Ep. 3 - The Crotchless Killing of Jane Doe, Part 3

How can a scrawled message on a bathroom wall lead to one of the most shocking miscarriages of justice in recent history? Let us guide you through the winding labyrinth of contradictions that is Laverne Pavlinac, John Sosnovske, and Keith Jesperson (the “Happy Face Killer”). We walk you through the major trial events, shedding light on the controversial role played by the court in withholding crucial evidence, potentially resulting in two wrongful convictions and life sentences.

From there, we navigate through the aftermath of trial. We also discuss the subsequent conviction of John Sosnovsky and the call from District Attorney Mike Schrunk for an investigation into potential wrongful convictions. The podcast doesn’t shy away from exploring the darker alleyways of this real-life crime drama, where appearances can be deceiving, and justice can sometimes hang by a thread.

As we reach the episode's climax, we lay bare the shocking twists in Taunja Bennett's murder investigation. New DNA evidence emerges linking a different man, Keith Jesperson, to the crime, shaking the foundations of the original convictions. We dissect Jesperson and Pavlinak's  conflicting narratives and the court's contentious decisions. The revelations leading to the unmasking of the true killer are suspenseful and chilling. Pull up a chair and listen in as we unravel this intricate tapestry of truth, lies, and unsettling questions about our legal system.

Support the show

Episode Transcript

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're in
the right place.
Again, and as always, I am JKRichards, your host of the

(01:12):
Triple M Podcast, and once again, I'm so excited to be here with
you today.
This will be the lastinstallment, I hope.
I'm pretty sure I'm pretty sureI'm the crotchest killing of
Jane Doe, part three.
It's been an interesting ride.
There's a lot to this story andI hope you've enjoyed it.
I certainly have enjoyedtelling the story and

(01:32):
researching it and providingthat information for you.
Please like and subscribe andsupport the channel and if you
can donate a few dollars a monthto the channel, that'd be great
.
I'm hoping to raise funds to beable to use those funds through
the podcast to hire attorneysand staff to provide pro bono
criminal defense legal services.
But I also hope that I'mproviding you sufficient value

(01:55):
added in entertainment andinformation and education.
So I'm hoping for a win-win-winWith all of that said, on to
episode three, the crotchestkilling of Jane Doe, part three.
Okay, in episode two I recappedepisode one, I gave you a bunch
of new information thatpertained to episode one and
episode two and I left you offat the end of episode two, in

(02:17):
the courtroom where I had toldyou about this message scrawled
on a bathroom in a bus stationin Livingston Montana, where
some other individual wrote thatthey had killed Tonya Bennett
in 1990, that they had raped her, loved it.
They indicated that they weresick but they enjoyed themselves
and the two other people tookthe blame and they are free, and

(02:39):
that during the trial, despitethe defense's ardent pleas for
the jury to be able to hear thisinformation, that came to light
in the middle of trial.
But the judge ruled that it wasinadmissible hearsay lacking
any indication of reliability.
So in episode two we had anexpress, explicit discussion
about what is hearsay and aboutsome exceptions to the hearsay

(03:03):
rule.
Even if something is hearsay,so in my opinion this is not
hearsay at all because, again,what are the elements to the
definition of hearsay?
It's an out-of-court statementoffered in court by someone
other than the person who madethe statement.
Here's the kicker for thepurpose of proving the contents
of the statement, a defenseattorney in this case wanting to

(03:26):
present to the jury thismessage scrawled on a bus
station bathroom wall, would notbe being presented to the jury
for the purpose of proving thetruth of the statement, in other
words, that whoever wrote thatactually committed the murder of
Tonya Bennett, but rather adefense attorney, would be
presenting it to a jury.
For the purpose of what?

(03:46):
Showing that there isreasonable doubt that the
attorney's client committed themurder?
The statement does not sayanything about Laverne Pavlenak
murdering Tonya Bennett.
Laverne Pavlenak isn't evenmentioned in the statement.
Statement expressly doesn't sayanything about Laverne Pavlenak
.
So you can't argue that astatement that has no contents

(04:09):
about why it's legally beingpresented, and the legal reason
for presenting this is to showto a jury that there's doubt and
therefore that the jury shouldacquit because there's
reasonable doubt, because that'sthe legal burden that the state
has to overcome.
That's the other thing.
It's the state's burden.
The defendant has no burdenwhatsoever.
And why is that relevant, youask?
It's relevant because the judgeheld that it's inadmissible

(04:32):
hearsay.
Ah, here's the extra part Withno indication of reliability.
Reliability A has nothing to dowith analyzing whether something
is hearsay or not.
Reliability is not part of thatlegal standard or test.
Furthermore, who's wanting touse a statement?
The defendant.
The defendant has no burden ofproof whatsoever in a criminal

(04:53):
defense trial.
So we don't need reliability.
All we need is to show thatthere's reasonable doubt, and we
don't even really have to dothat as the defense.
All the burden is on the stateto prove their case
affirmatively beyond areasonable doubt.
So the purpose that the defenseattorney would be using this for
would be for the purpose ofhelping the jury see that the

(05:15):
state had not and could notovercome and satisfy their
burden of proof of proving thecase beyond reasonable doubt.
Why?
Because there's someone elseout there.
We know it's someone else.
Laverne Pavleneck is not inLivingston Montana, she's
incarcerated and she's in trial.
Someone else out there istaking credit for the murder and

(05:35):
to keep that from a jury, wow,massive miscarriage of justice,
and that will become relevantlater on in this story at a
legal level.
So remember that Massivemiscarriage of justice and
violation of Laverne Pavleneck'sconstitutional rights, that the
burden is all on theprosecution to prove their case

(05:57):
against her, that reliability isnot an issue, that she doesn't
have to prove reliability of herwitnesses.
And in this case, in thisinstance, the judge withheld an
absolutely critical piece ofevidence that directly relates
to whether or not there isreasonable doubt that Laverne
Pavleneck was the person whokilled Tonya Bennett.

(06:18):
Now, in episode two, I told youabout how Wendell Birkland is
this great attorney and I'm surehe is slash was but I have a
hard time understanding how, andespecially if it's true that Mr
Birkland did not argue thesevery points, that it's not
hearsay and that reliabilitydoesn't matter.

(06:39):
Furthermore, even if it werehearsay, the exact same
exception to the hearsay rulethat applied to Laverne's
confession, a statement ofmaterial fact that, materially,
is contrary to the legalinterest of the party who made
the statement, in other words,confessing that you're a
murderer that's an exception tothe hearsay rule.

(07:01):
Well, someone else, for theexact same reasons, scrolling a
message on a bathroom wall that,hey, I'm the murderer?
Well, that goes against theirmaterial legal interests.
Right, for the exact samereasons.
Why is it?
The exact same reasons?
Because, just like LavernePavleneck's confession, that
statement in that bathroom was aconfession.

(07:22):
So, the exact same legalexception to hearsay.
Even if it were hearsay and I'msaying it's not, but even if it
were hearsay the same exceptionapplies and I have a hard time
understanding why, if in fact,it is the case that Wendell
Birkland did not argue this tothe judge and maybe he did,
maybe he did, I don't know thathe didn't but there is some

(07:43):
indicia, some indications lateron in this story that make me
think that Wendell Birkland didnot argue with the judge about
this being inadmissible hearsay.
My best guess is that WendellBirkland thought you know, okay,
this is a message, some kind ofcrack message on a bathroom

(08:03):
wall in Montana.
Judge isn't going to let it in.
Okay, I'm not going to fightthat hard.
But, as we all know, withhindsight comes 2020 vision and
with 2020 vision comes therealization, or knowledge, or
understanding.
I should have done that, Ishould have spent more time on
that, I should have tried harderon that issue, because it's
very possible that that couldbecome a highly relevant,

(08:27):
appealable issue at a laterpoint in time.
But there's another reason inthis case and I don't want to
spoil it.
It's going to come later.
Why, in fact, how everythingpanned out for Lovar and
Pavlenak, her attorney, pushingharder on this issue would have
helped in ways unrelated to apossible future appeal.
Okay, and the other point thatI had left you hanging on was

(08:51):
the prosecution's closingarguments.
So I'm going to tell you aboutthat now, and, if you'll
remember, this was in the stringof highly chronological facts
that I had told you.
The story becomes very linearchronologically from a previous
point in time, and so this is acontinuation of that.

(09:11):
So we get to the end of thetrial.
I had told you that WendellBirkeland's closing arguments
lasted for more than seven hours, where he pleaded with the jury
to see that there was atremendous amount of reasonable
doubt as to whether or notLaverne Pavlenak murdered or was
involved in the murder of TonyaBennett.

(09:31):
At the very end of hispresentation of his closing
arguments, wendell Birkeland isreported to have said quote it
doesn't make sense.
Can't you see that this is allbogus?
Shortly after that, wendellBirkeland sat down and then it
was Jim McIntyre's turn.
Imagine this in your mindWendell Birkeland has just

(09:55):
finished his seven hour pluslong closing argument.
He's this incredible attorney.
He's convincing, he'sarticulate, he makes a lot of
sense, he makes great pointsabout how and why there's doubt
in this case and you need tounderstand.
Also, attorneys are taughtwe're supposed to prepare in

(10:15):
trial or for trial, to degreethese grand speeches for opening
and closing arguments.
They're supposed to becompelling, convincing.
Wendell Birkeland finishes.
It's quiet in the courtroom.
Everyone is waiting to see whatJim McIntyre will do.
Jim McIntyre stands up.
He's silent, he says nothing.

(10:38):
He pulls out a tape recorder,places it on the desk and pushes
play.

Speaker 3 (10:51):
When you drove over to JD's from your daughter's
house and you pulled into thelot, what did you see?
If anything?

Speaker 2 (11:03):
I saw John sat with the young lady and they appeared
to be on the plane.
He said to her get in the car,it's cold.

Speaker 3 (11:18):
As you continued to drive.
There was a point that TonyaBennett apparently agreed to
have sex with John.
Yes, she did.

Speaker 2 (11:27):
When we arrived at car point, they got out of car
and we needed to get in the car.

Speaker 3 (11:32):
He was like I just couldn't stand this one for a
minute.
When Baye and John came back tothe car.

Speaker 2 (11:36):
is that true?
That's true.
He went through the trunk andthere was rope in there and he
took the rope.
I asked him why he ate the rope.
He said I'm gonna tie him upMore of a rope this way.
So at that point you walkedwith John to where Tonya was.

Speaker 3 (11:59):
Where did you see Tonya?

Speaker 2 (12:01):
She was laying in a doorway and she was laughing.
He told me to take the rope andput it around her neck.
What happened then?
Did John have sex with her?

(12:22):
Yes, and I had my eyes shutbecause I knew what he was doing
.
I didn't want to observe it.
He kept saying hang on, hang on.
I must have tightened it as Iwas hanging around Getting her
in the face.
What was he hanging around Hisface?

(12:43):
And then she became laughing.

Speaker 3 (12:54):
Did you realize that Tonya Bennett had expired?

Speaker 2 (12:57):
Yes, miss Cabinet, let me ask you a question, do
you?

Speaker 3 (13:07):
believe in your day that by pulling that rope tight
did you cause the death of Tonyaand Bennett?

Speaker 2 (13:19):
Yes, you do yes.

Speaker 1 (13:31):
Jim McIntyre pushed the stop button.
He looked at the jury and hesaid quote.
You listen to those words andthat emotion and you will look
at Laverne Pavlenak and see theface of a murderer.
And then he sat down.

(13:51):
That was the entirety of theprosecution's closing argument.
In essence, jim McIntyre tookDetective John Ingram's argument
made to him by John Ingramafter Laverne Pavlenak had
changed the story so many times,wherein Detective Ingram says

(14:13):
to Jim McIntyre quote Mack, Iknow 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 and John
Ingram also telling Jim McIntyre, quote.
The thing is she didn't justsay all of that to us.

(14:36):
She told her daughter the exactsame story just minutes later,
right in front of us.
How could this not be true?
Her own daughter, she tells herown daughter.
And in another account JohnIngram argues to Jim McIntyre
the emotion in her voice.
Listen to the emotion in hervoice.
There's no way.

(14:57):
That's not true.
Jim had bought that off ofDetective Ingram and the jury
bought it off of Jim McIntyre.
As I told you in episode 2,after three days of
deliberations, 12 MontenomaCounty citizens proclaimed
Laverne Pavlenak guilty offelony murder of Tanya Bennett,
as well as other crimes relatedto the story that she had told.

(15:19):
In the end, nine of the jurorsactually wanted the more serious
charge of aggravated murder andthe death penalty.
Except for three members onthat jury panel, pavlenak would
have ended up on death row.
Okay.
So now we pivot back to JohnSosnovsky and what's going on

(15:40):
with him, with the benefit ofthe knowledge of the jury's
findings of guilt againstPavlenak.
Additionally, with the ninejurors wanting the more
aggravated charge and the deathpenalty, and taking into
consideration he and hisattorney, considering how John
Pavlenak would present to a juryversus Laverne Pavlenak and I

(16:01):
assessed this in episode 2Sosnovsky and his attorney had
no appetite whatsoever for trial.
They would have viewed it asthe test case, which was
Laverne's trial, shows that Johnhas not a snowball's chance in
he double hockey sticks.
If nine jurors wanted to fryLaverne Pavlenak with as much

(16:22):
doubt as existed in that case,what would they do with someone
like John Sosnovsky, a failed tolaunch 39 slash, 40 year old in
a romantic relationship for 10years with a grandmotherly woman
like Laverne Pavlenak?
I'm serious.
Go look at the triple M podcastwebsite.
Look at her picture.
I don't mean to be mean, butshe looks like a grandma.

(16:44):
That was part of detectiveIngram's argument to Jim
McIntyre as well, that she'sthis grandma and she does
present that way.
And he's a mean drunk, he'sabusive, he's on probation.
If they want to fry her, Ican't even imagine what they
would want to do to JohnSosnovsky.
So in late March 1991 Sosnovskypled no contest to a charge of

(17:06):
felony murder.
He drew a life sentence with a15-year minimum term.
So that's late March 1991 andeverybody thinks that the case
is over.
A loving, kind, pretty overlyfriendly, naive and overly
trusting 23 year old girl wholived with her mother tragically
had died, been murdered.

(17:27):
They were able to identify thebody, they were able to find
Tonya's family, they were ableto find the murders and convict
them.
Case over, we can all go homeand rest easy at night and the
public can feel safe and secure.
But, folks, that's the thingabout this well kind of thing,
you're not safe when it's thewrong people that were nabbed,

(17:48):
prosecuted and convicted.
Look, I get that.
There was this seemingly,seemingly, but it was only
seeming seemingly compelling,clear and unequivocal confession
that was taped and, yeah, youcould hear the emotion in her
voice and, my god, it soundsreal, it sounds like she means

(18:10):
it.
All of the verbal cues.
Go back and listen again to theconfession.
All the verbal cues areindicative that she is being
honest and real and true andthat she did this.
And while we would all assumethat no one would admit to
murder something that grave,with that gravity, with the

(18:31):
types of consequence that comewith that kind of admission, we
all at some level know and haveexperienced ourselves, either in
doing it or in having it doneto us, that people lie, humans
lie, all humans lie, withoutexception.
That's not a commentary onlying, being good or being okay.

(18:54):
Rather, it's simply a realityand we're all familiar with the
saying you never truly knowsomeone not really, not fully
and not completely.
And people do odd things forodd reasons, or at least they
seem odd to us because we're notthem.
So, knowing this, why do we,time and again and again and

(19:17):
again and again, employ thisobviously flawed belief and
system of attributing veracity,accuracy and truthfulness to a
person or believing that they'rebeing untruthful and deceptive
based on what they say or howthey say it, or what they do or

(19:39):
how they do it.
In this case that took the formof Laverne Pavlenak, with
convincing emotion on a recordedstatement confessing to murder.
In other settings, policeofficers often think someone's
guilty because they're notgrieving the right way, they're
not acting how they would expectthem to act.

(19:59):
But every human being does whatthey do uniquely, because no
two human beings are alike.
When will we learn this?
What should we pay attention to?
Then?
You ask me the evidence.
What does the evidence say?
What does the evidence show?
Is there probable cause?
And if you're a prosecutor,should you even bring charges?

(20:22):
And if the cold, hard facts andevidence in their totality
don't seem to substantially showthat someone did this bad thing
, this crime, then we shouldn'tjump to conclusions.
So, as I said, it's March 1991and everybody, or most everybody

(20:53):
, believes this is over and donewith.
The wheels of justice continueto turn.
Other cases come and go.
1992 comes and goes, 1993 comesand goes, 1994 comes, and in
May of 1994, mike Shrunk case,your curious spelled SCHRUNK,

(21:15):
who is the county districtattorney, calls Jim McIntyre to
ask him what's going on in theTonya Bennett case and Jim
McIntyre responds what are youtalking about?
That case has been over foryears.
Shrunk responded that he hadcaught wind of some rumblings
about Laverne Palvinac and JohnSosnovsky being wrongfully
convicted.
On April 29th 1994 a letter, acopy of which is on the triple M

(21:41):
podcast's website, was sent tothe Oregonian, a large newspaper
in Portland Oregon.
The letters author claimedresponsibility for Tonya
Bennett's murder and claimedthat innocent people got the
blame for his murder.
Now I'll come back to thisletter in a little bit Because I
need to tell you a few thingsabout Mike Schrunke, the county

(22:02):
DA.
Mike Schrunke and his countyattorney's office had earned
uncommonly high regard forhonesty and fairness compared to
other prosecutors' offices inOregon.
It was said by defenseattorneys that Schrunke's office
was different than most andthat his people weren't cowboys
and they didn't charge upmeaning that they don't
overcharge people with criminalcharges, that they shouldn't in

(22:23):
order to leverage convictions atthe actual level that they want
to get convictions at.
Mike Schrunke had a personaland philosophical aversion to
overcharging and overreachingprosecution.
This came from firsthandexperience that he had as a kid.
In 1957, there was a seriouscitywide corruption probe in
Portland Oregon.

(22:43):
A grand jury indicted MikeSchrunke's father, who at the
time was the county sheriff.
Eventually Mike Schrunke'sfather won an acquittal and he
went on to serve four terms asPortland's mayor.
Mike Schrunke was in gradeschool when this all happened
and watching his father gothrough this and have that
experience and him having thatexperience as the child

(23:05):
significantly shaped MikeSchrunke and caused him to be
unwilling and undesirous toovercharge criminals.
In an interview Mike Schrunkehas stated that quote I grew up
with this.
I got exposed to liars.
I can see how good,well-intentioned people can
screw up.
I've been through cases wherecops made mistakes.

(23:25):
It's an imperfect system.
I understand that, so I'mskeptical.
End quote.
I take his quote unquoteskepticism to mean that Schrunke
was skeptical of police officerstatements, evidence gathered,
allegations made, and he wantedto actually see actual, real
proof so that cases were provenand that the right criminal

(23:48):
charges were brought in thefirst place.
So Jim McIntyre gets on this,for Mike Schrunke starts looking
into this.
For his boss, though, he wantedthe Laverne Pavlonec and John
Sosnovsky cases to remain overand done with.
So Jim McIntyre went back tothe messages scribbled in a
bathroom in a bus station inLivingston Montana and in

(24:11):
another bathroom in Umatilla,oregon, but McIntyre had no idea
where else to look for anything.
They had this letter, ananonymous author making written
claims in bathroom messages andnow also in the form of this
letter.
And while this is all going on,mcintyre had dozens of other
cases and matters pressing.
He was a senior prosecutor withthree small kids and he was

(24:34):
going through and had justcompleted a very hotly contested
divorce where all of theprofessionals involved the judge
, other attorneys felt that infact Jim McIntyre needed to take
sole custody of the three kidsbecause his wife quote couldn't
function properly, end quote,whatever that means.
And by mid-summer of 1994,having no other leads other than

(24:56):
two scrawled messages inbathrooms and this anonymous
letter, jim McIntyre put thecase file on the Bennett murder
and Sosnovsky case back intostorage.
All right, so now we are goingto discuss this extremely creepy
letter.
It's six pages long.
I have to tell you the writing.
Well, you look at it and decidefor yourself.

(25:17):
The writing in this letter, inmy mind, has a rather particular
type of look to it.
I'm not going to give you anidea.
You judge for yourself.
Go to the Triple M podcastwebsite and take a look.
Now I do want you to know thatfinding this letter was wow hard
.
I had to resort to Reddit to beable to get a copy of this

(25:40):
letter, and even then I didn'tget an entire full copy of this
letter.
I got individual images of thispage or that page from various
sources, had to resize them andthen was able to put it into one
document for you to be able toview.
So you're welcome.
The letter begins at the verytop with a smiley face Next to

(26:01):
it.
It says all five of five.
I assume pages is what is meant, but in fact the letter has six
pages.
The body of the letter begins Iwould like to tell my story.
I am a good person.
At times I always wanted to beliked, and it goes on from there
.
Give some history about hispersonal life.
He'd been married, had kids,divorced, and he says that I

(26:24):
always have wanted to be noticedlike Paul Harvey front page, et
cetera.
So I started something I don'tknow how to stop.
On or around January 20th 1990,I picked up Sonia Bennett, but
that was later determined thathe actually met Tonya Bennett
and took her home.
In underlying text he thenwrites I raped her and beat her

(26:46):
real bad.
Her face was all broke up.
Then I ended her life bypushing my fist into her throat.
This turned me on.
I got a high.
Then panic set in when to putthe body.
I drove out to the Sandy Riverand I threw her purse and walk
them in a way and I drove thescenic road past the falls.
I went back home and draggedher out to the car.

(27:08):
I want to know that it was mycrime.
So I tied a half inch softwhite rope, cut on one end and
burnt on the other around herneck.
I drove her to a switchback onthe scenic road about one and a
half miles east of lateral falls, dragged her downhill.
Her pants were around her kneesbecause I had cut her buttons

(27:30):
off.
They found her the next day.
I wanted her to be found.
I felt real bad and afraid thatI would be caught, but a man
and woman got blamed for it.
My conscience is getting to menow.
She was my first and I thoughtI would not do it again.
But I was wrong.
I went to truck driving schooland learned to drive While

(27:51):
driving.
I learned a lot and heard ofpeople that have gotten away
with such a crime because of ournomadic life.
He then goes on to talk aboutother girls that he had killed.
From the top of the last page,page six, he writes, beginning
the first four lines underlinedI feel bad, but I will not turn
myself in.
I am not stupid.

(28:11):
I do know what would happen tome if I did.
In a lot of opinions I shouldbe killed and I feel I deserve
it.
My responsibility is mine andGod will be my judge when I die.
I am telling you this because Iwill be responsible for these
crimes and no one else.
It all started when I wonderedwhat it would be like to kill

(28:33):
someone and I found out what anightmare it has been.
I had sent a letter toWashington County judges,
criminal court takingresponsibility to number one,
but nothing has been.
In your paper, this freedom ofpress, you have the ball, your
game.
I will be reading to find out.
I used gloves and some paper aslast letter.

(28:54):
Quotation marks no points.
Look over your shoulder, I maybe closer than you think.
That's the end of the letter.
All I can say is creepy,contradictory and unhinged.
I thought it was a serial killerfrom the beginning because of
the souvenir taken the crotchsection out of the jeans.
As I said before, this is still1994.

(29:17):
Jim McIntyre's boss asked himto look into this because he
heard some rumblings aboutPavlenak and Sosnowski being
wrongfully convicted, and the DA, mike Schrunke, as a very
strong aversion to the wrongpeople being prosecuted and
convicted.
But other than having twoanonymous messages scrawled in
bathrooms and this anonymousletter, jim McIntyre doesn't

(29:39):
know where to turn, where to go,what to do, and so by
mid-summer 1994, he puts theentire Sosnowski and Levern
Pavlenak files back into storage.
But then comes 1995.
Oh, 1995.
Those who know me know why 1995is important to me.
But before we get into 1995 inthis case, we have to turn to

(30:05):
another case briefly.
First.
In mid-March 1995, lawenforcement had found the dead,
nude body of Julie AnnWinningham.
Her body had been dumped down ascenic bank of the Columbia
Gorge Highway.
I'm not certain if thisColumbia Gorge Highway was in
Oregon or in Portland, but itwas a Columbia Gorge Highway.
Julie Winningham was thegirlfriend of one Keith

(30:29):
Jespersson, and he was initiallyarrested on March 22, 1995 for
her murder, however withoutobtaining a confession from him
as Jespersson refused to talk topolice, and upon having
insufficient evidence,jespersson was released shortly
after being arrested.
But on May 5, 1995, accordingto some reports, not terribly

(30:52):
long after his March 22nd arrest, law enforcement somehow found
a letter that Jespersson hadwritten to his brother on the
day he had been arrested, inMarch, confessing to killing his
girlfriend, julie Winningham,as well as seven other women,
eight in total.
The letter read, quote Hi, brad, seems my luck has run out.

(31:12):
I got into a bad situation andgot caught up with emotion.
I kill a woman in my truck.
It looks like I truly am ablack sheep.
I am sure they will kill me forthis.
I'm sorry I turned out this way.
I have been a killer for fiveyears and have killed eight
people.
End quote.
So, going back to April 29, 1994, phil Sanford, who was a

(31:33):
reporter and writer for theOregonian newspaper, receives
the letter that I've alreadydiscussed in some links with you
for you, from an anonymousperson claiming responsibility
for Tonya Bennett's murder.
Again, we've discussed theletter.
It's creepy, it's inconsistentand it's unhinged.
And again, it's available foryour preview, your reading and

(31:56):
perusal, on the triple M podcastwebsite.
Well, phil Sanford beginsinvestigating these claims.
He requests and receives abound copy of all the police
reports, in this case, in TonyaBennett's case.
He reads the police reports andhe finds obviously that the
case against Laverne Pavlenakand her conviction, and
therefore also the case againstJohnson Snosky are paper thin.

(32:19):
Not only are they paper thin,they are probably paper thin and
also wet.
Sanford calls and speaks withJim McIntyre.
Jim McIntyre has said that hewas even surprised that he took
his call or had a phone callwith Sanford.
The two did not like each otherand McIntyre tells him that he
has no interest in this beinglooked into any further and

(32:40):
McIntyre simply states that theygot the right people for Tonya
Bennett's murder.
End of story.
Sanford provided the letterthat he had received to McIntyre
and to law enforcement, andthis will become very important
later on.
Now remember that Phil Sanfordreceived this letter on April 29
, 1994.
We're still in 1994.
But then once again, 1995 rollsin.

(33:03):
At this point Jim McIntyrehadn't heard anything more about
the Tonya Bennett case for overa year.
That's according to JimMcIntyre himself.
In McIntyre's own words, hesaid, quote then we had a hand
grenade go off.
End quote.
I was not able to nail down theexact date of this, but
remember that in 1995, keithJesperson was arrested in

(33:24):
Washington on March 22, 1995.

Speaker 3 (33:28):
Yesterday in an exclusive interview with Channel
2 News, alleged murder of KeithJesperson confessed to being
the so-called happy face killer.

Speaker 1 (33:34):
At that time, keith Jesperson was in custody in
Clark County, washington,pending trial on the murder of
his girlfriend.
Based on this, I presume thatquote unquote Channel 2 News
referred to just a second agowas Channel 2 News in or around
Clark County, washington, but Idon't know this.
Phil Sanford seems to be thisreally likeable and affable guy.

(33:58):
He's able to charm people isthe sense I get and he's
intelligent, really smart.
He strikes me as the typicalliberal leaning media reporter
type who is very concerned withsocial and civil rights, which
is a good thing.
Don't get me wrong.
In various reports andbroadcasts watched both Jim
McIntyre and Phil Sanfordexpressed dislike toward each

(34:21):
other.
I believe that McIntyre sawSanford as a crybaby tree
hugging, bleeding heart liberaltype that always wanted to get
in the way of law enforcementupholding the law.
And I believe that Sanford sawMcIntyre as not being willing to
pay attention to very importantand pertinent facts that did
not support whatever conclusionthat McIntyre had reached in

(34:42):
obtaining a conviction in acriminal case, even if it meant
injustice.
And I do believe that Sanfordgot this right about McIntyre at
least to a degree.
Now, after Jesterson wasarrested, he started putting it
out there very extensively thathe was what had become known as
the happy face killer because ofthe happy faces on the letters.

(35:04):
And I want to just give you ataste of Keith Jesterson, his
personality, what he was like inthe media.

Speaker 3 (35:12):
I've come aboard.
But the truth, I want to makesure it's out there.
There is no doubt in my mind.
I am him, I am the happy facekiller.

Speaker 1 (35:23):
Phil Stanford finds out about Keith Jesterson's
alleged confession to TonyaBennett's murder through a
colleague and he begins pushingthe Multnomah County DA's office
for more information and formore to be done to investigate
this.
And at this point Phil Stanfordnow believes that it was
absolutely the case that thewrong people were imprisoned for

(35:45):
the murder of Tonya Bennett.
A year earlier, when Stanfordhad provided the anonymous
letter that he received at theOregonian, the law enforcement,
jim McIntyre had had the crimelab investigate the stamp on the
back of the envelope and theysuccessfully were able to lift
DNA off of the stamp, but theydidn't at that time have a
profile to compare it to.

(36:06):
So now in 1995, and probablybegrudgingly, or at least hoping
that it would prove thatJesterson was not the sender of
the letter to Phil Stanford, jimMcIntyre, at Mike Shrunk's
insistence, had the state crimelab compare the DNA profile that
they had lifted from the stampon the envelope to Keith

(36:28):
Jesterson's DNA.
At that time again, he was incustody in Clark County,
washington State, which is justnorth of Portland, oregon.
On August 17, 1995, mcintyrereceived a report from the state
crime lab.
The report was vexing, in hiswords.
The state's lab experts,findings were unequivocal.
The handwriting in the happyface letters matched the

(36:50):
handwriting in Jesterson'sletter to his brother.
Fingerprints on the happy faceletters matched Jesterson's
handwriting and the saliva DNAretrieved from the stamp on the
envelope of what was now beingcalled the happy face killer
letter was a match to KeithJesterson's DNA.
For the first time they had alive body saying that that same

(37:15):
person killed Tonya Bennett, andnot just an anonymous letter or
a scrawled message on abathroom wall.
Sadly, and in a mean coincidence, on the same day that the lab
report came in, jim McIntyre,while sitting alone in his
office, found out, along withhis family, that his father had
just been diagnosed with fatallyterminal liver cancer.

(37:35):
Jim McIntyre's father didn'thave long to live after that.
Also, you need to remember, jimMcIntyre had gone through a
hotly contested divorce thatfinalized not long prior to this
.
1995 was a pretty horrible anddifficult year for Jim McIntyre.
Mcintyre considered his fathera truly great man.
He was a highly decoratedinfantry commander in World War
II and in the Korean War.

(37:56):
After retiring from the army asLieutenant Colonel, he had
directed public works projectsfor the Department of Commerce.
Jim McIntyre shared in onereport that his favorite story
about his father was about theseventh game of the 1971 World
Series Pittsburgh at Baltimore.
Jim was 14 at the time and hisfather was a true Pirates

(38:18):
fanatic.
Jim's father let him meaningJim and his friend use his two
bleacher tickets while Jim'sfather sat out in the parking
lot listening to the game on theradio.
Jim and his friend were onlyfour rows back when Roberto
Clemente went over the fence tomake the fantastical series

(38:38):
winning out.
Jim McIntyre and his childrentook care of Jim's ailing father
day in and day out.
After the diagnosis Jim tooksome time off of work amidst the
Tonya Bennett case debacle andthe news reports that were
coming out, with Jim and hischildren watching Jim's father
round the clock.
But death came pretty quickly.
Jim's father passed away onSeptember 4th 1995.

(38:59):
Jim buried his father onSeptember 8th 1995.
When Jim returned to the officethree days later on September
11th 1995, mike Schrunke waswaiting for him.
He told McIntyre quote clearyour docket.
You're on Jesperson, full timeend.
Quote Keith Jesperson was evenmore eager than Pavlenak to

(39:19):
confess to Tonya Bennett'smurder.
Jesperson was so dogged andintense in his insistence that
he was the happy face killerthat's the name that he had been
given by the Oregonian that ajudge actually ordered Jesperson
to stop talking.
I'm quite certain that that wasunconstitutional, but a judge
did that In any case.

(39:40):
Jesperson refused and ignoredthe judge's order.
Jesperson insistently demandedand proclaimed that he alone
killed Tonya Bennett and hewanted the credit.
The happy face killer is knownto have said, quote I won't be
happy until I am replacing thatman in the Oregon State
Penitentiary.
Jesperson wanted the notedcriminal defense attorney Jerry

(40:01):
Spence to represent him.
He wanted newspapers to printhis letters in full in their
newspapers.
He wanted everything put on theAP wire.
And he's known to have saidmany times, quote the truth must
be told on this case, as God ismy witness.
End quote On September 29th1995, jim McIntyre, tom Felin,

(40:23):
who is the defense attorneyactually hired by Jesperson and
given his name, I really have tosay I wonder if Jesperson
picked him for his last name,felin, though it was spelled
P-H-E-L-A-N.
Funny name for a criminaldefense attorney, though Anybody
want a criminal defenseattorney who is a felon couldn't
get himself off Anybody.
Anyway, also detective ChrisPeterson this is the first time

(40:45):
I've ever mentioned him and hewas with the sheriff's office
with Multnomah County and anofficer from the Clark County
Washington Sheriff's Office metat the Clark County, washington
Sheriff's jail interrogationroom next to the court or in the
courthouse the reports werekind of confusing so that the
Multnomah County prosecutor'soffice and their witness from

(41:06):
the sheriff's office couldinterview Keith Jesperson about
his claims of being the murdererof Tonya Bennett.
Jim McIntyre had one purposethat he was there for.
He wanted, he needed, to see ifKeith Jesperson would or could
provide, and if he knew, anydetails that only the killer of

(41:29):
Tonya Bennett would know, inorder to verify or debunk Keith
Jesperson's claims that he's themurderer.
Throughout this interview andafter the interview, keith
Jesperson's credibility rose andfell.
Jesperson got some of thedetails right, other details he
got wrong.
According to Jim McIntyre,jesperson spoke about

(41:49):
unbuttoning Bennett's shirt, butshe had been wearing a sweater.
Jesperson talked of seeing thedumped body from the far side of
a hairpin turn, which wasphysically impossible according
to McIntyre.
And on October 2, 1995, whenMcIntyre, detective Chris
Peterson and others took KeithJesperson out to the dump site

(42:10):
of the body, jespersonironically pointed to the wrong
ravine.
So where Laverne Pavlenak wasable to figure it out and point
to the right location, jespersonpointed to the wrong location
for where the body was dumped.
Now, right about now, I'm kindof guessing that you're
wondering did he get us therecording of the interview with

(42:35):
Keith Jesperson?
And the answer to that questionis yes, I did.

Speaker 2 (42:48):
The date is September 29, 1995.
At the time is 1035.
Present at the Park CountySheriff's Office Defender
attorney Tom Feeland.
Deputy DA Jim McIntyre from theMultnomah County Sheriff's
Office.
Detective Chris Peterson fromthe Multnomah County Sheriff's
Office.
I understand that you want totalk to us about a homicide that

(43:10):
occurred in Multnomah County in1990.
Is that correct?
I guess I do, Okay.
Okay, at some point did youmeet a female that you were
killed?

Speaker 3 (43:23):
Yes, I did.
You know what her name was?
I found out it was Tanya Ben.
I went out for a walk and Idecided I'd go out and play some
pool.
I went to the new tavern andthis gal walked over and gave me
a hug like I was somebody'shuman.

(43:44):
I shot through over a friendly,but she actually gave hugs to
about everybody there.
I invited her to dinner, but Iwas conscious that I didn't have
enough money.
I feel like I could go back tothe house and I could get
another $20 bill of the dresser.
My kids threw on the neck andwent from there, but something

(44:05):
just didn't seem right.
I don't know if it was clickingfor her or not.
She was complaining, she wasn'texcited yet and she made a
comment something like well, I'mnot getting there once, just
for it to get it over with.
It got pissed me off.
I tagged her with my right arm.

(44:26):
What do you mean by you taggedher with your right arm?
What does that mean?
I just lost my cool and Istruck her inside the face and I
never stopped psyching heruntil she was laying out.
She said things that my wifeused to tell me when we were
having sex and just brought backmemories.

(44:46):
I was not.
I don't think I was all thereat that time.
I was thinking of thefingerprints I left on the
buttons.
I took the buttons off herjeans.

Speaker 2 (45:03):
Okay, so what happens next?

Speaker 3 (45:06):
I take off the car and I go looking for a place I
can go dump the body.
I noticed a bunch of peopleparked around the vest, maybe
three or four cars.
I finally figured I'd just keepon going down the hill until I
found a place.
At that time I was reallygetting kind of panicky and I

(45:30):
saw a big tree on the right andthen I stopped in front of it.
I just grabbed her and draggedher down the hill.
You talked about a purse.
Yes, I got rid of her purse.
The next following morning Idrove back out of there,
followed generally the same pathacross the river.

(45:51):
I pulled over to the wide spot,I took the purse and I tossed
the contents and the purse outover the area.
First I probably went 40 feetdown off the bank.

Speaker 1 (46:14):
Well, that's not creepy.
I'm really surprised at thelack of emotion and just how
candid and frank and factual heis in his description of this.
Now I want you to compare thatto the emotion in Laverne
Pavlenak's confession.
That was a critical factor thatcaused Jim McIntyre to rely on

(46:38):
Pavlenak, and I'm certain it's acritical factor that the jury
relied on in finding Pavlenakguilty and in nine of her jurors
wanting to give her the deathpenalty for the death of Tonya
Bennett.
Some time after this, still inthe fall, jim McIntyre,
detective Chris Peterson,jesperson, jesperson's attorney,

(47:01):
tom Fallon, and three otherarmed sheriff's deputies all
traveled together in an unmarkedpanel van and additionally
another unmarked vehicle waswith them, followed behind with
additional armed officers ofsecurity.
They drove up the ColumbiaGorge near where the body had
been dumped.
Jim McIntyre wanted and neededto see if Keith Jesperson could

(47:24):
identify anything specific thatonly the killer would know, to
try and verify that KeithJesperson was in fact Tonya
Bennett's murderer.
They took Jesperson all the wayup the gorge to Vista House and
then they drove the route onthe dirt road where Jesperson
believed that he had dumped thebody.
Jesperson told them to stop thevan.

(47:45):
He walked around for a whileand then he said that he
believed that quote this iswhere I dumped the body.
I think I'm not sure.
End quote.
Both Detective Peterson and JimMcIntyre knew that this was not
the right spot.
At that point there were twoswitchbacks east of where the
body had been dumped.

(48:06):
At this point, the only thingthat they had to possibly use to
corroborate Jesperson's claimsof being Tonya Bennett's
murderer was where he threwTonya Bennett's purse and
belongings in the purse, inother words, by the Sandy River.
They headed southbound up theSandy River to the place where
Jesperson said quote, this isthe place where I threw the

(48:28):
purse end quote.
At this point I'd like todiscuss the obvious difference
in the readiness and in thedesire to believe Laverne
Pavleneck's story which sherecanted several times and then
told different stories, eventhough she and Johnson Snosky
had no kind of violent past orcriminal record versus an in
comparison to Keith Jespersonand his confession, where

(48:51):
Jesperson has at this pointproven to have murdered at least
seven other women.
With Mike Shrunk's insistence,jim McIntyre was somewhat
panicking about being able to,one way or another, give his
boss a clear determination onwhether or not Jesperson was
telling the truth or if they hadalready had the right people in

(49:12):
prison for Tonya Bennett'smurder all this time, and
Jesperson was just a massmurderer that reveled in the
attention of the media Again,remember, he's killed several
other women, so he is still amass murderer.
At one point, shrunk begandemanding daily briefings from
Jim McIntyre regarding thisinvestigation, and Shrunk had

(49:34):
told the newspapers quote Idon't want our office to do
wrong.
The last thing I want to do ishave the wrong person in prison.
As a side note, this is howevery prosecutor, in my opinion,
should be, and not justprosecutors, but every officer
of the law and of the court, andI would go further to say

(49:54):
society as a whole.
We used to have that mentality,so Jim McIntyre is pulling his
hair out.
He has to get an answer for hisboss regarding whether they've
got the right people in jailLaverne Pavleneck and John
Sasnowski or is this massmurderer that has some indicia
of credibility telling the truthin claiming that he is Tonya

(50:18):
Bennett's murderer?
Well, jim McIntyre andDetective Peterson decide that
they think that maybe LavernePavleneck can help them out of
this mess.
I can't make this stuff up,folks.
It really is true that life isso much more weird than fiction.
This prosecutor and this lawenforcement agency put this

(50:40):
woman away for life and shenearly got the death penalty.
And at this point I want to askyou who do you think committed
this murder?
I really wish, I really wish Icould ask you.
Maybe I should send out surveymonkey surveys to my listeners.
So, weird as it is, they go andsee Laverne Pavleneck.

(51:01):
This happens on October 4th1995.
And if I understood what I readcorrectly, detective Peterson
goes alone and meets withLaverne Pavleneck at the Oregon
Women's Correctional Institutein Salem, oregon.
Peterson asked her that if shewas not involved in the murder
of Tonya Bennett, how did shelead them directly to the spot

(51:24):
where the body had been dumped?
Pavleneck's response that itwas very easy.
From news articles she knew thespot was 1.5 miles from Vista
House before La Terrell falls.
Pavleneck stated that as theydrove there she watched the
odometer of the car that theywere driving in.
Peterson balked at this andasked her really you watched the

(51:45):
odometer?
The Truder Pavleneck formed.
She pulled a Pavleneck and sherevised her story.
She said maybe she glanced atthe odometer.
Peterson didn't really even buythat explanation.
Pavleneck revised again and shesaid that she couldn't actually
see the odometer, but thatthere was red paint and or red

(52:05):
tape marking the area.
Also, pavleneck informed themthat the newspaper actually had
run a picture of where the bodyhad been found.
Law enforcement just didn'tknow that and for your viewing
pleasure, there's a copy of thatpicture on the Triple M
Podcast's website.
Detective Peterson asked hissecond question why did you

(52:27):
confess to the murder?
Pavleneck responded thedetectives had come to her.
They told her that there wasinsufficient evidence to hold
Sosnowski.
They told her they were goingto have to release him and,
fearing that Sosnowski wouldretaliate against her, she
decided to implicate herself.
When McIntyre heard this, whenPeterson returned from seeing

(52:48):
Pavleneck, he is reported tohave thrown his hands up in
frustration.
This was because, according toMcIntyre, pavleneck's
description of tire tracks andbroken branches didn't fit
photographs of the scene or thedetective's memories, that's
Detective Ingram and Corson.
Also, her given reason forimplicating herself made no
sense.
It didn't make any sense thatIngram and Corson would have

(53:11):
told Pavleneck that they didn'thave enough evidence on
Sosnowski and that they weregoing to have to release him.
They had an airtight witnessand Sosnowski was already in
jail.
So McIntyre decided that hesimply believed that Pavleneck
had once again lied, threw herteeth about everything or just
made random stuff up.
That does seem to be the kindof thing that Laverne Pavleneck

(53:33):
does Reportedly around theoffice.
Mcintyre was known to havestated to colleagues, quote
"'How to know the truth, however, to know for certain'.
You know what happened?
I don't know what happened andI do understand McIntyre's
frustration.
At this point.
I have to give it to him thatLaverne Pavleneck is close to
being just about the very worsttype of person to be in the

(53:56):
situation that she is and wasin".
So they're still on the huntfor the truth.
Jim McIntyre still has toreport to his boss and find an
answer about whether they've gotthe right people in jail or not
and whether or not Jesperson istelling the truth about being
the actual murderer.
So they wired Keith Jespersonto a polygraph machine to test
whether he is telling the truthabout his involvement and his

(54:19):
commission of the murder ofTanya Bennett.
But this is to no avail.
Jesperson kept coughing andmoving around so much that they
had to stop midway through thepolygraph exam, with no results
being achieved.
The search on the embankmenttook place on October 7th 1995,
according to Jim McIntyre, theentire area by this time was
covered in thick blackberrybushes that had grown since 1990

(54:43):
.
Because of this, they wereconfident that if Jesperson had
thrown Tanya Bennett's purse andher belongings over this
embankment they would still bethere.
At that time, a large team ofexplorer scouts, aided by
sheriff's officers, cut away theblackberry bushes and searched
the hillside and the embankment.
There's a picture of this onthe triple M podcast website.

(55:05):
I think it's really interesting.
They brought out scouts tosearch for something like this.
Sadly, they found nothing nopurse, no driver's license,
nothing else.
At this point they had nophysical evidence, no
fingerprints, no DNA or blood.
After three weeks and many,many lab hours the state had not

(55:27):
found a shred of evidencelinking Keith Jesperson to Tanya
Bennett's murder, or even herperson, her body.
This is when Jim McIntyre feltcertain that Keith Jesperson was
lying and that he had nothingto do with Tanya Bennett's
murder.
On October 11th 1995, jimMcIntyre began preparing to

(55:47):
write his final report toDistrict Attorney Mark Shrunk.
He was going to report that heand the prosecutor's office
could not act to change anythingwith regard to Laverne Pavlenak
and John Sosnowski'sconvictions.
Pavlenak had been found guiltyby a jury.
Sosnowski had pled guilty byway of a no-contest plea which

(56:09):
has the same effect as a guiltyplea.
And just for the record, Ithink there was a specific
reason why John Sosnowski pledno contest.
And on this point, for those ofyou who don't have a criminal
record, when you plead guiltyyou can't just say I'm guilty.
That's insufficient, unlessyou're allowed to do a

(56:29):
no-contest plea, and then youcan just say no contest.
But when you plead guilty youactually have to give the court
what's called an allocution, andan allocution is telling the
court what you did to be guilty.
It's providing a factual basisfor the guilty plea.
Well, detective Chris Petersonwas not satisfied.
After checking with JimMcIntyre first and, I assume,

(56:53):
getting permission, detectivePeterson ordered the Explorer
Scouts back out to theembankment on Saturday October
14, 1995.
This time they brought machetesand clippers.
The plan they were going tohack away all of those
Blackberry bushes.
This hadn't been done the firsttime.
Then they would search the bareground.
Jim McIntyre coached his son'ssoccer team and they had had a

(57:17):
game on this particular day.
This is not long after Petersontakes the Scouts back out.
Jim had just arrived home afterthe soccer game when he got a
phone call from DetectivePeterson.
It was about 4 pm.
He sat down on his bed andpicked up his phone.
Peterson asked if he wassitting and McIntyre said that
he was sitting.
Detective Peterson said quoteJim, I am holding Tonya

(57:41):
Bennett's driver's license in myhands.
End quote Jim.
Mcintyre responded quote don'tbullshit me.
End quote Peterson.
Quote I'm not, it's coveredwith mud.
Looks like it's been here sometime along with other stuff from
her purse.
End quote.
Mcintyre then jokingly saysquote go tell them to put it
back.
Jesus Christ, go bury it.

(58:03):
I don't want to hear this.
End quote.
Here's the thing Police, lawenforcement and the prosecution
had never known where even tolook for Tonya Bennett's purse
or its contents.
Pavlenak hadn't known where itwould be.
No news accounts did or couldhave ever provided any
information, because only TonyaBennett's murder would know how

(58:27):
and where they disposed of thesethings.
And now Keith Jespersson hadled them exactly to its location
, which was several miles fromwhere Tonya Bennett's body had
been dumped.
It was undeniably clear KeithJespersson had information that
only Tonya Bennett's murdercould possibly know.
He absolutely unquestionablyhad to have been involved in

(58:51):
Tonya Bennett's murder.
This isn't terribly surprisingto me, but while McIntyre now
believed wholeheartedly thatJespersson was involved in Tonya
Bennett's murder, he did notyet concede or necessarily
believe that this meant thatPavlenak and Sosnowski were
definitely not involved in hermurder and from what I can tell,

(59:12):
this is what McIntyre chose tobelieve at this time that all
three of them are involved inTonya Bennett's murder.
Why?
Because this is the easiestthing right for prosecution.
It's a painful thing toconsider the fact that you've
put someone away that's innocent.
They almost got the deathpenalty, two people got life
sentences and the amount of workinvolved in fixing this kind of

(59:34):
thing and the embarrassment ofnot getting this right.
You'd lose sleep over it.
But to continue pursuingDistrict Attorney Mike Shrunk's
mandate to find the truth andget to the bottom of all of this
, mcintyre had had investigatorsout trying to locate a woman
named Roberta Ellis, who hadpreviously been identified as

(59:55):
Keith Jespersson's girlfriend atthe time of Tonya Bennett's
murder.
Two days after DetectivePeterson and the Explorer Scouts
found Tonya Bennett's driver'slicense, they finally tracked
Roberta Ellis down, much to JimMcIntyre's dismay.
When Roberta Ellis was informedthat Keith Jespersson was in
jail for murder, she repliedsaying, quote oh, I've always

(01:00:21):
hoped that what he told me was adream end.
Quote.
When she returned from atrucking hall in late January of
1990, she saw that Jesperssonhad moved their mattress from
the master bedroom to the livingroom.
As she started to fall asleepthat night, jespersson told her
that while she was gone he hadmet a girl at the B&I Tavern,

(01:00:42):
that he brought her home, thathe killed her and that it had
made him feel powerful.
According to reports, this newscaused McIntyre to reel and he
had to admit that.
Here was evidence that putJasperson in as in in to Tanya
Bennett's murder, while takingPavlenak and Sosnovsky out.
The dates of Roberta Ellis'trucking haul, the B&I Tavern,

(01:01:06):
even the mattress fit all of theright time periods and facts.
But I can't make this up.
But Jim McIntyre thought Ellisis Jasperson's ex-girlfriend.
Possibly she could be gettingeven for some old offense that
she felt Jasperson had caused toher.

(01:01:26):
Because of this, on October24th 1995, fbi agents
administered independent andseparate polygraph exams to
Jasperson and to Pavlenak inorder to see if Jasperson
somehow knew Pavlenak andSosnovsky.
Both Jasperson and Pavlenakinsisted that they didn't know

(01:01:46):
each other and neither of themshowed any signs of deception
whatsoever.
Mcintyre resisted for one moreday.
He wondered if someone, anyone,could have fed critical
information to Jasperson,enabling him to know things that
he shouldn't.
So McIntyre asked Jasperson'sattorney if he could review his

(01:02:07):
notes about the initial, veryfirst meeting with his client,
keith Jasperson.
Now, normally that kind ofthing is attorney work product
and is privileged.
But Jasperson wanted all ofthis, so he gave permission to
his attorney to allow McIntyreto look at his notes.
And what did McIntyre find inJasperson's attorney's notes?

(01:02:29):
He found that Jasperson hadgiven his attorney all of the
exact same facts and the samestory from the very beginning,
before Jasperson's story hit thepress and before Jasperson had
any contact with the media.
Mcintyre just wanted the wholeentire thing to go away.
But regardless of what hewanted, truth and justice now

(01:02:52):
required him to act to undo whathe had done five years
previously.
He now knew and accepted thatnot a single word of Pavlenak's
stories had any truth to them.
It had all, without exception,been total and utter lies.
Hoping to fix all of this, mikeSchrunk arranged for an

(01:03:13):
expedited hearing at the MarionCounty Circuit Court in Salem,
near where Pavlenak andSosnowski were imprisoned.
On October 25th 1995, mcintyreand other prosecutors worked
through the night to prepare a21-page memo that summarized
their conclusions regarding theinnocence of Pavlenak and

(01:03:34):
Sosnowski and the guilt of KeithJasperson.
On October 26th 1995, they werebefore the court.
Mcintyre and Schrunk statedthat quote "'We have made a
mistake.
If we knew then what we knownow, we would never have
prosecuted these people.
This wrong must be undone".
End quote.
Everyone believed that they hada done deal.

(01:03:56):
It was an unprecedented scene,with all of the prosecutors, all
the defense attorneys and allof law enforcement holding hands
and singing let them free.
Instead of immediately signingthe release order, presiding
circuit judge Paul Ibskum saidthat he had not yet had
sufficient time to review thedocuments presented to the court

(01:04:16):
, including the proposed releaseorders.
Everyone was shocked by this.
Mike Schrunk argued and pleadedwith the court to sign the
release orders.
Judge Lipscomb refused andeveryone left the court
empty-handed.
Four days later, on October29th 1995, judge Lipscomb wrote
in a written ruling that he wasdeclining to release Pavlenak

(01:04:39):
and Sosnowski.
The opinions stated that whilethe state's brief was quote
troubling, end quote it is quotenot conclusive in establishing
either the guilt of KeithJasperson or the innocence of
Pavlenak and Sosnowski, and muchdoubt still remains.
End quote.
Judge Lipscomb further wrotethat quote under our rule of law

(01:05:01):
, a jury verdict cannot later besimply set aside by some other
judge.
Likewise, following convictionand sentencing, the prosecutor
loses nearly all power to causeany verdict to be set aside.
End quote.
For the next month, prosecutorsand defense attorneys worked
together side by side to find asolution.

(01:05:22):
On November 2nd 1995, keithJasperson pled no contest to the
murder of Tanya Bennett and hedrew life sentence.
And at that point Oregon Stateofficially had two separate
people in prison for the samemurder, based on two entirely
different theories about how thesame murder occurred.

(01:05:42):
No one could believe that acourt in the United States would
allow known innocent parties toremain in prison for crimes
that they had not committed.
And people began spitting.
Metaphorically speaking, tomFellen, jasperson's attorney, is
known to have publicly andsarcastically stated quote who
cares about the rule of law?
There is no room to believethat these two people had

(01:06:04):
anything to do with the murder.
End quote.
Pavlenak's attorney, wendellBerkland, is known to have
publicly stated quote if thecriminal justice system can't
allow for the release of aninnocent person when all agree
she is innocent, then thecriminal system is broken.
In an interview with the mediaconducted at his local Elks Club
, detective Ingram stated quoteI used to believe I used to

(01:06:29):
support the death penalty.
I don't believe in it as firmlyanymore.
I feel helpless.
Those two should not be in jail.
If I could do anything to getthem out, I would.
At a second hearing on November27, 1995, judge Libscombe
finally relented.
By this time he had beendeluged with briefs and

(01:06:50):
investigative documents and alsoprobably with very harsh
letters from the public.
At this hearing, judgeLibscombe conceded that Pavlenak
and Sosnowski indeed wereinnocent and, more to the point,
he accepted the lawyer'sproposals for how to free them
For post-conviction relief.
In essence, it's required thatsome violation of constitutional

(01:07:13):
right must have occurred toundo the sentences and
convictions such as Pavlenak'sand Sosnowski's Under then
existing Oregon State law.
Sosnowski's release was quiteeasy.
Libscombe ruled that hisconstitutional rights had been
violated because Pavlenak at onepoint, while wired for sound by
the police, had tried to gethim to admit guilt.

(01:07:36):
So Sosnowski was going to bereleased and his conviction
overturned.
Pavlenak's release and oroverturning of her conviction
was gonna be trickier.
Judge Libscombe stated thatPavlenak's conviction had been
obtained legally and withoutviolation of her constitutional
rights.
Judge Libscombe stated that herconduct had been a quote, a

(01:08:00):
front to our entire criminaljustice system.
End quote and also quote.
The cost to taxpayers has beenenormous, the cost to Sosnowski
incalculable, end quote.
But, and despite this, thejudge held that to continue to
imprison a factually innocentperson would violate Oregon
State's constitutional guaranteeagainst cruel and unusual

(01:08:23):
punishment.
Therefore, while Pavlenak'sconviction would remain with her
continuing to be quote legallyguilty end quote she could walk
free.
Sadly, this is where I have tosay that the stupidity and
intellectual ineptitude that Imentioned earlier even touched
the judge, because Pavlenak'sconstitutional rights had been

(01:08:46):
violated.
Remember the judges ruling attrial about the messages
scrawled on the bathroom wall inLivingston Montana, where the
judge held that that wasinadmissible hearsay with no
indication of reliability.
Regardless, in the end Pavlenakand Sosnowski got out and
Jesperson got what he wanted andme?

(01:09:06):
I was right all along.
It was a serial killer.
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

(01:09:28):
story.