November 17, 2023 • 48 mins
Are you ready to unravel the twisted threads of a complex murder case with us? Come aboard this thrilling exploration of the puzzling case of The Crotchless Killing of Jane Doe. Laverne Pavlinac and John Sosnovsky incriminate themselves and give detectives story after inconsistent story. Listen to the shifting narratives and hear us examine the influence of detective personalities and strategic legal decisions in the case.
We'll transport you to the heart of the courtroom for Laverne Pavlinac's trial, where we'll illuminate the strategies used by both the prosecutor and defense attorney. Learn with us about the legal implications of courtroom rules, the potential risks of a defendant testifying in their own trial, and scrutinizing all the evidence, or lack thereof. Brace yourself, there's more, including barred evidence not allowed to be given to the jury, which could have changed everything.
You are in for a ride in this captivating real-life crime narrative! With each revelation and inconsistency, we'll challenge the reliability of key players and the efficacy of the criminal justice system. We aim to offer you unparalleled insight into the murder case and its trial, intertwined with comprehensive legal insights and riveting storytelling. This case will surely prompt you to probe deeply into crime, justice, and the shades of truth that reside within.
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 him,violent malevolence, jealousy,
greed, assault, insult, murderand the macabre, well, you are
in the right place.
Like, subscribe and support thechannel.
(01:31):
If you can spare a buck or twoper month, that would be much
appreciated so that we cancontinue doing our work here and
provide interesting stories andcontent for you.
But beyond that, i�m not anattorney that is trying to get
away from my profession bypodcasting.
One of the main reasons I havecreated this podcast is that the
United States is the mostincarcerating country in the
(01:54):
world.
Yes, we have a criminal defensesystem that appoints attorneys
if someone can't afford one, butthose resources are just not up
to the task of what is needed.
So one of my hopes with thispodcast is to be able to take
income from the podcast and hireattorneys and staff to provide
pro-modo, in other words, freecriminal defense legal services.
(02:15):
So again, I'm not an attorneytrying to get away from my
profession.
Rather, I want to be able toprovide more services and more
help where help is needed, andif you think that that's a
worthwhile cause, then pleasesupport us.
Okay, on to episode two.
Okay, before I can launch intonew content, I really feel that
it's important that I provide arecap of episode one.
(02:36):
There's just so much that goeson there and it just very
importantly interrelates witheverything that I'm going to go
through on episode two.
Here.
I am really excited to get intothis, can't wait.
Here we go.
So on January 22, 1990, lawenforcement got an investigate,
a body that was found in theColumbia Gorge, 17 miles east of
(03:01):
Portland.
It's a young woman, lateridentified as Tonya Bennett.
She's 23 years old, she liveswith her mother and because of
the timeframe again 1990 lawenforcement was very concerned
that they're not going to beable to find the identity of
this woman.
There's no identification onher, with her body.
They have no idea who she is.
So law enforcement commissionsa very rough and I talk about
(03:25):
this a little bit in detail inepisode one a very rough pencil
sketch of this woman's face.
They put it out through themedia, and shortly after that, a
woman calls Detective Ingram,stating that she believes that
the woman in the sketch is herdaughter.
A male relative of the femalecaller meets Detective Ingram at
the medical examiner's officeand this male relative
(03:49):
positively identifies the bodyas being that of Tonya Bennett.
Shortly after this, thesheriff's office receives an
anonymous phone call indicatingthat one, john Sosnovsky, is the
person who killed Tonya Bennett.
The officer that takes the calldoesn't get the name or number.
So Detective Ingram startsrunning various iterations of
(04:10):
the spelling of the last nameSosnovsky through the police
databases, hoping that JohnSosnovsky is somewhere in the
police database and luckily he'son probation.
So Detective Ingram calls theprobation officer and the
probation officer tells him thathe also received a phone call
from John Sosnovsky's girlfriend, laverne Pavlenak, telling him
(04:32):
the same thing that JohnSosnovsky is the man, the person
who murdered Tonya Bennett.
Detective Ingram and his partnerget in touch with Laverne
Pavlenak.
They go out and interview herand the story that she tells
them is that she dropped Johnoff at JB's lounge at 9.30pm and
that she then went home.
And John came home very late inthe evening, between 1.30am and
(04:56):
2.00am, that he took a showerimmediately, that he had a
bruise on his left hip and thatthe next morning he was
complaining about his hands andwrists hurting.
The officers search the housewith Pavlenak's permission.
They find an envelope addressedto John Sosnovsky.
On the back of it is printed,quote T-Puried Bennett Good
(05:18):
Peace end.
Quote peace spelled P-I-E-C-E.
John Sosnovsky then arrives atthe home, the officers introduce
themselves and John volunteersto go willingly with the
officers to be questioned.
In that interview with JohnSosnovsky he claims that he does
not know and has never knownTonya Bennett and knows nothing
about her murder.
At a later point in time,laverne Pavlenak contacts the
(05:40):
detectives and states that shefound some items in the house
that she believed would be ofinterest to the investigation.
They go back out to her houseand she gives them a brown paper
grocery sack, inside of whichis a purse, and inside the purse
is a cut out crotch section ofacid washed jeans.
In case you weren't aware, whenthe body was found in the
(06:04):
Columbia Gorge, the crotchsection of Tonya Bennett's jeans
had in fact been cut out.
This was a detail that lawenforcement believed that they
never put into the media andthat people other than the
killer could not know At thispoint in time, prosecutors get
involved in the case and starttrying to push the investigation
forward.
They were really wanting to getto moving this case along.
(06:27):
Shortly after this, the statecrime lab's results come back on
the crotch section of acidwashed jeans that Laverne
Pavlenak had given to thedetectives, and it was not a
match to the jeans found onTonya Bennett during the
investigation of the body.
So Detective Ingram and hispartner go out and confront
(06:47):
Laverne about this and sheimmediately caves, admitting
that she fabricated thisevidence and planted it, and her
reasoning and excuse for thiswas that John Zasnowski is such
a horrible person, so evil hadhurt her so badly and that she
wants him to be caught for themurder that he actually
committed, meeting the murder ofTonya Bennett.
Pavlenak is still maintainingthat John Zasnowski is in fact
(07:12):
the killer of Tonya Bennett.
The detectives, buying her sobstory, basically let her off the
hook for fabricating andfalsifying evidence and they
interviewed Laverne again, andat this point Laverne changes
her story to John, calling herthat night after she had dropped
him off, telling her to come toJB's lounge or wherever he was,
and to come quickly.
(07:33):
She goes to him and when shearrives, tanya Bennett is dead.
Upon her arrival, lavernesupposedly tells John that she
thinks that they need to takethe body to a hospital and
report this, with John thenthreatening to kill her, her
family and her grandchildren ifshe tries to force that result
or if she tells on him becausehe would go to death row for
(07:53):
Tanya Bennett's death.
And finally, in this version ofthe story, john goes off into
the woods with the body.
He's gone for about 15 minutesand then he returns alone.
Sometime after this point, orclose in time to this point, the
detectives have a meeting withthe prosecution and it's
determined that they still don'thave enough evidence to pin
this murder on John Sosnowski.
And they come up with a plan totest Laverne Pavleneck's actual
(08:16):
knowledge of events relative tothe case that were never
disclosed to the public.
And they put this plan intoeffect.
The detectives took Lavernewith them in a car up the
Columbia Gorge onto the roadthat Tanya Bennett's body was
found on when they asked LavernePavleneck to point out where on
the road the body had beendumped by John Sosnowski with,
according to this newest story,laverne Pavleneck present.
(08:39):
So they drive, and they driveup this road.
It's again in a secluded area,it's on a dirt road, it's a
windy road and it's in theforest.
So, windy turn after windy turnthrough the forest and,
according to Detective Ingram,laverne Pavleneck correctly ID'd
the location of where the bodyhad been found by law
enforcement within no more than10 feet of where they found the
(09:02):
body.
This is where we had left off,with the exception of just a few
more details.
Five days after John Sosnowskiwas arrested, because Laverne
correctly pointed out where thebody had been found by law
enforcement, on a particularevening, at about 3 am in the
morning, detective Ingramreceived a phone call from
Laverne Pavleneck on his pager,and for those of you that are
(09:23):
too young to know what a pageris, it was a device that
predated cell phones.
Someone called the number andthis device would let you know
that that phone number hadcontacted you.
Later versions of beepers wouldsend text.
Look it up on Google.
Beepers and pagers used to be athing.
God, I feel old.
I had a pager in high school.
It was really cool back then.
(09:44):
Detective Ingram called LavernePavleneck back and she told
Detective Ingram that she hassomething she needs to discuss
with him and his partner andthat they needed to come out to
her house again.
So they go back out to herhouse again and Laverne
Pavleneck changes the story onceagain Now, stating that Tanya
Bennett was alive when shearrived at where John and Tanya
(10:06):
Bennett were, that Tanya hadagreed to have sex with John and
that they drove up to VistaPoint in Columbia Gorge, that
John and Tanya had kind of goneoff by themselves.
And at one point John comesback to the car.
Laverne asks him why he cameback to the car and he goes to
the trunk and says he's going toget some rope that's in the
trunk.
(10:26):
And Laverne asked him why areyou getting rope?
And John's answer was inessence that it's more exciting
this way.
That's where I left you hangingin episode one and I do
apologize for that, but I dohave a little bit of a
confession to make.
I didn't share the entirety ofwhat Laverne Pavleneck told the
detectives in that lastinteraction, so I will now play
(10:50):
the entirety of that recordingfor you.
When you drove over to JD's fromyour daughter's house and you
pulled into the lot, what didyou see, if anything?
I see John sat with the younglady and they appeared to be
(11:11):
undrinked in a playing way.
He said to her get in the car,it's cold.
And she continued to drive.
There was a point that TonyaBennett apparently agreed to
have sex with John.
Yes, she did.
When we arrived at car point,they got out of car.
(11:31):
I really looked over the car.
I just understand this workfrom the time.
We went by and John came backto the 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 had the ropeand he said I'm going to tie
her up or throw this way.
(11:53):
So at that point you walked withJohn to where Tonya was.
Where did you see Tonya?
She was laying in a doorway andshe was laughing, and he told
me to take the rope and put itaround her neck.
(12:19):
What happened then?
Did John have sex with her?
Yes, and I shut because I knewwhat he was doing and I didn't
want to observe it.
And he kept saying hang on,hang on.
I must have tightened it as Iwas hanging on getting her in
(12:40):
the basement.
What was he hanging on to Inthe basement?
And then she became a little.
Did you realize that TonyaBennett had expired?
Yes, miss Kavanaugh, let me askyou a question Do you believe
(13:11):
that here today that by pullingthat rope tight did you cause
the death of Tonya and Bennett?
Yeah, you do.
I feel like it's my fault.
So where, previously, thefeeling that I had was that
(13:35):
everybody in this case is justcompletely stupid the
investigators, the detectives,in other words the prosecution
John Sosnovsky and LavernePavlenak.
Not only do I now think thatintellectual deficiency is very
much a part of this case allaround, as if it's something in
the water that everyone isdrinking, I also feel sad
because the types of changes inthe story from Laverne Pavlenak
(14:01):
are very, very indicative ofwell, obviously you can't trust
anything.
We've had three differentstories.
She dropped John off and thenwent home.
That's story one.
Story two is that John calledher, asked her to come.
She came.
When she arrived at where Johnwas, tonya Bennett had already
expired and at that point,according to Laverne Pavlenak's
(14:25):
second story, supposedly Johnthreatens Laverne that he will
kill her, he will kill herfamily and her grandchildren,
and so she does what he wantsout of compulsion and out of
fear for herself and her familyand her grandchildren Again, all
supposedly according to storynumber two.
Then we get story number three,which you just heard, which is
(14:48):
that Tonya Bennett is stillalive when Laverne Pavlenak
shows up, the John has sex withher, the John gets rope, that
Laverne supposedly is OK or Johnis OK in inviting Laverne to be
part of this menage tois, andthat during the course of this,
laverne Pavlenak again a58-year-old woman is holding
(15:11):
onto a rope that is around TonyaBennett's neck and she's
tightening it and tightening it,which supposedly kills Tonya
Bennett.
It's like the story of JohnSasnowski getting a ride home
from Chuck and there being adead body in the back seat of
the car, and yet John still getsride home and it's no big deal.
I find this farcical, andespecially so after the story
(15:34):
has changed so many times.
But this is the story that lawenforcement runs with, and while
it's farcical and stupid, Ifeel sad because I'm now
foreseeing in my mind that thisunfortunate series of events in
how John positioned himself andespecially in how Laverne
(15:56):
Pavlenak has now positionedherself and John, that some real
injustice could possibly occurhere.
My assessment of Laverne is justlike I said in episode one.
I think she is a masterfulpeople reader.
I think she had the ability tobe very charming.
However, I also think thatLaverne is simple, that she
(16:18):
really doesn't have the abilityto think things through to the
end and what is going to come ofher actions.
I think she is a short-sightedindividual and only assesses
things in the here and now.
Okay, so here's where the realfun of this episode begins.
I felt that it was necessary toprovide that recap and I hope
that wasn't too hard to sitthrough.
(16:39):
Hopefully it was stillentertaining.
But I have done a metric, as meand my friends say bleep-ton I
won't say the actual word, butbleep-ton of research for you
for this episode, and you'regoing to get the benefit of that
now.
And this is where, as I'vealluded to in the past and said
to a degree in the past, this iswhere the story just really
(17:03):
starts to get crazy and it justsnowballs and snowballs and
snowballs and gets crazier andcrazier and crazier.
Now, a decent amount of thatresearch that I've done, that
bleep-ton of research that I'vedone for this episode, does
relate to episode one and I'mgoing to provide especially two
(17:23):
categories, two classificationsof additional information
relating to episode one and whatI covered in episode one, those
two categories being thingsthat relate to the time period
between Laverne's second versionof the story and her third
version of the story.
So, beginning after she'schanged the story once, in other
(17:46):
words changing it to the storywhere John calls her, asks her
to come quickly, he comesquickly and Tonya Bennett is
dead when she arrives.
Going to the time period of thethird story, and then the
second category of additionalinformation I'm going to provide
to you here relates to afterLaverne is confronted about the
(18:08):
falsification of the evidenceand her third version of the
story which she gives detectivesonce they confront her.
So let me set the scene here.
John Ingram and Al Corson, thedetectives Al Corson is John
Ingram's partner Come back toreport to the prosecutor, jim
McIntyre, and they've just toldJim McIntyre about Laverne
(18:32):
Pavlin-Ack's first change in thestory, in other words, going
from Laverne dropped JohnSosnowski off and then went home
and John Sosnowski comes backbetween 1.30 and 2.00 am in the
morning to now the new story,the first new story, where John
Sosnowski calls LavernePavlin-Ack to come quickly to
(18:52):
bring something with her that'swatertight.
She does so.
When she gets there, to whereJohn is, tonya Bennett is
already dead, etc.
Etc.
So they've just informed JimMcIntyre about this change in
story and Jim's looking back andforth at them trying to judge
their words, and the twodetectives are very different.
(19:14):
Corson is with the Oregon StatePolice.
He's more hard-nosed thanDetective Ingram.
Some attorneys in the DistrictAttorney's Office even called
him or had a nickname for him ofWright Winger, and Corson
believed very strongly thatpeople should go to jail.
He was a sniper on the stateSWAT team and he was known for
pursuing his suspectsrelentlessly.
On the other hand, detectiveIngram was looking forward to
(19:37):
taking early retirement.
He wanted to start a new lifeas a fishing guide on the East
Coast.
He wasn't that experienced inhomicide cases compared to
Corson, but he was very amenableand very easy to get along with
and to get a feel for otherpeople.
Mcintyre got the strongimpression and clear impression,
which I believe was correctthat Detective Ingram really
(19:59):
truly believed in LavernePavlenak and that she's
trustworthy.
Detective Ingram explained atone point to Jim McIntyre that
Laverne Pavlenak's house isdifferent than most homes they
go into interview People.
Where most other homes,according to Ingram, were
disheveled and dirty, pavlenak'shouse was very different.
(20:21):
It was nice, neat, kept veryclean.
She was extremely hospitable,not the typical type of person
that they interviewed who wascynical against police.
She was older, candid, veryconvincing, and McIntyre could
tell that Detective Ingram sawPavlenak as a victim herself.
Ingram stated to McIntyre quoteI'd trust her to babysit my own
(20:44):
daughter, end quote.
So they've just told McIntyrethat the Crime Lab's report had
just come back.
It showed that the crotchsection provided by Laverne
Pavlenak did not match thecrotch section on the body of
Tonya Bennett found by lawenforcement and also that they
went out and confronted Laverneabout this and that she
immediately caved, confessedthat she had planted that
evidence, that it was falseevidence, and gave her
(21:06):
explanation as to why she haddone that and that the story has
now changed to the second storywhen John Sosnowski forced
Laverne Pavlenak, essentiallyagainst her will, to assist him
in getting rid of TonyaBennett's body Almost
immediately.
Jim McIntyre authorizes apolygraph exam and within an
hour the detectives had JohnSosnowski hooked up to a
(21:27):
polygraph machine.
By 6 pm that evening theexaminer had concluded that he
quote had direct knowledge of orwas responsible for end quote
the murder of Tonya Bennett.
By 8 pm and after a second test, the examiner put it
unequivocally to the detectivesthat John Sosnowski killed Tonya
Bennett.
In response to this, johnSosnowski, in the Sheriff's
(21:49):
Office, is decrying no, no,that's not true.
So at that point, detectiveCorson the more hard-nosed of
the two detectives chides atJohn Sosnowski and says okay,
tell us how you think ithappened.
And then by 10 pm, johnSosnowski was writing out a
seven-page personal confessionalstatement.
(22:12):
Now, at this point, I would justlike to point out that a lot of
more hard-nosed law enforcementofficers kind of have this
attitude, and what I'm speakingto right now is Detective Corson
saying to Sosnowskisarcastically okay, how do you
think it happened?
Well, obviously, someone who'snot involved in a murder has no
idea how it happened.
(22:32):
Now, at this point, in sayingthat, for purposes of saying
that, I'm assuming again justfor purposes of making that
observation, I'm assuming thatJohn Sosnowski did not actually
commit the murder.
And if in fact he did notcommit the murder, he would have
no idea how the murder happened.
He wasn't there.
And yet that's the attitudethat law enforcement, certain
law enforcement officers, havetoward this kind of thing In
(22:55):
essence, guilty and self-proven,innocent.
And nothing you say or explainto me unless it's absolutely
unequivocal evidence of yourinnocence will satisfy me.
And up until that point you'reactually going to be swinging
upstream with me.
The officer, even if youprovide rational or logical
explanations, and the detectivein this case and mind you, he's
(23:17):
a detective, he's not a streetcop, he's a detective.
And his logical fallacyresponse, supposedly to someone
who doesn't know because theyweren't there, is OK, tell me
how it happened Impossible andit shows a certain mentality.
So the second section ofinformation that I want to
impart to you that relates toepisode one that came from my
(23:38):
metric bleep ton of researchthat I've done for you, relates
to the period of time whenLaverne changes the story to the
third story.
So again, laverne Pavlenac pagedDetective Ingram early the
night, before 3 am or so.
The detectives then go to herhouse again the following
morning.
She ushers them into the houseand as always, she's very
(24:00):
accommodating, very nice,friendly, and after she invites
them in and she turns to thekitchen and begins walking
toward the kitchen, she turnsher head and over her shoulders
she says it's correction timeand Corson and Ingram relate to
Jim McIntyre that at firstPavlenac didn't say much.
She made a pot of hot coffee,talked about her family.
(24:20):
Corson finally interrupted,asked if she wanted them to
leave, with her previousstatement remaining unchanged,
in response to which Pavlenacshook her head, no, and she
stated no, I want to correct it.
She then gives her recordedstatement, which you've heard,
which Ingram and Corson playedfor McIntyre.
When the tape ended, detectiveIngram cleared his throat and is
(24:42):
reported to have said quote Mac.
The thing is she didn't justsay all of that to us.
She told her daughter the exactsame story just minutes later,
right in front of us.
End quote.
So, because of the concernsabout the changing of the
stories and obviousinconsistencies, the detectives,
as a test of Laverne Pavlenac'shonesty, told her they weren't
(25:06):
going to do anything with thisnew story and they weren't going
to believe her unless sheconfessed to the exact same
thing to her own daughter, whowas there at the house but was
not in the room as Pavlenac wasrelaying the third story to the
officers.
And Ingram went on to say toMcIntyre quote how could this
not be true?
Her own daughter?
She tells her own daughter, endquote.
(25:29):
Later on, ingram says quote Mac,I know it's screwy, but she's
still credible.
So nice, so open, come on infresh pot of coffee like a
grandmother.
How could she possibly not betelling the truth?
End quote.
And McIntyre bought that.
Okay, we've reached a point inthis episode where really
everything is going to become amyth, extremely chronological.
(25:51):
From this point on, thesequence of events is very
important.
That's good and that's bad.
Hopefully I'll be able to keepa straight, linear story Pretty
interesting, but I don't thinkit'll be too hard actually.
So again, the killer, whoeverthey are, meet Tanya Bennett on
January 21st 1990.
It is believed that TanyaBennett died on that night and
officers began investigating thedead body a day or two later.
(26:12):
The investigation took aboutexactly one year Because of
Laverne Pavlinaak's confessionimplicating herself as being the
actual, in fact cause of TanyaBennett's death by tightening
the rope around Tanya's neckuntil she died while John
Sasnowski was having sex withher.
Laverne Pavlinaak's trial camefirst.
There were other reasons forthis as well.
From what I could glean from myresearch, I also believe that
(26:36):
there were strategic reasons forJohn Sasnowski, probably fueled
by his defense attorney, topush off trial.
To see what happened in LavernePavlinaak's case and trial
first, consider for a moment thedifference in positioning of
personalities and what eachperson represented to humanity
generally, between LavernePavlinaak and John Sasnowski.
(26:56):
Laverne is kind, neat, clean,unassuming and respectful.
She's charming, she's acaregiver, she's an enabler and
she's an elderly, grandmotherlywoman who even law enforcement
saw as a victim of sorts in allof this.
In comparison, john Sasnowskiis a mean alcoholic, physically
and emotionally abusive drunk.
(27:17):
A younger man compared toLaverne she's 39 to 40, she's 58
, who, for no understandablereason, was and had been for 10
years sexually with agrandmotherly woman.
Now I'm not judging this, butpeople judge people and a jury
is going to consider that.
They're gonna think about thatand wonder why.
(27:38):
And it wouldn't surprise me ifa jury thought, yeah, this makes
sense.
Someone who is with a womanthat is that much as senior and
he's to a degree in his primeand she's a grandmotherly type,
seems really odd, seems reallystrange and that opens the door
to thinking that that kind ofperson possibly could be a
(27:58):
murderer, just because they'redifferent.
Imagine yourself being at asocial function or at a church
barbecue or at a summer poolparty and seeing John Sasnowski
with Laverne Pavlenak, himkissing her or her kissing him,
them holding hands, guaranteed.
A jury would make horriblynegative assumptions and
suppositions about JohnSasnowski based solely on the
(28:19):
fact that Sasnowski was sexuallywith Pavlenak.
And that doesn't even includethe negative view that would be
cast on John Sasnowski by a juryin their minds, based on his
actual own negative charactertraits being mean, being an
alcoholic, being abusive, etc.
Etc.
So Pavlenak's trial comes first.
(28:39):
Her trial began on Thursday,january 24th 1991, nearly
exactly a year from the timewhen Tonya Bennett was murdered.
Pavlenak was convicted onThursday, january 31st 1991.
According to a book by WilliamPhelps called Dangerous Ground
my Friendship with a SerialKiller, published by Kensington
in 2018, pavlenak's jurydeliberated for three days.
(29:02):
The trial began on the previousweek's Thursday and if the jury
deliberated for three days,this means that, excluding the
possibility of the trial beingconducted at all during the
weekend, which I have actuallyexperienced in a criminal trial
before and also excluding jurydeliberations and any sentencing
, if sentencing occurredimmediately after the trial, the
(29:22):
trial concluded either on theprevious Friday, one day after
trial began, or sometime onMonday.
In other words, the evidentiaryportion, which is called the
Prosecutions Case-in-Chief andthe Defenses Case-in-Chief,
lasted only two or three days,either Thursday, friday and
Monday, or only Thursday andFriday.
Again, this is assuming thetrial was not conducted at all
(29:46):
on the intervening Saturday andSunday, in other words, the 26th
and 27th of January 1991.
Though you already know theoutcome of her trial already,
which I purposely chose to tellyou at this time.
I want to discuss theon-going's at the trial and the
aftermath after the trial,because that is where the real
story is.
If I didn't do it this way,this would turn into three
(30:07):
episodes, and I've already beenyelled at by several people who
are tired of waiting for episodetwo to come out.
So Laverne Pavlenak had hiredone of Oregon's top criminal
trial attorneys at the time.
His name was Wendell Berkland.
He was feared by prosecutorsand police officers as he
generally left no stone and nolegal theory unturned, and he
was known for being quiteconvincing.
(30:29):
Circumstance is pretrial.
So McIntyre and a second-chairprosecutor in the case, keith
Meissenheimer, had to contendwith this very capable, very
smart, very thorough and ratherfeared defense attorney.
Mind you, mcintyre would stillbe carrying his normal
managerial level prosecutor'scase load, where I am guessing
(30:51):
from personal experience that anattorney with reputation
experience like WendellBerkland's, laverne Pavlenak's
case, was all he was focused onfor good while just prior to
trial.
In contrast, though, I shouldshare that, while this is likely
the case here and often is inthese types of circumstances, it
is also the case thatprosecutors' offices have the
(31:13):
financial backing and resourcesof the government behind them,
and that fact always gives theprosecution a massive advantage
in criminal cases.
There had been lots ofattention on this case, with all
sorts of bizarre elements inthe case, many of which you
already know about and some youdon't.
A trial in this case.
In comparative terms for ahigh-profile capital murder case
(31:36):
like this, the centralpresentation of this case, in
other words the prosecutions andthe defense's cases in chief to
the court and to the jury, didnot go very long Again.
Trial began on Thursday and, ifthe jury deliberated for three
days, both parties' cases inchief together lasted only two
or three days.
Given the nature of the caseand what I know about who knew
(32:00):
what as witnesses in LavernePavleneck's criminal case and
trial, I somewhat expect thatthe only main and principal
witnesses called were DetectiveJohn Ingram, detective Al Corson
, a few other police officerswho possibly saw the body dump
location in the Columbia Gorge,and Laverne Pavleneck, if she
testified at trial, as it is thedefendant's right to not
(32:21):
testify if they so choose.
On this point I'd like toexplain.
Defense attorneys almost alwaysvery, very strongly advise their
clients to not testify at theirown criminal trial.
This is because of theproverbial, very rich and
horrendously explosive mixtureof gases, the first being the
(32:43):
nature of cross-examination byan opposing attorney, where the
witness cannot expect their ownattorney to save them from
horribly difficult and cuttingquestions as long as the
cross-examining attorney askslegal and appropriate questions
in a legal manner.
And secondarily, the nearcertainty, no matter how well an
attorney prepares their defenseclient for trial, that their
(33:05):
client will invariably saysomething totally off-mark and
likely diametrically opposed towhat was discussed and prepared
during trial preparation.
That blows the entire defensestrategy to smithereens, then
leaving the defendant withvirtually no defense whatsoever
because of the defendant's owntestimony.
(33:26):
If so much as a proverbial tinystatic charge of electricity
sparks amid these richly mixed,proverbial explosive gases,
everything blows up and thedefendant will lose their case,
even if they are absolutely andunequivocally innocent.
So again, defense attorneysalmost always across the board,
(33:50):
advise their clients to nottestify at their own criminal
defense trial.
Despite these risks, laverne didtestify at her trial For the
reasons just discussed.
This is surprising to me in onesense, but it is also not
surprising in another.
In one sense, it's notsurprising the Palvinac
testified in her own trialbecause she somewhat had nothing
(34:12):
to lose the prosecution alreadyhad her convincing taped
confession.
Now, if you're reallyintelligent or have some legal
education, you may be thinkingto yourself hold on, isn't her
taped confession hearsay?
And this is where we get into adiscussion, actually about what
is hearsay.
It's relevant to many aspectsof this case, episode one, and
(34:33):
many cases that we'll talk aboutin the future.
So, simply put, hearsay,technically defined as a legal
term of art, is an out of courtstatement offered in court by
someone other than the personwho made that statement for the
purpose of proving the contentsof the statement.
So, though otherwise astatement might be hearsay, it
is not hearsay under the legaldefinition if one of two things
(34:55):
is true First, if they're not atall concerned with whether or
not the contents of thestatement were true, and that's
not what they're trying to proveand that's not why they're
using the statement at all.
Or second, though they arehoping that the court or jury
will pay attention to thestatement, hoping that it does
support the truth or theveracity of the contents of the
(35:18):
statement, that they areactually offering that statement
for some other purpose, forexample, the state of mind of
the person who made thestatement, and the argument goes
, in a situation like that, thatthe statement itself shows the
state of their mind.
So if either of thosesituations are the case, it is
not hearsay and a witness cantestify about what someone else
(35:42):
said.
Again, if one of those twoexceptions applies, because by
one of those exceptions applying, that means technically that it
does not fall within thedefinition of hearsay.
Now I really actually shouldn'tbe using the word exception,
because even if something ishearsay, then there is a whole
analysis that you have to gothrough regarding exceptions to
(36:03):
hearsay.
So it is possible for somethingto be hearsay but for an
exception to apply, and theexceptions are very specific.
One of the exceptions tohearsay that is most readily
accepted is a statement againsta party's own material legal
interest.
So, though something is hearsayand falls under hearsay under
the legal definition of hearsay,if that statement is a material
(36:26):
statement contrary to the legalinterest of the person who made
the statement, then that's anexception that's accepted by the
courts and certainly andunarguably, laverne Pavlenak
admitting to participating inmurder is a statement materially
against her own legal interest.
Therefore, even if LavernePavlenak's taped confession is
(36:48):
hearsay, there is a rock solidand airtight exception to the
hearsay rule regarding her tapedconfession, the prosecution can
bring it in all day long.
Even if Laverne Pavlenak wouldnot have testified in her own
trial, they would have been ableto lay foundation through the
detectives that were part ofthat conversation where Laverne
Pavlenak incriminated herself,and they would have been able to
(37:10):
bring in the recording ofLaverne Pavlenak's confession.
Not only did they have LavernePavlenak's confession, she had
voluntarily given it, and herconfession came about because
Laverne Pavlenak asked theofficers to come back to her
house so that she could correcther story.
Remember, even at one point,after Laverne wasn't telling the
(37:30):
detectives anything new oranything more, after they came
back to her house, detective AlCorson asked Laverne if she
wanted them to leave her house,with Laverne leaving her
previous statement remainingunchanged.
And just so you remember, thatprevious statement was story
number two.
But mainly to my point,laverne's taped confession did
not come about due to anycoercion or the police
(37:53):
attempting to use any type offorce to get her to tell them
something new.
In fact, I'm quite certain thatespecially Detective Al Corson
wanted Laverne's previousstatement, in other words story
number two, to remain unchanged.
I'm certain that this is why heasked Laverne if she wanted
them to leave with her previousstatement remaining unchanged.
(38:13):
But despite Detective Corson'sprops to just let things lie the
way they were, she objected andshe then gave her taped
confession.
At trial, laverne testified thatquote I started a lie and it
snowballed on me, end quote.
Her skilled defense attorney,wendell Berklin, elicited
testimony from Laverne that shehad made all of it up, every
(38:35):
story, including her confession.
She said that it was all inorder to escape Sosnovsky.
She had been trapped, battered,desperate and even suicidal.
She explained that three timesbefore making the anonymous call
to Detective Ingram's officeabout John murdering Tanya
Bennett, she had tried pinningother crimes and legal
(38:56):
violations on Sosnovsky.
For the same reason, shetestified that in February 1987,
she had called County Probationto report that he was drinking,
which was a violation of hisprobation.
In April 1989, she called theFBI and reported a bank robber's
photo resembling John Sosnovsky.
On January 10, 1990, laverneagain called County Probation
(39:18):
about his drinking, which againis a violation of his probation
terms, and days after that shemade her call to Detective
Ingram's office about JohnSosnovsky's murder of Tanya
Bennett.
This was a woman that, forwhatever reason, she had decided
that the best way to get out ofthis relationship was to misuse
and abuse law enforcement andthe legal judicial process, and
(39:41):
I'm here to tell you, folks,that's not a good idea, as
you'll see as the story goes onand how that worked out for
Laverne Pavlenak and to the menout there, I would give the
advice to not give women areason to feel like their back
is up against a wall so muchthat they have to do this sort
of thing.
Treat each other well.
After this, pavlenak went on totestify that the story just
(40:01):
snowballed that, and what shemeant by that is that she just
started offering the detectiveswhatever she thought she had to,
whatever they wanted, whatevershe thought in any given moment
would make them believe her andwould make them take John
Sosnovsky out of her life In herdefense.
Another aspect of testimonythat Laverne Pavlenak gave to
(40:23):
the jury was how she gotknowledge about facts that law
enforcement thought that shecouldn't possibly know about,
and Laverne explained that shegot many of her facts from the
search warrant.
This included, actually, theaspect of the existence of the
murder cutting out a crotchsection from Tanya Bennett's
(40:44):
acid washed jeans, whichdetectives and law enforcement
thought had never in any way,shape or form been made known
publicly and couldn't have beenknown by someone other than
Tanya Bennett's killer.
But Laverne Pavlenak apparentlyis a resourceful person.
She got and read and presumablyany private citizen could have
gotten and read a copy of thesearch warrant which included
(41:05):
information about the cut outcrotch section of acid washed
jeans.
And Laverne went on to testifythat she inferred other
information from the questionsthat the detectives themselves
asked her.
Just pretty smart actually.
And at one point Lavernetestified that quote even a baby
could have found the locationof the body in the gorge end
quote.
She said that this was becauseof news reports and the search
(41:28):
warrant receipt stated that thebody dump location was 1.5 miles
east of Vista house, below anembankment.
Quote in a loop betweenswitchbacks and quote before
lateral falls state park.
And when she and detectives inthe car passed that exact spot,
she noticed the detectivesunconscious body language and
(41:50):
she saw two small orange markersplaced by police so that they
could precisely triangulate thelocation of where the body had
originally been laying.
Now this is where I have to patmyself just a little bit on the
back.
Okay, if you will remember fromepisode one I actually gave
those two exact theories and Idid not know that at the time.
(42:11):
I only found this in myresearch for episode two,
specifically her testimony attrial as to how she knew about
certain things, specifically thebody language of the officers,
which makes total sense anddoesn't really brand me a genius
we all know that body languageis 80% of communication but I
(42:31):
also hypothesized that thereprobably was some kind of marker
so that law enforcementthemselves could know, and she
was smart enough to look forthat.
In truth, I think lawenforcement really
underestimated Laverne Pavlenakand I think that helped her pull
this off If from herperspective, you could call this
pulling something off.
Wendell Birkeland's defensiveLaverne Pavlenak was very
(42:54):
thorough and very elaborate.
Some of it involved tangibleevidence, like the Kram lab
hadn't found any physical traceof Tonya Bennett's presence in
Laverne Pavlenak's car.
Some of it involved practicallimitations.
For example, birkeland arguedit was absurd to imagine or
believe that John Sosnowski, aknown and documented frail drunk
(43:14):
with horrible knees, couldcarry a dead body down a steep
embankment, consistent with thestate's story and the state's
theory of the case.
Also a practical limitationit's absurd to believe that
Laverne Pavlenak had thestrength to tighten a rope
sufficiently to murder a23-year-old girl.
Most crucially, though, thelogistics weren't right
(43:35):
regarding who was where when.
According to law enforcement'sinvestigation and their
testimony at trial from theirwitnesses, tonya Bennett had
been seen at the B&I Tavern.
I know I haven't mentioned thisprior to now, but this is where
it pops up at trial.
So witnesses testified thatTonya Bennett had been seen at
the B&I Tavern on the night inquestion and that she had not
(43:58):
been seen.
No witness could place her atJB's lounge on the night in
question.
Likewise, john Sosnowski hadbeen seen at JB's lounge on the
night in question and he had notbeen seen.
No witness could place him atthe B&I Tavern on the night of
the murder.
Both Laverne and John had onlyever stated or claimed at any
(44:20):
time that John had been at JB'slounge on the night of the
murder.
Neither of them had evermentioned the B&I Tavern.
The B&I Tavern and JB's loungeare 26 miles apart, and neither
John Sosnowski nor Tonya Bennetthad vehicles or driver's
licenses.
Laverne Pavlenak drove JohnSosnowski everywhere that he
(44:42):
went In a seemingly impossiblesituation.
Wendell Berkland put on thisvery strong defense.
He's working with a client whodid everything in her power in
the end to incriminate herselfand her partner.
Wendell Berkland's closingargument was seven hours long.
He took the jury back throughall of the doubt that exists in
(45:04):
this case the lack of evidencethe lack of any evidence tying
Pavlenak to Bennett's murder andto Bennett's body and pleading
with the jury to see that thereare holes in the state's case
against Laverne Pavlenak thatyou could fly an A380 Airbus
airplane through.
That's an airplane that holds853 passengers.
This is my characterization ofWendell Berkland's defense.
(45:26):
No one else's.
Now, before I get into JimMcIntyre's closing statement,
that is the closing statement ofthe attorneys for the
prosecution.
There are few pieces ofinformation that I haven't given
to you yet that I need to tellyou about the trial, some things
that came up kind of an awkwardmoment during trial.
Want you to imagine this inyour mind, that what I'm about
to tell you comes up literallyin the middle of trial.
(45:49):
There's this very awkwardmoment midway through Pavlenak's
trial where authorities inLivingston Montana, which I've
actually visited many times, hadcalled Detective Ingram to
describe a scrawled message thatthey had just found on a bus
station's restroom wall.
The message said, quote Ikilled Tonya Bennett January
(46:10):
21st 1990, in Portland Oregon.
I beat her to death, raped herand loved it.
Yes, I'm sick, but I enjoymyself too.
People took the blame and I'mfree.
End quote.
To their credit, the prosecutiondisclosed this to the judge and
to Wendell Berkland, thedefense attorney.
Berkland and his teamstrenuously argued that the jury
(46:33):
should be allowed to hear aboutthis evidence and the
prosecution obviously objected.
But this came to a amount tonothing, despite the defense's
ardent pleas with the judge,because the judge barred the
message from being given to oreven mentioned in any way, shape
or form to the jury.
The judge ruled that thewriting on the restroom wall was
(46:55):
inadmissible hearsay with noindication of reliability.
Well, lucky for us, we'vealready discussed hearsay.
We're going to discuss it againright now, but first I'm going
to share that, years later,various news reports that I
found stated that years later,mcintyre had stated that at that
time he believed that thejudge's decision was proper,
(47:18):
which is obvious.
He had objected, supposedly toexplain this position.
Mcintyre stated that quote youcan't drop a case just because
someone writes on a bathroomwall.
End quote.
Interestingly, this same newsreport stated that Jim McIntyre
felt the same way a week afterPavlanak's trial when
authorities discovered a secondmessage scrawled on a restroom
(47:42):
wall in Umatilla, oregon.
That stated quote, killed TanyaBennett in Portland.
Two people got the blame, so Ican kill again.
End quote.
I'm sure that your brain rightnow is exploding from this
totally new revelation and I'mcertain that you want me to
thoroughly discuss this andaddress this right now, but I'm
not going to.
But I will come back to it, Ipromise.
(48:02):
Also, this episode is alreadytoo long.
This is going to have to endepisode two, but I'm going to
drop episode threesimultaneously with episode two
or very shortly after droppingepisode two, just for you.
Just listen to both.
It just keeps getting crazierand crazier.
I promise it gets so much morecrazy.
(48:25):
Stick with me.
It's good.
I'm your host, jk Richards.
Thank you so much for beinghere with me today.
I hope you enjoyed yourself.
I know that I did.
Please stay safe out there andI hope to never be telling your
story.
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 him,violent malevolence, jealousy,
greed, assault, insult, murderand the macabre, well, you are
in the right place.
Like, subscribe and support thechannel.
(01:31):
If you can spare a buck or twoper month, that would be much
appreciated so that we cancontinue doing our work here and
provide interesting stories andcontent for you.
But beyond that, i�m not anattorney that is trying to get
away from my profession bypodcasting.
One of the main reasons I havecreated this podcast is that the
United States is the mostincarcerating country in the
(01:54):
world.
Yes, we have a criminal defensesystem that appoints attorneys
if someone can't afford one, butthose resources are just not up
to the task of what is needed.
So one of my hopes with thispodcast is to be able to take
income from the podcast and hireattorneys and staff to provide
pro-modo, in other words, freecriminal defense legal services.
(02:15):
So again, I'm not an attorneytrying to get away from my
profession.
Rather, I want to be able toprovide more services and more
help where help is needed, andif you think that that's a
worthwhile cause, then pleasesupport us.
Okay, on to episode two.
Okay, before I can launch intonew content, I really feel that
it's important that I provide arecap of episode one.
(02:36):
There's just so much that goeson there and it just very
importantly interrelates witheverything that I'm going to go
through on episode two.
Here.
I am really excited to get intothis, can't wait.
Here we go.
So on January 22, 1990, lawenforcement got an investigate,
a body that was found in theColumbia Gorge, 17 miles east of
(03:01):
Portland.
It's a young woman, lateridentified as Tonya Bennett.
She's 23 years old, she liveswith her mother and because of
the timeframe again 1990 lawenforcement was very concerned
that they're not going to beable to find the identity of
this woman.
There's no identification onher, with her body.
They have no idea who she is.
So law enforcement commissionsa very rough and I talk about
(03:25):
this a little bit in detail inepisode one a very rough pencil
sketch of this woman's face.
They put it out through themedia, and shortly after that, a
woman calls Detective Ingram,stating that she believes that
the woman in the sketch is herdaughter.
A male relative of the femalecaller meets Detective Ingram at
the medical examiner's officeand this male relative
(03:49):
positively identifies the bodyas being that of Tonya Bennett.
Shortly after this, thesheriff's office receives an
anonymous phone call indicatingthat one, john Sosnovsky, is the
person who killed Tonya Bennett.
The officer that takes the calldoesn't get the name or number.
So Detective Ingram startsrunning various iterations of
(04:10):
the spelling of the last nameSosnovsky through the police
databases, hoping that JohnSosnovsky is somewhere in the
police database and luckily he'son probation.
So Detective Ingram calls theprobation officer and the
probation officer tells him thathe also received a phone call
from John Sosnovsky's girlfriend, laverne Pavlenak, telling him
(04:32):
the same thing that JohnSosnovsky is the man, the person
who murdered Tonya Bennett.
Detective Ingram and his partnerget in touch with Laverne
Pavlenak.
They go out and interview herand the story that she tells
them is that she dropped Johnoff at JB's lounge at 9.30pm and
that she then went home.
And John came home very late inthe evening, between 1.30am and
(04:56):
2.00am, that he took a showerimmediately, that he had a
bruise on his left hip and thatthe next morning he was
complaining about his hands andwrists hurting.
The officers search the housewith Pavlenak's permission.
They find an envelope addressedto John Sosnovsky.
On the back of it is printed,quote T-Puried Bennett Good
(05:18):
Peace end.
Quote peace spelled P-I-E-C-E.
John Sosnovsky then arrives atthe home, the officers introduce
themselves and John volunteersto go willingly with the
officers to be questioned.
In that interview with JohnSosnovsky he claims that he does
not know and has never knownTonya Bennett and knows nothing
about her murder.
At a later point in time,laverne Pavlenak contacts the
(05:40):
detectives and states that shefound some items in the house
that she believed would be ofinterest to the investigation.
They go back out to her houseand she gives them a brown paper
grocery sack, inside of whichis a purse, and inside the purse
is a cut out crotch section ofacid washed jeans.
In case you weren't aware, whenthe body was found in the
(06:04):
Columbia Gorge, the crotchsection of Tonya Bennett's jeans
had in fact been cut out.
This was a detail that lawenforcement believed that they
never put into the media andthat people other than the
killer could not know At thispoint in time, prosecutors get
involved in the case and starttrying to push the investigation
forward.
They were really wanting to getto moving this case along.
(06:27):
Shortly after this, the statecrime lab's results come back on
the crotch section of acidwashed jeans that Laverne
Pavlenak had given to thedetectives, and it was not a
match to the jeans found onTonya Bennett during the
investigation of the body.
So Detective Ingram and hispartner go out and confront
(06:47):
Laverne about this and sheimmediately caves, admitting
that she fabricated thisevidence and planted it, and her
reasoning and excuse for thiswas that John Zasnowski is such
a horrible person, so evil hadhurt her so badly and that she
wants him to be caught for themurder that he actually
committed, meeting the murder ofTonya Bennett.
Pavlenak is still maintainingthat John Zasnowski is in fact
(07:12):
the killer of Tonya Bennett.
The detectives, buying her sobstory, basically let her off the
hook for fabricating andfalsifying evidence and they
interviewed Laverne again, andat this point Laverne changes
her story to John, calling herthat night after she had dropped
him off, telling her to come toJB's lounge or wherever he was,
and to come quickly.
(07:33):
She goes to him and when shearrives, tanya Bennett is dead.
Upon her arrival, lavernesupposedly tells John that she
thinks that they need to takethe body to a hospital and
report this, with John thenthreatening to kill her, her
family and her grandchildren ifshe tries to force that result
or if she tells on him becausehe would go to death row for
(07:53):
Tanya Bennett's death.
And finally, in this version ofthe story, john goes off into
the woods with the body.
He's gone for about 15 minutesand then he returns alone.
Sometime after this point, orclose in time to this point, the
detectives have a meeting withthe prosecution and it's
determined that they still don'thave enough evidence to pin
this murder on John Sosnowski.
And they come up with a plan totest Laverne Pavleneck's actual
(08:16):
knowledge of events relative tothe case that were never
disclosed to the public.
And they put this plan intoeffect.
The detectives took Lavernewith them in a car up the
Columbia Gorge onto the roadthat Tanya Bennett's body was
found on when they asked LavernePavleneck to point out where on
the road the body had beendumped by John Sosnowski with,
according to this newest story,laverne Pavleneck present.
(08:39):
So they drive, and they driveup this road.
It's again in a secluded area,it's on a dirt road, it's a
windy road and it's in theforest.
So, windy turn after windy turnthrough the forest and,
according to Detective Ingram,laverne Pavleneck correctly ID'd
the location of where the bodyhad been found by law
enforcement within no more than10 feet of where they found the
(09:02):
body.
This is where we had left off,with the exception of just a few
more details.
Five days after John Sosnowskiwas arrested, because Laverne
correctly pointed out where thebody had been found by law
enforcement, on a particularevening, at about 3 am in the
morning, detective Ingramreceived a phone call from
Laverne Pavleneck on his pager,and for those of you that are
(09:23):
too young to know what a pageris, it was a device that
predated cell phones.
Someone called the number andthis device would let you know
that that phone number hadcontacted you.
Later versions of beepers wouldsend text.
Look it up on Google.
Beepers and pagers used to be athing.
God, I feel old.
I had a pager in high school.
It was really cool back then.
(09:44):
Detective Ingram called LavernePavleneck back and she told
Detective Ingram that she hassomething she needs to discuss
with him and his partner andthat they needed to come out to
her house again.
So they go back out to herhouse again and Laverne
Pavleneck changes the story onceagain Now, stating that Tanya
Bennett was alive when shearrived at where John and Tanya
(10:06):
Bennett were, that Tanya hadagreed to have sex with John and
that they drove up to VistaPoint in Columbia Gorge, that
John and Tanya had kind of goneoff by themselves.
And at one point John comesback to the car.
Laverne asks him why he cameback to the car and he goes to
the trunk and says he's going toget some rope that's in the
trunk.
(10:26):
And Laverne asked him why areyou getting rope?
And John's answer was inessence that it's more exciting
this way.
That's where I left you hangingin episode one and I do
apologize for that, but I dohave a little bit of a
confession to make.
I didn't share the entirety ofwhat Laverne Pavleneck told the
detectives in that lastinteraction, so I will now play
(10:50):
the entirety of that recordingfor you.
When you drove over to JD's fromyour daughter's house and you
pulled into the lot, what didyou see, if anything?
I see John sat with the younglady and they appeared to be
(11:11):
undrinked in a playing way.
He said to her get in the car,it's cold.
And she continued to drive.
There was a point that TonyaBennett apparently agreed to
have sex with John.
Yes, she did.
When we arrived at car point,they got out of car.
(11:31):
I really looked over the car.
I just understand this workfrom the time.
We went by and John came backto the 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 had the ropeand he said I'm going to tie
her up or throw this way.
(11:53):
So at that point you walked withJohn to where Tonya was.
Where did you see Tonya?
She was laying in a doorway andshe was laughing, and he told
me to take the rope and put itaround her neck.
(12:19):
What happened then?
Did John have sex with her?
Yes, and I shut because I knewwhat he was doing and I didn't
want to observe it.
And he kept saying hang on,hang on.
I must have tightened it as Iwas hanging on getting her in
(12:40):
the basement.
What was he hanging on to Inthe basement?
And then she became a little.
Did you realize that TonyaBennett had expired?
Yes, miss Kavanaugh, let me askyou a question Do you believe
(13:11):
that here today that by pullingthat rope tight did you cause
the death of Tonya and Bennett?
Yeah, you do.
I feel like it's my fault.
So where, previously, thefeeling that I had was that
(13:35):
everybody in this case is justcompletely stupid the
investigators, the detectives,in other words the prosecution
John Sosnovsky and LavernePavlenak.
Not only do I now think thatintellectual deficiency is very
much a part of this case allaround, as if it's something in
the water that everyone isdrinking, I also feel sad
because the types of changes inthe story from Laverne Pavlenak
(14:01):
are very, very indicative ofwell, obviously you can't trust
anything.
We've had three differentstories.
She dropped John off and thenwent home.
That's story one.
Story two is that John calledher, asked her to come.
She came.
When she arrived at where Johnwas, tonya Bennett had already
expired and at that point,according to Laverne Pavlenak's
(14:25):
second story, supposedly Johnthreatens Laverne that he will
kill her, he will kill herfamily and her grandchildren,
and so she does what he wantsout of compulsion and out of
fear for herself and her familyand her grandchildren Again, all
supposedly according to storynumber two.
Then we get story number three,which you just heard, which is
(14:48):
that Tonya Bennett is stillalive when Laverne Pavlenak
shows up, the John has sex withher, the John gets rope, that
Laverne supposedly is OK or Johnis OK in inviting Laverne to be
part of this menage tois, andthat during the course of this,
laverne Pavlenak again a58-year-old woman is holding
(15:11):
onto a rope that is around TonyaBennett's neck and she's
tightening it and tightening it,which supposedly kills Tonya
Bennett.
It's like the story of JohnSasnowski getting a ride home
from Chuck and there being adead body in the back seat of
the car, and yet John still getsride home and it's no big deal.
I find this farcical, andespecially so after the story
(15:34):
has changed so many times.
But this is the story that lawenforcement runs with, and while
it's farcical and stupid, Ifeel sad because I'm now
foreseeing in my mind that thisunfortunate series of events in
how John positioned himself andespecially in how Laverne
(15:56):
Pavlenak has now positionedherself and John, that some real
injustice could possibly occurhere.
My assessment of Laverne is justlike I said in episode one.
I think she is a masterfulpeople reader.
I think she had the ability tobe very charming.
However, I also think thatLaverne is simple, that she
(16:18):
really doesn't have the abilityto think things through to the
end and what is going to come ofher actions.
I think she is a short-sightedindividual and only assesses
things in the here and now.
Okay, so here's where the realfun of this episode begins.
I felt that it was necessary toprovide that recap and I hope
that wasn't too hard to sitthrough.
(16:39):
Hopefully it was stillentertaining.
But I have done a metric, as meand my friends say bleep-ton I
won't say the actual word, butbleep-ton of research for you
for this episode, and you'regoing to get the benefit of that
now.
And this is where, as I'vealluded to in the past and said
to a degree in the past, this iswhere the story just really
(17:03):
starts to get crazy and it justsnowballs and snowballs and
snowballs and gets crazier andcrazier and crazier.
Now, a decent amount of thatresearch that I've done, that
bleep-ton of research that I'vedone for this episode, does
relate to episode one and I'mgoing to provide especially two
(17:23):
categories, two classificationsof additional information
relating to episode one and whatI covered in episode one, those
two categories being thingsthat relate to the time period
between Laverne's second versionof the story and her third
version of the story.
So, beginning after she'schanged the story once, in other
(17:46):
words changing it to the storywhere John calls her, asks her
to come quickly, he comesquickly and Tonya Bennett is
dead when she arrives.
Going to the time period of thethird story, and then the
second category of additionalinformation I'm going to provide
to you here relates to afterLaverne is confronted about the
(18:08):
falsification of the evidenceand her third version of the
story which she gives detectivesonce they confront her.
So let me set the scene here.
John Ingram and Al Corson, thedetectives Al Corson is John
Ingram's partner Come back toreport to the prosecutor, jim
McIntyre, and they've just toldJim McIntyre about Laverne
(18:32):
Pavlin-Ack's first change in thestory, in other words, going
from Laverne dropped JohnSosnowski off and then went home
and John Sosnowski comes backbetween 1.30 and 2.00 am in the
morning to now the new story,the first new story, where John
Sosnowski calls LavernePavlin-Ack to come quickly to
(18:52):
bring something with her that'swatertight.
She does so.
When she gets there, to whereJohn is, tonya Bennett is
already dead, etc.
Etc.
So they've just informed JimMcIntyre about this change in
story and Jim's looking back andforth at them trying to judge
their words, and the twodetectives are very different.
(19:14):
Corson is with the Oregon StatePolice.
He's more hard-nosed thanDetective Ingram.
Some attorneys in the DistrictAttorney's Office even called
him or had a nickname for him ofWright Winger, and Corson
believed very strongly thatpeople should go to jail.
He was a sniper on the stateSWAT team and he was known for
pursuing his suspectsrelentlessly.
On the other hand, detectiveIngram was looking forward to
(19:37):
taking early retirement.
He wanted to start a new lifeas a fishing guide on the East
Coast.
He wasn't that experienced inhomicide cases compared to
Corson, but he was very amenableand very easy to get along with
and to get a feel for otherpeople.
Mcintyre got the strongimpression and clear impression,
which I believe was correctthat Detective Ingram really
(19:59):
truly believed in LavernePavlenak and that she's
trustworthy.
Detective Ingram explained atone point to Jim McIntyre that
Laverne Pavlenak's house isdifferent than most homes they
go into interview People.
Where most other homes,according to Ingram, were
disheveled and dirty, pavlenak'shouse was very different.
(20:21):
It was nice, neat, kept veryclean.
She was extremely hospitable,not the typical type of person
that they interviewed who wascynical against police.
She was older, candid, veryconvincing, and McIntyre could
tell that Detective Ingram sawPavlenak as a victim herself.
Ingram stated to McIntyre quoteI'd trust her to babysit my own
(20:44):
daughter, end quote.
So they've just told McIntyrethat the Crime Lab's report had
just come back.
It showed that the crotchsection provided by Laverne
Pavlenak did not match thecrotch section on the body of
Tonya Bennett found by lawenforcement and also that they
went out and confronted Laverneabout this and that she
immediately caved, confessedthat she had planted that
evidence, that it was falseevidence, and gave her
(21:06):
explanation as to why she haddone that and that the story has
now changed to the second storywhen John Sosnowski forced
Laverne Pavlenak, essentiallyagainst her will, to assist him
in getting rid of TonyaBennett's body Almost
immediately.
Jim McIntyre authorizes apolygraph exam and within an
hour the detectives had JohnSosnowski hooked up to a
(21:27):
polygraph machine.
By 6 pm that evening theexaminer had concluded that he
quote had direct knowledge of orwas responsible for end quote
the murder of Tonya Bennett.
By 8 pm and after a second test, the examiner put it
unequivocally to the detectivesthat John Sosnowski killed Tonya
Bennett.
In response to this, johnSosnowski, in the Sheriff's
(21:49):
Office, is decrying no, no,that's not true.
So at that point, detectiveCorson the more hard-nosed of
the two detectives chides atJohn Sosnowski and says okay,
tell us how you think ithappened.
And then by 10 pm, johnSosnowski was writing out a
seven-page personal confessionalstatement.
(22:12):
Now, at this point, I would justlike to point out that a lot of
more hard-nosed law enforcementofficers kind of have this
attitude, and what I'm speakingto right now is Detective Corson
saying to Sosnowskisarcastically okay, how do you
think it happened?
Well, obviously, someone who'snot involved in a murder has no
idea how it happened.
(22:32):
Now, at this point, in sayingthat, for purposes of saying
that, I'm assuming again justfor purposes of making that
observation, I'm assuming thatJohn Sosnowski did not actually
commit the murder.
And if in fact he did notcommit the murder, he would have
no idea how the murder happened.
He wasn't there.
And yet that's the attitudethat law enforcement, certain
law enforcement officers, havetoward this kind of thing In
(22:55):
essence, guilty and self-proven,innocent.
And nothing you say or explainto me unless it's absolutely
unequivocal evidence of yourinnocence will satisfy me.
And up until that point you'reactually going to be swinging
upstream with me.
The officer, even if youprovide rational or logical
explanations, and the detectivein this case and mind you, he's
(23:17):
a detective, he's not a streetcop, he's a detective.
And his logical fallacyresponse, supposedly to someone
who doesn't know because theyweren't there, is OK, tell me
how it happened Impossible andit shows a certain mentality.
So the second section ofinformation that I want to
impart to you that relates toepisode one that came from my
(23:38):
metric bleep ton of researchthat I've done for you, relates
to the period of time whenLaverne changes the story to the
third story.
So again, laverne Pavlenac pagedDetective Ingram early the
night, before 3 am or so.
The detectives then go to herhouse again the following
morning.
She ushers them into the houseand as always, she's very
(24:00):
accommodating, very nice,friendly, and after she invites
them in and she turns to thekitchen and begins walking
toward the kitchen, she turnsher head and over her shoulders
she says it's correction timeand Corson and Ingram relate to
Jim McIntyre that at firstPavlenac didn't say much.
She made a pot of hot coffee,talked about her family.
(24:20):
Corson finally interrupted,asked if she wanted them to
leave, with her previousstatement remaining unchanged,
in response to which Pavlenacshook her head, no, and she
stated no, I want to correct it.
She then gives her recordedstatement, which you've heard,
which Ingram and Corson playedfor McIntyre.
When the tape ended, detectiveIngram cleared his throat and is
(24:42):
reported to have said quote Mac.
The thing is she didn't justsay all of that to us.
She told her daughter the exactsame story just minutes later,
right in front of us.
End quote.
So, because of the concernsabout the changing of the
stories and obviousinconsistencies, the detectives,
as a test of Laverne Pavlenac'shonesty, told her they weren't
(25:06):
going to do anything with thisnew story and they weren't going
to believe her unless sheconfessed to the exact same
thing to her own daughter, whowas there at the house but was
not in the room as Pavlenac wasrelaying the third story to the
officers.
And Ingram went on to say toMcIntyre quote how could this
not be true?
Her own daughter?
She tells her own daughter, endquote.
(25:29):
Later on, ingram says quote Mac,I know it's screwy, but she's
still credible.
So nice, so open, come on infresh pot of coffee like a
grandmother.
How could she possibly not betelling the truth?
End quote.
And McIntyre bought that.
Okay, we've reached a point inthis episode where really
everything is going to become amyth, extremely chronological.
(25:51):
From this point on, thesequence of events is very
important.
That's good and that's bad.
Hopefully I'll be able to keepa straight, linear story Pretty
interesting, but I don't thinkit'll be too hard actually.
So again, the killer, whoeverthey are, meet Tanya Bennett on
January 21st 1990.
It is believed that TanyaBennett died on that night and
officers began investigating thedead body a day or two later.
(26:12):
The investigation took aboutexactly one year Because of
Laverne Pavlinaak's confessionimplicating herself as being the
actual, in fact cause of TanyaBennett's death by tightening
the rope around Tanya's neckuntil she died while John
Sasnowski was having sex withher.
Laverne Pavlinaak's trial camefirst.
There were other reasons forthis as well.
From what I could glean from myresearch, I also believe that
(26:36):
there were strategic reasons forJohn Sasnowski, probably fueled
by his defense attorney, topush off trial.
To see what happened in LavernePavlinaak's case and trial
first, consider for a moment thedifference in positioning of
personalities and what eachperson represented to humanity
generally, between LavernePavlinaak and John Sasnowski.
(26:56):
Laverne is kind, neat, clean,unassuming and respectful.
She's charming, she's acaregiver, she's an enabler and
she's an elderly, grandmotherlywoman who even law enforcement
saw as a victim of sorts in allof this.
In comparison, john Sasnowskiis a mean alcoholic, physically
and emotionally abusive drunk.
(27:17):
A younger man compared toLaverne she's 39 to 40, she's 58
, who, for no understandablereason, was and had been for 10
years sexually with agrandmotherly woman.
Now I'm not judging this, butpeople judge people and a jury
is going to consider that.
They're gonna think about thatand wonder why.
(27:38):
And it wouldn't surprise me ifa jury thought, yeah, this makes
sense.
Someone who is with a womanthat is that much as senior and
he's to a degree in his primeand she's a grandmotherly type,
seems really odd, seems reallystrange and that opens the door
to thinking that that kind ofperson possibly could be a
(27:58):
murderer, just because they'redifferent.
Imagine yourself being at asocial function or at a church
barbecue or at a summer poolparty and seeing John Sasnowski
with Laverne Pavlenak, himkissing her or her kissing him,
them holding hands, guaranteed.
A jury would make horriblynegative assumptions and
suppositions about JohnSasnowski based solely on the
(28:19):
fact that Sasnowski was sexuallywith Pavlenak.
And that doesn't even includethe negative view that would be
cast on John Sasnowski by a juryin their minds, based on his
actual own negative charactertraits being mean, being an
alcoholic, being abusive, etc.
Etc.
So Pavlenak's trial comes first.
(28:39):
Her trial began on Thursday,january 24th 1991, nearly
exactly a year from the timewhen Tonya Bennett was murdered.
Pavlenak was convicted onThursday, january 31st 1991.
According to a book by WilliamPhelps called Dangerous Ground
my Friendship with a SerialKiller, published by Kensington
in 2018, pavlenak's jurydeliberated for three days.
(29:02):
The trial began on the previousweek's Thursday and if the jury
deliberated for three days,this means that, excluding the
possibility of the trial beingconducted at all during the
weekend, which I have actuallyexperienced in a criminal trial
before and also excluding jurydeliberations and any sentencing
, if sentencing occurredimmediately after the trial, the
(29:22):
trial concluded either on theprevious Friday, one day after
trial began, or sometime onMonday.
In other words, the evidentiaryportion, which is called the
Prosecutions Case-in-Chief andthe Defenses Case-in-Chief,
lasted only two or three days,either Thursday, friday and
Monday, or only Thursday andFriday.
Again, this is assuming thetrial was not conducted at all
(29:46):
on the intervening Saturday andSunday, in other words, the 26th
and 27th of January 1991.
Though you already know theoutcome of her trial already,
which I purposely chose to tellyou at this time.
I want to discuss theon-going's at the trial and the
aftermath after the trial,because that is where the real
story is.
If I didn't do it this way,this would turn into three
(30:07):
episodes, and I've already beenyelled at by several people who
are tired of waiting for episodetwo to come out.
So Laverne Pavlenak had hiredone of Oregon's top criminal
trial attorneys at the time.
His name was Wendell Berkland.
He was feared by prosecutorsand police officers as he
generally left no stone and nolegal theory unturned, and he
was known for being quiteconvincing.
(30:29):
Circumstance is pretrial.
So McIntyre and a second-chairprosecutor in the case, keith
Meissenheimer, had to contendwith this very capable, very
smart, very thorough and ratherfeared defense attorney.
Mind you, mcintyre would stillbe carrying his normal
managerial level prosecutor'scase load, where I am guessing
(30:51):
from personal experience that anattorney with reputation
experience like WendellBerkland's, laverne Pavlenak's
case, was all he was focused onfor good while just prior to
trial.
In contrast, though, I shouldshare that, while this is likely
the case here and often is inthese types of circumstances, it
is also the case thatprosecutors' offices have the
(31:13):
financial backing and resourcesof the government behind them,
and that fact always gives theprosecution a massive advantage
in criminal cases.
There had been lots ofattention on this case, with all
sorts of bizarre elements inthe case, many of which you
already know about and some youdon't.
A trial in this case.
In comparative terms for ahigh-profile capital murder case
(31:36):
like this, the centralpresentation of this case, in
other words the prosecutions andthe defense's cases in chief to
the court and to the jury, didnot go very long Again.
Trial began on Thursday and, ifthe jury deliberated for three
days, both parties' cases inchief together lasted only two
or three days.
Given the nature of the caseand what I know about who knew
(32:00):
what as witnesses in LavernePavleneck's criminal case and
trial, I somewhat expect thatthe only main and principal
witnesses called were DetectiveJohn Ingram, detective Al Corson
, a few other police officerswho possibly saw the body dump
location in the Columbia Gorge,and Laverne Pavleneck, if she
testified at trial, as it is thedefendant's right to not
(32:21):
testify if they so choose.
On this point I'd like toexplain.
Defense attorneys almost alwaysvery, very strongly advise their
clients to not testify at theirown criminal trial.
This is because of theproverbial, very rich and
horrendously explosive mixtureof gases, the first being the
(32:43):
nature of cross-examination byan opposing attorney, where the
witness cannot expect their ownattorney to save them from
horribly difficult and cuttingquestions as long as the
cross-examining attorney askslegal and appropriate questions
in a legal manner.
And secondarily, the nearcertainty, no matter how well an
attorney prepares their defenseclient for trial, that their
(33:05):
client will invariably saysomething totally off-mark and
likely diametrically opposed towhat was discussed and prepared
during trial preparation.
That blows the entire defensestrategy to smithereens, then
leaving the defendant withvirtually no defense whatsoever
because of the defendant's owntestimony.
(33:26):
If so much as a proverbial tinystatic charge of electricity
sparks amid these richly mixed,proverbial explosive gases,
everything blows up and thedefendant will lose their case,
even if they are absolutely andunequivocally innocent.
So again, defense attorneysalmost always across the board,
(33:50):
advise their clients to nottestify at their own criminal
defense trial.
Despite these risks, laverne didtestify at her trial For the
reasons just discussed.
This is surprising to me in onesense, but it is also not
surprising in another.
In one sense, it's notsurprising the Palvinac
testified in her own trialbecause she somewhat had nothing
(34:12):
to lose the prosecution alreadyhad her convincing taped
confession.
Now, if you're reallyintelligent or have some legal
education, you may be thinkingto yourself hold on, isn't her
taped confession hearsay?
And this is where we get into adiscussion, actually about what
is hearsay.
It's relevant to many aspectsof this case, episode one, and
(34:33):
many cases that we'll talk aboutin the future.
So, simply put, hearsay,technically defined as a legal
term of art, is an out of courtstatement offered in court by
someone other than the personwho made that statement for the
purpose of proving the contentsof the statement.
So, though otherwise astatement might be hearsay, it
is not hearsay under the legaldefinition if one of two things
(34:55):
is true First, if they're not atall concerned with whether or
not the contents of thestatement were true, and that's
not what they're trying to proveand that's not why they're
using the statement at all.
Or second, though they arehoping that the court or jury
will pay attention to thestatement, hoping that it does
support the truth or theveracity of the contents of the
(35:18):
statement, that they areactually offering that statement
for some other purpose, forexample, the state of mind of
the person who made thestatement, and the argument goes
, in a situation like that, thatthe statement itself shows the
state of their mind.
So if either of thosesituations are the case, it is
not hearsay and a witness cantestify about what someone else
(35:42):
said.
Again, if one of those twoexceptions applies, because by
one of those exceptions applying, that means technically that it
does not fall within thedefinition of hearsay.
Now I really actually shouldn'tbe using the word exception,
because even if something ishearsay, then there is a whole
analysis that you have to gothrough regarding exceptions to
(36:03):
hearsay.
So it is possible for somethingto be hearsay but for an
exception to apply, and theexceptions are very specific.
One of the exceptions tohearsay that is most readily
accepted is a statement againsta party's own material legal
interest.
So, though something is hearsayand falls under hearsay under
the legal definition of hearsay,if that statement is a material
(36:26):
statement contrary to the legalinterest of the person who made
the statement, then that's anexception that's accepted by the
courts and certainly andunarguably, laverne Pavlenak
admitting to participating inmurder is a statement materially
against her own legal interest.
Therefore, even if LavernePavlenak's taped confession is
(36:48):
hearsay, there is a rock solidand airtight exception to the
hearsay rule regarding her tapedconfession, the prosecution can
bring it in all day long.
Even if Laverne Pavlenak wouldnot have testified in her own
trial, they would have been ableto lay foundation through the
detectives that were part ofthat conversation where Laverne
Pavlenak incriminated herself,and they would have been able to
(37:10):
bring in the recording ofLaverne Pavlenak's confession.
Not only did they have LavernePavlenak's confession, she had
voluntarily given it, and herconfession came about because
Laverne Pavlenak asked theofficers to come back to her
house so that she could correcther story.
Remember, even at one point,after Laverne wasn't telling the
(37:30):
detectives anything new oranything more, after they came
back to her house, detective AlCorson asked Laverne if she
wanted them to leave her house,with Laverne leaving her
previous statement remainingunchanged.
And just so you remember, thatprevious statement was story
number two.
But mainly to my point,laverne's taped confession did
not come about due to anycoercion or the police
(37:53):
attempting to use any type offorce to get her to tell them
something new.
In fact, I'm quite certain thatespecially Detective Al Corson
wanted Laverne's previousstatement, in other words story
number two, to remain unchanged.
I'm certain that this is why heasked Laverne if she wanted
them to leave with her previousstatement remaining unchanged.
(38:13):
But despite Detective Corson'sprops to just let things lie the
way they were, she objected andshe then gave her taped
confession.
At trial, laverne testified thatquote I started a lie and it
snowballed on me, end quote.
Her skilled defense attorney,wendell Berklin, elicited
testimony from Laverne that shehad made all of it up, every
(38:35):
story, including her confession.
She said that it was all inorder to escape Sosnovsky.
She had been trapped, battered,desperate and even suicidal.
She explained that three timesbefore making the anonymous call
to Detective Ingram's officeabout John murdering Tanya
Bennett, she had tried pinningother crimes and legal
(38:56):
violations on Sosnovsky.
For the same reason, shetestified that in February 1987,
she had called County Probationto report that he was drinking,
which was a violation of hisprobation.
In April 1989, she called theFBI and reported a bank robber's
photo resembling John Sosnovsky.
On January 10, 1990, laverneagain called County Probation
(39:18):
about his drinking, which againis a violation of his probation
terms, and days after that shemade her call to Detective
Ingram's office about JohnSosnovsky's murder of Tanya
Bennett.
This was a woman that, forwhatever reason, she had decided
that the best way to get out ofthis relationship was to misuse
and abuse law enforcement andthe legal judicial process, and
(39:41):
I'm here to tell you, folks,that's not a good idea, as
you'll see as the story goes onand how that worked out for
Laverne Pavlenak and to the menout there, I would give the
advice to not give women areason to feel like their back
is up against a wall so muchthat they have to do this sort
of thing.
Treat each other well.
After this, pavlenak went on totestify that the story just
(40:01):
snowballed that, and what shemeant by that is that she just
started offering the detectiveswhatever she thought she had to,
whatever they wanted, whatevershe thought in any given moment
would make them believe her andwould make them take John
Sosnovsky out of her life In herdefense.
Another aspect of testimonythat Laverne Pavlenak gave to
(40:23):
the jury was how she gotknowledge about facts that law
enforcement thought that shecouldn't possibly know about,
and Laverne explained that shegot many of her facts from the
search warrant.
This included, actually, theaspect of the existence of the
murder cutting out a crotchsection from Tanya Bennett's
(40:44):
acid washed jeans, whichdetectives and law enforcement
thought had never in any way,shape or form been made known
publicly and couldn't have beenknown by someone other than
Tanya Bennett's killer.
But Laverne Pavlenak apparentlyis a resourceful person.
She got and read and presumablyany private citizen could have
gotten and read a copy of thesearch warrant which included
(41:05):
information about the cut outcrotch section of acid washed
jeans.
And Laverne went on to testifythat she inferred other
information from the questionsthat the detectives themselves
asked her.
Just pretty smart actually.
And at one point Lavernetestified that quote even a baby
could have found the locationof the body in the gorge end
quote.
She said that this was becauseof news reports and the search
(41:28):
warrant receipt stated that thebody dump location was 1.5 miles
east of Vista house, below anembankment.
Quote in a loop betweenswitchbacks and quote before
lateral falls state park.
And when she and detectives inthe car passed that exact spot,
she noticed the detectivesunconscious body language and
(41:50):
she saw two small orange markersplaced by police so that they
could precisely triangulate thelocation of where the body had
originally been laying.
Now this is where I have to patmyself just a little bit on the
back.
Okay, if you will remember fromepisode one I actually gave
those two exact theories and Idid not know that at the time.
(42:11):
I only found this in myresearch for episode two,
specifically her testimony attrial as to how she knew about
certain things, specifically thebody language of the officers,
which makes total sense anddoesn't really brand me a genius
we all know that body languageis 80% of communication but I
(42:31):
also hypothesized that thereprobably was some kind of marker
so that law enforcementthemselves could know, and she
was smart enough to look forthat.
In truth, I think lawenforcement really
underestimated Laverne Pavlenakand I think that helped her pull
this off If from herperspective, you could call this
pulling something off.
Wendell Birkeland's defensiveLaverne Pavlenak was very
(42:54):
thorough and very elaborate.
Some of it involved tangibleevidence, like the Kram lab
hadn't found any physical traceof Tonya Bennett's presence in
Laverne Pavlenak's car.
Some of it involved practicallimitations.
For example, birkeland arguedit was absurd to imagine or
believe that John Sosnowski, aknown and documented frail drunk
(43:14):
with horrible knees, couldcarry a dead body down a steep
embankment, consistent with thestate's story and the state's
theory of the case.
Also a practical limitationit's absurd to believe that
Laverne Pavlenak had thestrength to tighten a rope
sufficiently to murder a23-year-old girl.
Most crucially, though, thelogistics weren't right
(43:35):
regarding who was where when.
According to law enforcement'sinvestigation and their
testimony at trial from theirwitnesses, tonya Bennett had
been seen at the B&I Tavern.
I know I haven't mentioned thisprior to now, but this is where
it pops up at trial.
So witnesses testified thatTonya Bennett had been seen at
the B&I Tavern on the night inquestion and that she had not
(43:58):
been seen.
No witness could place her atJB's lounge on the night in
question.
Likewise, john Sosnowski hadbeen seen at JB's lounge on the
night in question and he had notbeen seen.
No witness could place him atthe B&I Tavern on the night of
the murder.
Both Laverne and John had onlyever stated or claimed at any
(44:20):
time that John had been at JB'slounge on the night of the
murder.
Neither of them had evermentioned the B&I Tavern.
The B&I Tavern and JB's loungeare 26 miles apart, and neither
John Sosnowski nor Tonya Bennetthad vehicles or driver's
licenses.
Laverne Pavlenak drove JohnSosnowski everywhere that he
(44:42):
went In a seemingly impossiblesituation.
Wendell Berkland put on thisvery strong defense.
He's working with a client whodid everything in her power in
the end to incriminate herselfand her partner.
Wendell Berkland's closingargument was seven hours long.
He took the jury back throughall of the doubt that exists in
(45:04):
this case the lack of evidencethe lack of any evidence tying
Pavlenak to Bennett's murder andto Bennett's body and pleading
with the jury to see that thereare holes in the state's case
against Laverne Pavlenak thatyou could fly an A380 Airbus
airplane through.
That's an airplane that holds853 passengers.
This is my characterization ofWendell Berkland's defense.
(45:26):
No one else's.
Now, before I get into JimMcIntyre's closing statement,
that is the closing statement ofthe attorneys for the
prosecution.
There are few pieces ofinformation that I haven't given
to you yet that I need to tellyou about the trial, some things
that came up kind of an awkwardmoment during trial.
Want you to imagine this inyour mind, that what I'm about
to tell you comes up literallyin the middle of trial.
(45:49):
There's this very awkwardmoment midway through Pavlenak's
trial where authorities inLivingston Montana, which I've
actually visited many times, hadcalled Detective Ingram to
describe a scrawled message thatthey had just found on a bus
station's restroom wall.
The message said, quote Ikilled Tonya Bennett January
(46:10):
21st 1990, in Portland Oregon.
I beat her to death, raped herand loved it.
Yes, I'm sick, but I enjoymyself too.
People took the blame and I'mfree.
End quote.
To their credit, the prosecutiondisclosed this to the judge and
to Wendell Berkland, thedefense attorney.
Berkland and his teamstrenuously argued that the jury
(46:33):
should be allowed to hear aboutthis evidence and the
prosecution obviously objected.
But this came to a amount tonothing, despite the defense's
ardent pleas with the judge,because the judge barred the
message from being given to oreven mentioned in any way, shape
or form to the jury.
The judge ruled that thewriting on the restroom wall was
(46:55):
inadmissible hearsay with noindication of reliability.
Well, lucky for us, we'vealready discussed hearsay.
We're going to discuss it againright now, but first I'm going
to share that, years later,various news reports that I
found stated that years later,mcintyre had stated that at that
time he believed that thejudge's decision was proper,
(47:18):
which is obvious.
He had objected, supposedly toexplain this position.
Mcintyre stated that quote youcan't drop a case just because
someone writes on a bathroomwall.
End quote.
Interestingly, this same newsreport stated that Jim McIntyre
felt the same way a week afterPavlanak's trial when
authorities discovered a secondmessage scrawled on a restroom
(47:42):
wall in Umatilla, oregon.
That stated quote, killed TanyaBennett in Portland.
Two people got the blame, so Ican kill again.
End quote.
I'm sure that your brain rightnow is exploding from this
totally new revelation and I'mcertain that you want me to
thoroughly discuss this andaddress this right now, but I'm
not going to.
But I will come back to it, Ipromise.
(48:02):
Also, this episode is alreadytoo long.
This is going to have to endepisode two, but I'm going to
drop episode threesimultaneously with episode two
or very shortly after droppingepisode two, just for you.
Just listen to both.
It just keeps getting crazierand crazier.
I promise it gets so much morecrazy.
(48:25):
Stick with me.
It's good.
I'm your host, jk Richards.
Thank you so much for beinghere with me today.
I hope you enjoyed yourself.
I know that I did.
Please stay safe out there andI hope to never be telling your
story.
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.