this point, thedetectives and law enforcement
had no more actual evidenceagainst John Sasnowski than what
they had when they were goingto Laverne Pavleneck's home to
confront her about her apparentfraud related to her planted
(28:34):
evidence of the fraudulentcutout jeans crotch section.
The only thing more that theydid have was Laverne's
explanation about how big of amonster John Sasnowski is.
In essence, the only thing morethat they had was Laverne
Pavleneck's corroboration thatshe had planted evidence.
(28:57):
There was no new or additionalphysical evidence.
There was no new or additionalconfession or testamentary
potential evidence in the formof new statements from Laverne
about what had occurred, justher explanation about why she
had lied and provided falseevidence to the police, and
(29:20):
seemingly that was sufficientfor law enforcement to determine
that they had enough to arrest.
At this point, detective Ingramand his partner had a meeting
with assistant DA Jim McIntyreand they determined or I'm
guessing the Jim McIntyredetermined that they still
needed more evidence to make acase stick against John
(29:41):
Sasnowski, which is absolutelycorrect.
I believe that it's for thisreason that they then put
together a plan to testLaverne's actual knowledge about
the case using facts that shecouldn't possibly know about the
case, in other words, factsthat had not been made publicly
known through the press andmedia.
They should have done this along time ago and probably
before they ever interviewedJohn Sasnowski for the first
(30:02):
time.
If you remember, the interviewwith John Sasnowski came about
because the detectives were atLaverne Pavleneck's home after
the initial phone call to theSheriff's office and to the
probation officer and after thefirst interview with Laverne
Pavleneck and their search ofthe home during or at the
conclusion of that interviewwith Laverne Pavleneck.
(30:25):
In other words, the firstinteraction with Laverne
Pavleneck.
And again remember, johnSasnowski comes home, they speak
with him right then and therethe station, and be interviewed
by them.
So the only thing they hadthough emotionally maybe they
felt like they had a lot at thatpoint was what Laverne had told
them and this envelopeaddressed to John Sasnowski, on
(30:48):
the back of which was writtenT-Period Bennett, good Peace.
Still, they should have waitedlonger and gotten more
information from Pavleneckbefore they interviewed John
Sasnowski.
So finally, at this point wecome around to them deciding to
actually, in some meaningful way, tesla Bern Pavleneck's actual
knowledge about this caseagainst facts that she couldn't
(31:12):
have access to in any other waythan actually knowing those
facts herself.
So once again, the plans puttogether and Detective Ingram
and his partner take LavernePavleneck on a car ride With
Laverne.
They drove up to the ColumbiaGorge and up the long, winding,
(31:33):
dirt road on which TonyaBennett's body was found by law
enforcement.
They wanted Laverne to pointout where the body had been
dumped.
They were testing to see if infact she could identify where,
supposedly in her most recentstory, she and John Sasnowski
had driven to and where Johnpulled the body out of the car,
(31:58):
was gone for 15 minutes,supposedly to dump the body just
10 feet off the road.
So again, they drove, and theydrove, and they drove, as
(32:19):
Detective Ingram has said aboutthis quote.
We proceeded up past CrownPoint and Vista House to the
area where the body had beendumped.
We drove on past the area wherethe body had been found.
We kept on traveling eastboundand then suddenly she said stop
the car and turn around.
Laverne said this gives me thecreeps.
(32:43):
And she pointed almost directlyto where that body had been
located.
It couldn't have been adistance of more than 10 feet
off.
My gosh, she's nailed this Endquote.
Now this is where I have to makesome observations about Laverne
(33:05):
Pavlenak, and admittedly theseare opinions and they involve
some conjecture and speculationon my part.
I believe, based on what I'vediscussed up to this point, that
Laverne Pavlenak was a masterpeople reader and a master
manipulator, for reasons thatwill become apparent later on in
(33:26):
this episode.
I believe that Laverne Pavlenakwas masterfully reading
Detective Ingram and hispartner's body language, as they
were on this drive, and Ibelieve that that is how she
pointed out the exact place ofthe body's location.
Assuming that in fact that wasthe case, I don't know anything
(33:47):
about how Detective Ingram andhis partner knew exactly where
the body had been found.
I don't know if they had goneup beforehand and placed a
marker so that they themselvesknew, in which case Laverne
possibly, theoretically, couldhave spotted some kind of marker
.
But you have to remember thisis a wooded area and if you've
(34:07):
ever gotten lost in the woods,it's very easy, including on a
road in the woods, for all of itto look the same Windy turn
after windy turn.
How do you know which exactturn you're on, unless you've
driven that road a thousandtimes, and I have no indication
that that's the case here.
It's also possible that Lavernecould tell where the body had
(34:29):
been dumped, because so manypolice had been in and out of
the area and the area wasdisturbed.
But I also believe that she wasa master people reader.
Now, if you can believe it,this story is just going to
continue to get more and morecrazy.
Five days after John Sosnowski'sarrest, laverne Pavlenak calls
Detective Ingram and she tellshim that she wants to have a
(34:51):
conversation with him and hispartner.
They need to come out to herhouse again.
In response to this DetectiveIngram's own words, quote oh
crap, where are we going now?
End quote.
Obviously, this is because thisinvestigation has already gone
hither and thither everywhere,all over the place, and Laverne
(35:14):
Pavlenak has been at the centerof it all.
But obviously they have nochoice.
They have to go out and talk toher again and see what she has
to say, because again she's atthe heart and soul and center of
their entire investigation aswell as their now arrest of John
(35:34):
Sosnowski.
So once again they go toLaverne's house and the
following is what Laverne tellsthem when you drove over to JV's
from your daughter's house andyou pulled into the lot what did
(35:55):
you see, if anything?
Speaker 3 (36:00):
I see John sat with the young lady and they appeared
to be undrinked in a plainwhite.
He said to her get in the carand hold as you continued to
drive.
There was a point that TonyaBennett apparently agreed to
have sex with John.
(36:21):
Yes, she did.
When they arrived at CarpenterWhite, they found out that I had
come.
I really didn't know where Iwas going.
I was going to stand in frontof the apartment.
I went by and John came back tothe car.
Is that true?
That's true.
He went to the trunk and therewas rope in there and he took
the rope.
I asked him why he ate the rope.
He said I'm going to tie him up.
(36:42):
I'm going to tie her up.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
More 12 minutes later and Chirping Crickets is about
all that I have to say aboutthis.
This is where I'm going toleave you.
Yes, on a cliffhanger, becausethere's part two to this story.
I thought I would get it allinto one episode, but that just
wasn't possible.
But I promise that episode twowill be just as good.
I'm JK Richards, I'm your hostand I'm so grateful that you are
(37:43):
here with me today.
If you enjoyed this podcast,please contribute to our channel
so that we can continue makingwonderful content for yourself
and for the rest of our audience.
Once again, thank you and takecare where on this podcast, I
hope to never be telling yourstory.
I am JK Richards, the founder, creator and host of
your beloved True Crime series,where we treat crimes seriously
as your mysterious, murderousand macabre podcast In the past
and still to this day.
I am a criminal defenseattorney where I view, assess,
investigate, analyze andreassess evidence again and
again.
If you are one looking for truestories of mystery, intrigue,
(00:49):
vice, corruption, may himviolent malevolence, jealousy,
greed, assault, insult, murderand the macabre, well, you are
in the right place.
Quite the introduction, don'tyou think?
(01:11):
I'm so excited to have you herefor our first ever episode, the
Cronchless Killing of Jane Doe.
And again, I am JK Richards andI am your host of the Triple M
Podcast, mystery, murder and theMacabre.
Jumping into this episode,imagine that you are a woman
living in Portland, oregon inthe United States, in 1990.
(01:33):
It wouldn't be for anotherthree years on April 30th 1993,
that the internet would launchfor the public at large.
Finding your way across anunknown city or town in the
United States or anywhere in theworld required the use of a map
and grid system.
Rating businesses or decidingwho you would hire for any kind
(01:53):
of work relied almostexclusively on word of mouth.
Email was really only used bythe government, big businesses
and universities.
Text messaging on cell phoneswouldn't exist for another nine
years.
Social media didn't exist andcash and checkbooks were the
most common way to pay foranything that you bought.
In many ways, the world in 1990was a much, much larger, colder
(02:16):
and more lonely place.
It was easy to get totally lostand it was so easy to disappear
without a trace, including anyelectronic trace, that others
could follow.
On the cold and I imagine it asa foggy morning of January 21st
1990, in Portland, oregon in theUnited States, detective John
(02:39):
Ingram, with the MultnomahCounty Sheriff's Office, was
called out to investigate theoddest and probably what proved
to be the most infamous homicidecase of his career.
Detective Ingram was tasked togo to the Columbia Gorge, which
is approximately 17 miles eastof Portland.
Now you have to understand that, especially at that time, this
(03:02):
is an obscure, out-of-the-wayand heavily wooded area.
Detective Ingram traveled up along, winding dirt road in the
gorge where he met up with otherofficers and investigators.
And off to the side of thatlonely dirt road, detective
Ingram and his companions beganinvestigating reports of a dead
body in the woods.
The body was only about 10 feetfrom the road, but you could
(03:23):
not see the body from the road.
The body apparently belonged toan attractive young woman,
likely in her 20s Young womanhad been asphyxiated to death
and a choke rope was found closeto the body.
The body had been leftsemi-undressed, with her jeans
pulled down around her waist toher ankles, which caused
Detective Ingram and others tobelieve that a sex crime had
also been committed.
(03:43):
And among the most worrisomeaspects related to the body was
the fact that there wasabsolutely no identification to
be found on or near the body.
Detective Ingram and hiscounterparts had no idea how
they were going to possiblyidentify this woman, and I am
certain that from the outset,they worried that this could
become just another horrible,unsolved homicide cold case.
(04:06):
This is where, once again, youneed to remember the time period
when this investigation wastaking place and how hard it
could likely be to find theidentity of this young woman.
As luck would have it, theywouldn't have to wait long for
help, or would they?
The final and most disconcertingaspect of this unidentifiable
(04:29):
young girl's dead body that wasdumped in the woods, this is the
fact that presumably the killerhad cut the crotch out of her
jeans before leaving the body inthe woods.
Detective Ingram has said thathe has never seen anything like
this in his career before.
Now a question for you, thelistener what concern does this
(04:52):
fact cause, in other words, thecrotch being cut out of the
jeans Give rise to?
We already have a dead youngwoman casually discarded off the
side of the road in the woodswithout any respect for human
life or human remains.
She was left with her jeanspulled down around her ankles.
She was choked to death,possibly one of the most
(05:14):
horrific ways to die.
Young girl had noidentification on her and,
beyond all of this, it appearsthat the killer took a souvenir
for themselves the crotch cutout of her jeans.
Souvenirs taken from the bodiesof someone murdered are
generally only taken by serialkillers.
(05:35):
I can only imagine the horrorand the worry and the concern
that this caused DetectiveIngram and law enforcement.
Without the internet, socialmedia and the like, identifying
the Columbia Gorge body would betremendously difficult.
So detective Ingram and lawenforcement caused a rough
pencil sketch of the victim'sface to be commissioned by a
(05:55):
sketch artist which wascirculated in the local media,
newspapers and local televisionand the like.
This sketch is on the Triple MPodcasts website and I strongly
encourage you to go take a lookat it.
It is a very, very rough sketch.
Without intending anydisrespect to the sketch artist,
(06:16):
the sketch really doesn't lookanything like the woman found by
Detective Ingram in theColumbia Gorge east of Portland.
Now, at this point, remember,as I said before, it wouldn't
take long before DetectiveIngram and law enforcement
received help in identifying thebody.
But as they often say, becareful what you wish for.
(06:36):
Possibly I'm providing morealluding for you than I should.
In this case, I would employthe counsel.
Be careful what you focus on.
About a week after the sketchwas published, a woman contacted
Detective Ingram and statedthat she believed the woman in
the sketch was her daughter.
Detective Ingram met with arelative of the female caller,
(07:00):
who also knew the woman'sdaughter, and took this relative
to the medical examiner'soffice.
And, sure enough, this relativepositively identified the body
as belonging to the daughter ofthe woman who had contacted
Detective Ingram.
The young female murderedvictim was Tanya Bennett.
She was a 23-year-old woman andshe lived with her mother.
(07:23):
Tanya's mother described Tanyaas very loving, very kind, but
she liked to party, she likedthe bar scene and it wasn't
uncommon for Tanya to meet a manin a bar and spend a night or
two with him.
Now, if you thought theidentification of the victim it
being 1990, and noidentification being on the body
(07:44):
came quickly, you're gonna beamazed at how quickly the
initial suspect was identified.
Just remember the warnings thatI've given you before.
A few days later, that is, a fewdays after the identification
of Tanya Bennett's body, a callcame into the detectives area of
the Sheriff's office, butseemingly not directly to
(08:05):
Detective Ingram.
It was a female caller statingthat she knows who committed the
murder of the woman in thesketch and that his name is John
Sosnovsky.
Seemingly officers didn't takedown the name or number of the
person who called and left thetip.
Detective Ingram only had thename of John Sosnovsky, so he
went to their police databasesand began running various and
(08:27):
different spellings of the lastname Sosnovsky, and finally he
found John Sosnovsky, andluckily he was on probation.
Detective Ingram then calledJohn Sosnovsky's probation
officer, who told DetectiveIngram that he too had received
a phone call from JohnSosnovsky's girlfriend, laverne
(08:48):
Pavlenak.
Miss Pavlenak had told theprobation officer that her
boyfriend, john Sosnovsky, wasthe person responsible for the
murder of the woman in thesketch.
Miss Pavlenak told theprobation officer that she had
heard John Sosnovsky tellinganother person in a bar that he
had met Tonya Bennett.
He said he picked her up and hemurdered her later that night
(09:12):
and that he then dumped her bodynear Vista House in the
Columbia Gorge.
And with that Detective Ingramand law enforcement thought all
right, we've got something to goon here now.
We have enough details now toinitiate an investigation
against a specific perpetrator.
Now, just to be clear, I'm notsaying that any of them said
(09:33):
this.
Rather, this is the kind ofthing they thought, which is
evident from what happened nextin the case and how the
investigation progressed fromthis point forward.
Next, detective Ingram and hispartner went to Laverne
Pavlenak's home and theyinterviewed her there.
Detective Ingram has statedthat his impression of Laverne
(09:53):
Pavlenak was that she was apleasant, kind and older lady
and that he found her to behonest and believable.
When they asked why she hadn'tcome forward immediately with
the information that she hadabout this case, miss Pavlenak
explained that she is afraid ofher boyfriend, john Sosnovsky,
that he has a temper, that he isan alcoholic and that he has
(10:16):
abused and harmed her in thepast.
She also stated, seemingly outof the blue that Mr Sosnovsky
has an odd tick or behavior ofincessantly tying all kinds of
knots into rope.
Miss Pavlenak was approximately58 years old at this time and,
oddly, mr Sosnovsky wasapproximately 40 years of age at
(10:37):
this time, so quite an age gapbetween the two.
Detective Ingram asked LavernePavlenak what she was doing on
the evening of January 21st, towhich Miss Pavlenak stated that
John had asked her to take himto JB's Lounge in Wilsonville,
oregon.
Laverne claimed that she thenwent home and that John arrived
(10:57):
home between 1.30 and 2 am andimmediately took a shower.
Miss Pavlenak also stated thatthe next morning she noticed
that John had a bruise on hisleft hip and that he was
complaining about his hands andwrist hurting him.
The detectives asked if MissPavlenak would consent to a
search of her residence and MissPavlenak gave permission for
(11:20):
the search.
Detective Ingram has statedthat while searching in the
bedroom he found an envelopeaddressed to John Sosnovsky and
on the back of the envelope waswritten, quote T, period Bennett
, good peace, end.
Quote Peace spelled P-I-E-C-E.
(11:44):
Detective Ingram has stated thatat this point things were
looking pretty bad for JohnSosnovsky.
To offer a counterpoint, Iwould point out that things seem
to be lining up really, reallywell.
Things aren't always as theyseem to be, but sometimes they
are, so let's just take a minuteand recap here.
(12:06):
Let's go over the evidence thatwe have so far.
A young girl, later identifiedas Tonya Bennett, is found dead
at the Columbia Gorge, east ofPortland.
A sex crime is believed to haveoccurred and the manner of
death was a sphixiation bystrangulation by a choke rope.
Presumably, some or many ofthese details were provided in
(12:28):
various releases by the press.
As murder is always a hot topicin the news, a mere few days
after the body is identified, awoman calls the Sheriff's Office
where Detective Ingram works,as well as Mr Sosnovsky's
probation officer, informingboth that John Sosnovsky is the
person who killed Tonya Bennett.
(12:49):
Furthermore, this individualstated that she knows this
because she overheard him, lateron discovered to be her
boyfriend, admitting to all ofthis openly in a bar to another
person.
And, upon being interviewed,this woman, laverne Pavlenak,
(13:09):
points out John's tick of tyingknots into rope, that he
complained of his hands andwrist hurting the morning after
Miss Bennet had been murderedand that he had a bruise on his
left hip.
And furthermore, the detectivesfind an envelope with the
murder victim's name written onthe back of the envelope which
(13:31):
was addressed to John Sosnowski.
It certainly and absolutelyseems like the criminal
investigation gods are smilingupon law enforcement, with all
of these things just fallinginto place perfectly, the way
they seemingly never do.
While still at Miss Pavlenak'shome during the interview with
(13:55):
her, and after the detectiveshad searched her home, john
Pavlenak arrived at the house.
The detectives identifiedthemselves as police officers
and Mr Sosnowski volunteered togo with them to be interviewed.
The following is an audiorecording of the interview with
Mr Sosnowski.
(14:24):
So, when confronted with theenvelope, Mr Sosnowski, responds
stating I cannot answer that infull honestness with regard to
(14:46):
whether or not it was hisprinting stating T period Bennet
, good piece on the back of theenvelope, generally and across
the board.
Any criminal defense attorneywill tell you never speak with
the police.
Now, this is not out ofdisrespect for the police or in
an attempt to beobstructionistic, but rather
this is based in the fact thathumans do not have perfect
(15:08):
recall.
Humans also have an innatequality of filling in the gaps
with whatever they can grasp atthe moment.
So, even in a situation wheresomeone desires to be, and is
trying to be, honest and frankand forthright, they fill in the
gaps.
They tell a story based on whatthey can remember in the moment
, but then, at a later point intime, after thinking about it
(15:30):
more, they remember more and atsome point in the future the
story changes.
Once that happens, you'reabsolutely considered to be a
liar.
You've changed the story.
So, while Mr Sosnowski shouldnot have gone and spoken with
the officers voluntarily any ofit if they would have taken him
in for questioning which theycan do involuntarily, to a
(15:51):
degree at least until a personasserts their right to legal
counsel, which cuts off anyinterrogation or questioning by
police.
The fact that Mr Sosnowski wentwith them and voluntarily was
willing to be interviewed andquestioned without legal counsel
present in my opinion isindicative of one of two things
(16:12):
Either he thinks he's sointelligent that he can trick
the police, or it's indicativeof innocence and in my opinion
Mr Sosnowski does not strike meas an overly intelligent person
or someone who thinks that he'soverly intelligent.
Now this is where in this storya new law enforcement entity
(16:38):
comes into the case.
On February 19th 1990, jimMcIntyre's boss came to him and
told him that they had this deadbody that was found on January
21st, that investigators hadbeen working the case, but that
he, jim McIntyre's boss, neededthe investigation to be moved
forward.
Jim McIntyre was an assistantdistrict attorney.
His boss, the district attorney, in Jim McIntyre's own words,
(17:02):
his boss viewed him as someonewho was a little bit reckless, a
little bit over the edge,someone who would start
directing people and startpushing people around to get
things done.
In a certain way, detectiveIngram briefed Jim McIntyre on
the case and where they hadgotten up to.
At that point Mr McIntyre wassurprised that the detectives
seemed to be stuck in theirinvestigation and stalling out.
(17:22):
Mr McIntyre directed them tofind a way to corroborate Ms
Pavlenak's claims and story, inother words, that John Sosnowski
is guilty, or to disprove thatJohn Sosnowski was involved in
Tonya Bennett's death and murder.
Now this is quite disconcertingbecause now you've got the
prosecuting authority, thedistrict attorney's office,
essentially directing theinvestigation, the ongoing
(17:45):
investigation of this case.
In other words, you have thosewith the expertise that know
exactly how to prove a case,what it's going to take,
directing where theinvestigation goes and how the
investigation proceeds.
On the defense side of things,If defense attorneys ever did
something like this, it would beconsidered witness tampering or
evidence tampering.
(18:05):
Now, legally.
I'm not saying that thedistrict attorney's office or
law enforcement in this case,did anything illegal.
This is actually fairly common.
But just because it's commondoesn't mean it's not a problem,
and it is a problem.
It's a very big problem.
Generally speaking, the waythis is supposed to work is that
law enforcement conducts theinvestigation.
(18:25):
They look into whatever wasreported to law enforcement,
they gather the evidence, theyinterview the witnesses, they
put the case together.
Once they've done that, theythen refer the case to the
district attorney's office orthe prosecuting office and an
attorney with the prosecutingoffice will review the case to
determine whether or not theybelieve the probable cause
(18:47):
exists, to then ask a court toallow them to file charges or to
convene a grand jury.
Shortly after Assistant DAMcIntyre came into this case and
became involved, detectiveIngram received a follow-up
phone call from Laverne Pavlenak.
She stated that she had foundsome items that she thought
would be of interest to lawenforcement and to the
(19:09):
investigation.
So once again, detective Ingramand his partner went out to
Laverne Pavlenak's home.
Upon arriving there, msPavlenak gave Detective Ingram
an old-style brown paper grocerybag which was stapled shut, and
in it Detective Ingram found apurse.
And in the purse DetectiveIngram found a cut-out crotch
(19:32):
section of a pair of acid-washedjeans.
Detective Ingram claims thatthis set off alarms for him and
it seemed too good to be true.
But they still had to interviewJohn Sosnovsky again and
unfortunately the following isthe interview that ensued in
John Sosnovsky's own recordedstatements.
(19:53):
I make the above statementfreely and voluntarily.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
I have been right of my rights, which I understand.
I have seen T-Bandard at JB'struck stop on several occasions.
The last time was 21 January1990.
I was visiting with Chuck whowas playing darts.
Later on in the evening Chucklived and T-Bandard left shortly
(20:19):
after.
I believe she left to go to amotor hotel room to have fun
with Chuck.
Later that evening I saw Chuckand asked him for a ride.
I believe I saw a body in theback of the car.
I got into the front passengerseat.
The body was wrapped in ablanket.
(20:42):
The body was going to workfemale on both Dirtless ride
home.
The dead female was in the backof the car.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
So now we've gone from Sosnowski not knowing Tanya
Bennett at all and knowingabsolutely nothing about her
death or murder To he got a ridehome from his buddy, chuck, who
had a dead body in the backseatof the car, which apparently
Chuck didn't feel that he neededto hide from John Sosnowski,
and Sosnowski's reaction to thiswas essentially hey, can I get
(21:18):
a ride home with you?
Oh, there's a dead body in yourcar.
Well, that's fine, just take mehome.
Thanks, chuck.
It's not credible, it's notbelievable, it's utterly farce
and ridiculous.
But it didn't deter lawenforcement or supposedly
intelligent attorneys in theprosecutor's office and I can't
fathom why someone beinginvestigated who knows they're
(21:40):
being investigated for a murderor in relation to a murder would
change their story in thismanner.
Knowingly, going from I don'tknow her at all to I saw her
dead body in the back of a carand I didn't call the cops and
it was my buddy and he was finewith telling me and I just had
him give me a ride home.
It just seems like somethingwas in the water, causing
everyone involved in this caseto be stupid.
(22:00):
But of course and one of thereasons I picked this case
things are going to get a lotmore stupid than they already
have been, if you can believethat.
Not long after the secondinterview with John Sosnowski,
where he drastically changes hisstory, detective Ingram's
partner informs him that the labhad returned the results for
the cut out crotch section ofacid washed jeans that Laverne
(22:23):
Pavlenak had given to them.
The crotch section of the jeansgiven to them by Laverne
Pavlenak were not a match to thejeans on Tanya Bennett's body
when law enforcement found herbody in the woods.
Again, the only conclusion Ican come to is that there's
something in the water.
It's universal.
Every single person involved inthis case seems affected by the
(22:44):
same intellectual problem anddeficiency.
I feel like I have to explainthis again because it's just so
mind-blowingly stupid.
So, in short, laverne Pavlenakpreviously had given the law
enforcement officers, detectiveIngram and his partner, a cut
out crotch section from acidwashed jeans.
This again was in the stapledbrown paper grocery bag that
(23:08):
Laverne Pavlenak gave to them.
Specifically, the crotchsection of the jeans was in a
purse and the purse was in thebrown paper grocery sack.
So, in other words, the onlyconclusion that we can come to
is that Laverne knowingly gavefalse evidence to the law
enforcement officers, whicheveryone knows is a crime in and
(23:32):
of itself.
So Detective Ingram and hispartner go out to Laverne
Pavlenak's home once again andthey confront her with the
results from the crime lab thatdefinitively determined that the
cut out crotch section of jeansprovided to law enforcement by
Laverne Pavlenak had nothingwhatsoever to do with Tonya
Bennett's death, her murder andher clothing that was on her
(23:55):
body when she was found.
Immediately upon beingconfronted, laverne caved and
admitted that she had providedthe crotch section of the jeans
fraudulently to Detective Ingramand his partner.
As her excuse, laverneexplained that she is just so
terribly scared of JohnSasnowski that he had harmed her
(24:17):
so horribly in the past andthat she really wanted him to
get caught for the murder thathe did commit, meaning Tonya
Bennett's murder.
And so she explained to thedetectives that she decided to
make it easy on the police byproviding the false cut out
crotch section of jeans toDetective Ingram and his partner
(24:38):
, with Laverne providing thisexplanation.
Detective Ingram has statedthat he felt bad for Laverne and
he felt that John Sasnowskimust be a truly horrific monster
, and so they somewhat wiped theslate clean with Laverne and
they interviewed her Again, andhere is what Laverne Pavlinak
(25:01):
said this time.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (25:07):
What happened during the evening hours of January
21st 1990?
.
Speaker 3 (25:14):
Laverne and John Sasnowski calling To tell him it
was in trouble then to comefast and to bring something
large to wrap something in.
What did you take with you whenyou went to see John at the J&B
Lab?
A little shot.
When you arrived there, laverne, what did you find?
(25:40):
A female.
She was lying on her side, veryclose, very quiet.
And John Sasnowski came up tothe window.
I asked if she said he's hisworst man.
I said I think we need to takeher to a hospital.
(26:08):
We need to report this to her.
He says no, no, who did this,bro?
You will not do it because Iwill kill you and your harbors
family and your grandchildren.
He opened the back door on thepassenger side and pulled her
(26:33):
out.
He went off into the woods andhe was gone about 15 minutes.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
So first John Sasnowski changes his story,
which I won't deliver again, andnow Laverne changes her story,
from dropping John off at thebar, with John then returning
home between 1.30 and 2.00 am,to John calling Laverne, telling
her to come quickly, that shegoes to him.
The Tanya Bennett is dead uponher arrival, laverne telling
(27:04):
John that she thinks that theyshould take the girl, the body,
to the hospital, with John thenthreatening to kill her, her
family and her grandchildren ifshe tries to force that or if
she tells on him because hewould go to death row for Tanya
Bennett's death.
And finally, with John goingoff into the woods, being gone
(27:24):
for about 15 minutes and himthen returning to the car alone,
to say the very least.
Here, once again, vastly,vastly different stories.
Also, I really want to pointout that supposedly, according
to this new story from Laverne,john was gone for 15 minutes but
(27:47):
the body was found 10 feet offthe road.
How's this possible?
Just something I want you tothink about as we move forward.
It's at this point thatDetective Ingram and his partner
and law enforcement besidebelieve that they have enough
(28:09):
evidence to arrest JohnSasnowski for the murder of
Tanya Bennett, and Mr Sasnowskiwas arrested at that time.
Now, at this point, thedetectives and law enforcement
had no more actual evidenceagainst John Sasnowski than what
they had when they were goingto Laverne Pavleneck's home to
confront her about her apparentfraud related to her planted
(28:34):
evidence of the fraudulentcutout jeans crotch section.
The only thing more that theydid have was Laverne's
explanation about how big of amonster John Sasnowski is.
In essence, the only thing morethat they had was Laverne
Pavleneck's corroboration thatshe had planted evidence.
(28:57):
There was no new or additionalphysical evidence.
There was no new or additionalconfession or testamentary
potential evidence in the formof new statements from Laverne
about what had occurred, justher explanation about why she
had lied and provided falseevidence to the police, and
(29:20):
seemingly that was sufficientfor law enforcement to determine
that they had enough to arrest.
At this point, detective Ingramand his partner had a meeting
with assistant DA Jim McIntyreand they determined or I'm
guessing the Jim McIntyredetermined that they still
needed more evidence to make acase stick against John
(29:41):
Sasnowski, which is absolutelycorrect.
I believe that it's for thisreason that they then put
together a plan to testLaverne's actual knowledge about
the case using facts that shecouldn't possibly know about the
case, in other words, factsthat had not been made publicly
known through the press andmedia.
They should have done this along time ago and probably
before they ever interviewedJohn Sasnowski for the first
(30:02):
time.
If you remember, the interviewwith John Sasnowski came about
because the detectives were atLaverne Pavleneck's home after
the initial phone call to theSheriff's office and to the
probation officer and after thefirst interview with Laverne
Pavleneck and their search ofthe home during or at the
conclusion of that interviewwith Laverne Pavleneck.
(30:25):
In other words, the firstinteraction with Laverne
Pavleneck.
And again remember, johnSasnowski comes home, they speak
with him right then and therethe station, and be interviewed
by them.
So the only thing they hadthough emotionally maybe they
felt like they had a lot at thatpoint was what Laverne had told
them and this envelopeaddressed to John Sasnowski, on
(30:48):
the back of which was writtenT-Period Bennett, good Peace.
Still, they should have waitedlonger and gotten more
information from Pavleneckbefore they interviewed John
Sasnowski.
So finally, at this point wecome around to them deciding to
actually, in some meaningful way, tesla Bern Pavleneck's actual
knowledge about this caseagainst facts that she couldn't
(31:12):
have access to in any other waythan actually knowing those
facts herself.
So once again, the plans puttogether and Detective Ingram
and his partner take LavernePavleneck on a car ride With
Laverne.
They drove up to the ColumbiaGorge and up the long, winding,
(31:33):
dirt road on which TonyaBennett's body was found by law
enforcement.
They wanted Laverne to pointout where the body had been
dumped.
They were testing to see if infact she could identify where,
supposedly in her most recentstory, she and John Sasnowski
had driven to and where Johnpulled the body out of the car,
(31:58):
was gone for 15 minutes,supposedly to dump the body just
10 feet off the road.
So again, they drove, and theydrove, and they drove, as
(32:19):
Detective Ingram has said aboutthis quote.
We proceeded up past CrownPoint and Vista House to the
area where the body had beendumped.
We drove on past the area wherethe body had been found.
We kept on traveling eastboundand then suddenly she said stop
the car and turn around.
Laverne said this gives me thecreeps.
(32:43):
And she pointed almost directlyto where that body had been
located.
It couldn't have been adistance of more than 10 feet
off.
My gosh, she's nailed this Endquote.
Now this is where I have to makesome observations about Laverne
(33:05):
Pavlenak, and admittedly theseare opinions and they involve
some conjecture and speculationon my part.
I believe, based on what I'vediscussed up to this point, that
Laverne Pavlenak was a masterpeople reader and a master
manipulator, for reasons thatwill become apparent later on in
(33:26):
this episode.
I believe that Laverne Pavlenakwas masterfully reading
Detective Ingram and hispartner's body language, as they
were on this drive, and Ibelieve that that is how she
pointed out the exact place ofthe body's location.
Assuming that in fact that wasthe case, I don't know anything
(33:47):
about how Detective Ingram andhis partner knew exactly where
the body had been found.
I don't know if they had goneup beforehand and placed a
marker so that they themselvesknew, in which case Laverne
possibly, theoretically, couldhave spotted some kind of marker
.
But you have to remember thisis a wooded area and if you've
(34:07):
ever gotten lost in the woods,it's very easy, including on a
road in the woods, for all of itto look the same Windy turn
after windy turn.
How do you know which exactturn you're on, unless you've
driven that road a thousandtimes, and I have no indication
that that's the case here.
It's also possible that Lavernecould tell where the body had
(34:29):
been dumped, because so manypolice had been in and out of
the area and the area wasdisturbed.
But I also believe that she wasa master people reader.
Now, if you can believe it,this story is just going to
continue to get more and morecrazy.
Five days after John Sosnowski'sarrest, laverne Pavlenak calls
Detective Ingram and she tellshim that she wants to have a
(34:51):
conversation with him and hispartner.
They need to come out to herhouse again.
In response to this DetectiveIngram's own words, quote oh
crap, where are we going now?
End quote.
Obviously, this is because thisinvestigation has already gone
hither and thither everywhere,all over the place, and Laverne
(35:14):
Pavlenak has been at the centerof it all.
But obviously they have nochoice.
They have to go out and talk toher again and see what she has
to say, because again she's atthe heart and soul and center of
their entire investigation aswell as their now arrest of John
(35:34):
Sosnowski.
So once again they go toLaverne's house and the
following is what Laverne tellsthem when you drove over to JV's
from your daughter's house andyou pulled into the lot what did
(35:55):
you see, if anything?
Speaker 3 (36:00):
I see John sat with the young lady and they appeared
to be undrinked in a plainwhite.
He said to her get in the carand hold as you continued to
drive.
There was a point that TonyaBennett apparently agreed to
have sex with John.
(36:21):
Yes, she did.
When they arrived at CarpenterWhite, they found out that I had
come.
I really didn't know where Iwas going.
I was going to stand in frontof the apartment.
I went by and John came back tothe car.
Is that true?
That's true.
He went to the trunk and therewas rope in there and he took
the rope.
I asked him why he ate the rope.
He said I'm going to tie him up.
(36:42):
I'm going to tie her up.
Speaker 1 (36:55):
More 12 minutes later and Chirping Crickets is about
all that I have to say aboutthis.
This is where I'm going toleave you.
Yes, on a cliffhanger, becausethere's part two to this story.
I thought I would get it allinto one episode, but that just
wasn't possible.
But I promise that episode twowill be just as good.
I'm JK Richards, I'm your hostand I'm so grateful that you are
(37:43):
here with me today.
If you enjoyed this podcast,please contribute to our channel
so that we can continue makingwonderful content for yourself
and for the rest of our audience.
Once again, thank you and takecare where on this podcast, I
hope to never be telling yourstory.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.