Unraveling Small-Town Mysteries: Crime, Media, and Justice in the Pacific Northwest

Have you ever wondered what lies beneath the surface of small-town mysteries? This episode takes you into the heart of the Pacific Northwest with a focus on Fall City and Carnation, where peculiar happenings have left both residents and investigators scratching their heads. Steve Hickey, a veteran crime reporter, joins us to unravel the threads connecting the notorious 2007 Carnation massacre to a recent, equally baffling case in Fall City. His unexpected involvement as a potential juror adds a personal twist, as we navigate the murky waters of crime reporting and the intense public scrutiny that comes with it.

Our discussion takes a critical look at the media's role in shaping legal narratives, especially when traditional journalism intersects with modern platforms. We dissect a gripping case that has captured the attention of a tight-knit community, where the delicate dance between media coverage and legal proceedings can influence the course of justice. The volatile nature of these events underscores the challenges faced by law enforcement and legal teams, highlighting the broader implications for the communities affected.

We also explore the evolution of crime investigation, from the potential of DNA testing to the ethical dilemmas surrounding juvenile suspects. The chapter on crime scene controversies offers insights into the intricacies of legal strategies, while our conversation about sex work and crime prevention provides a broader societal perspective. Steve Hickey's insights—paired with my own reflections—promise a nuanced exploration of true crime, justice, and community impact. Join us for an eye-opening episode that promises to challenge your perceptions of crime and media.

Fan Mail Be apart of the show, or send your suggestions or feedback.

Support the show

Elevate the Extraordinary: Support U.S. Phenomenon!

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to US Phenomenon, where possibilities
are endless.
Put down those same oldheadlines.
It's time to expand your mindand question what if?
From paranormal activity toUFOs, bigfoot sightings and
unsolved mysteries, this is USPhenomenon?

Speaker 2 (00:20):
From the Pacific Northwest in the shadow of the
1962 World's Fair, the SpaceNeedle.
Good evening, I don't even knowhow to talk anymore.
Good evening, this is MarioMagana and I'm your host for US
Phenomenon.
I'm a little.
Oh, jesus Christ, I'm so allright.
Yeah, I'm just puttering alonghere.
Our guest tonight is nostranger to this show and many

(00:45):
of those around the PacificNorthwest and abroad.
If he's not out chasingtelevangelists in Texas, he's
out here in the Northwest, beingthe, I would say, leading the
chase for crimes out here in thePacific Northwest, the, uh, the

(01:07):
chase for crimes out here inthe pacific northwest.
Our guest tonight is stevehickey, photog.
Steve, uh 81, I mean, jesuschrist, welcome back to the show
.

Speaker 3 (01:15):
Wow, hopefully having me, especially under these
circumstances.

Speaker 2 (01:18):
I mean, I just am gonna go ahead and just continue
to get go through it, but, um,let me ask you this.
So when we decided that we weregoing to do this topic here
about one of the biggest let mejust get to what the hell's in
the water in fall city carnation, I mean, think about this real

(01:38):
quick you had this massacre thathappened on christ Eve 2007.
The carnation, where theboyfriend and the girlfriend or
whatever they were, I mean theykilled the entire family.
It was like a whole thing.
And then now we have thissituation.
Now this is in Fall City, right?

Speaker 3 (02:03):
That's correct.
What's in the water?
No-transcript man.

Speaker 2 (02:13):
When they do it, they do it big I was gonna say
because, like, I mean, Iremember that case in general
and man boy, well, let me tellyou, when I was, uh, before I
started doing the radio show, Iwas still working in in
broadcast, but I got summonedfor that case.
I made it into the jury box,which was cool, really cool.

(02:36):
Um, my only, you know, I waspretty straight down the middle.
Just I was really trying to tryto work it and, sure enough, um
, you know, uh, the guy, um I,what was his name?
Um, um, I want to say it waslike my uh, uh, mcelroy, or

(02:59):
something like that.

Speaker 3 (03:00):
So I should have prepped for that one.
I didn't even think about it.
Yeah, I think it was, though sohe was there in the.

Speaker 2 (03:05):
He was sitting there looking at me.
I was like, oh my god, I'm like, I'm sitting this close.
I mean I'm in the jury box, the.
What eventually got me out ofthe the case was I mean I you
know I couldn't sit in on a longcase like that and not get paid
.
So, yeah, I appreciate kingcounty for uh allowing me to
walk, but, man, that would havebeen a great case to be a part

(03:25):
of.
Yeah, absolutely.
So what's going on in uhcarnation?
I know that you, uh there'sbeen some twists and uh, some
twists and turns in regards tothis false city case, in regards
to implications of like thathave been transpiring and and
like kind of bringing you intothe fold.
Is that right?

Speaker 3 (03:43):
yeah, oddly enough, you know, normally I'm from the
outside looking in.
I didn't expect to get named inthe documents and that's exactly
what happened and so, um, youknow, there's been some it's
kind of the latest big twistsand turns and and we just had a
final hearing yesterday on thisportion was there has been an
insinuation that the defense hadparticipated in evidence

(04:03):
tampering, evidence theft, andthen the defense had
participated in evidencetampering, evidence theft, and
then the defense came back andaccused the prosecution of
really trying to take away theirclient's ability to a fair
trial, dragging this unfairlyinto the media and used me as an
example because I was on theJohn Curley show on Cairo Radio
and spoke about some of theconversations I had.
In the end it was very muchtaken out of context radio and

(04:24):
spoke about some of theconversations I had.
In the end it was it was verymuch taken out of context.
We can go through some of thattonight, but uh, it was
interesting nonetheless, just tobe, you know, brought into it,
brought into the rough in theend.
That you know there's been adetermination yesterday of, uh,
who's at fault or not at fault.
We can go over tonight, but itwas really it was kind of an
interesting thing, because younever know who's watching.

(04:46):
You never know who's listening.
Sure, and it could be reallysmart people sitting around
analyzing what you've said anddone as if it's post-game
footage, and I think I like that.
You know, after the footballgame they come back and go hmm,
what do you think about this?
What do you think about that?
Like drawing the circle, whatdo you think about right there?

Speaker 2 (05:08):
And then making making you know a determination
that they believe that there'ssomething improper happening.
What's interesting to me aboutthat piece where you talk about
the improper uh conversationsthat may have what they were
thinking may have happened?
no, uh, you're, you're press yesyou are press, so uh, is it?
Would you say that there maybeit's cutting edge?
We're on the fringe right now,because of you being a newer

(05:30):
style of media, that they werecoming after you, well, so they
seem to go after the work I wasdoing in the I guess
quote-unquote legitimate side.

Speaker 3 (05:39):
It was what I was doing on a mainstream channel,
if you will, a legacyorganization that I contribute
to pretty frequently, and sothey you know later on in it
then they talk about socialmedia and all that and they
didn't even seem to lump me inthat.
So I took that as well.
Okay, I guess that's kind ofgood.
Maybe I I also don't agree withkind of that, the framing

(06:00):
that's I think some people puton this, as this is something
different.
For those of you who'vefollowed my work, you know I
really try and do moretraditional, old school style
journalism, but through socialmedia platforms, just because I
think it kind of removes some ofthe constraints you might have.
You know I don't haveadvertisers I have to answer to.
I don't have the timeconstraints.
Sometimes I think I get anunfair advantage where I go.

(06:22):
Man, you went so much deeperthan the other organization gave
somebody.
Well, yeah, they had to have itin by 11 am or noon or one
o'clock.
I just kept going untileverybody else was done and the
extra evening I took made a muchbetter piece.
That doesn't mean they didn'thave the skills or the talent to
do the same.
They just had a deadline.
And I don't have those becauseI'm out here, kind of on the

(06:43):
outside.

Speaker 2 (06:44):
On the outside looking in.
I believe that this is themedia of the future the way in
which how you're continuing toproduce cut footage.
Put these pieces together.
Now, what intrigued you themost about this case from the

(07:06):
beginning?

Speaker 3 (07:08):
Well, so day one when it happened I was still in
Texas, as you mentioned, chasingchurch, chasing megachurch
pastors, and so I wasn't backuntil it was so cheap, I just
had to buy it.
Yeah.
So you know, when I firststarted getting information the
morning of and this was veryearly on I think when I heard
the age range and the amount ofvictims involved, it was like

(07:32):
okay, we have something veryunique here thing.
When they were going, theythought it was a swatting
incident.
They actually didn't think itwas real at first.
What was coming in was just soover the top.
And then the second call camein and they realized this very
much is exactly what they said,and so those things really stuck

(07:55):
out to me.
And then obviously, ithappening in a town like that
and, granted, you know, a familyof five getting killed really
in any area is remarkable.
But, especially when you're inthese picturesque towns, that
you don't expect it.
Thankfully it is an area thatis unincorporated King County,
meaning they get the King CountySheriff's Office, which is a
very skilled, very robust agencythat can handle big cases like

(08:18):
this.
I'm sure small departments getto as well.
If you look at the BrianKoberger case you know that was
a very small department thatthen had to take that thing on
and they've managed to getthrough it.
But the pace that this case hasworked I think is a big
testament to washington statepatrol and the king county
sheriff's department being thelead agency with that being said

(08:38):
, um, I mean for the town of uhCity.

Speaker 2 (08:44):
I mean it's tiny, that's right.
You know, they just kind ofstick to themselves, kind of
small town.
Everyone knows each other.
There.
I mean, the vibe just isdifferent there.
It is very much different there.
I mean, I remember living outin Stockholm and being able to
spend some time down by theriver.

(09:05):
Down there in Fall City.
People are, you know, everybodyknows each other.
It's just a different type offeel and to have something like
this happen is kind ofeye-awakening, but it's so
shocking to think you're like,wow, this is like right in our
backyard, that's right.
So Steve is hanging out with usthis evening.

(09:25):
Think you're like, wow, this islike right in our backyard,
that's right.
So, uh, steve, uh is uh hangingout with us this evening?
Uh, photog, steve, 81 steve.
When you, when you took on thiscase and you had to go um and
and spend some time in court,yeah were you thinking that this
was going to be knockout, dragout like this?
it was going to get muddy foryou you know they can.

Speaker 3 (09:44):
I I didn't know what this one because you don't
really know what type ofargument they're going to have.
And they do have an uh, anargument that is counter to what
investigators say happened and,as that has come to light, and
especially through this lastmotion, trying to get the
defense to basically compellingthe defense to turn over all of
their discovery.
This is going to be a knockout,drag-out fight.

(10:06):
It's not done.
The fact that there was thismotion made and there's been a
ruling on that yesterday doesn'tmean that this isn't going to
continue to be a very volatilecase, especially sitting there
yesterday.
That hearing that normallyprobably would have went about
15 minutes went about an hour.
And the defense side side, thenew attorney I'd struggled.

(10:27):
I actually took it out of mypiece.
I said that she had gottenemotional when speaking with
passion and I think sometimesthat can get misinterpreted,
especially for women whenthey're in a place of authority.
So I took that line out.
But I will say I'm putting upthe entire hearing here in the
next couple of days or somethingto redact out certain bits of
information I'll talk about herein a little bit.
But you know it was anemotional hearing and then the

(10:50):
senior deputy prosecutingattorney, who was there as well,
was getting visibly frustrated,was starting to stumble on
words and wanting to interject.
That's not typical.
This isn't, like you know, lawand Order.
Um, some of the other shows wesee where it's.
I object.
These are very structuredhearings with career

(11:10):
professionals who know how tomanage their emotions, and it
was an emotional hearing forsomeone who has, who's jumping
in right now listening.

Speaker 2 (11:19):
They're like what, what have I been missing?
Give them the Cliff Notesversion of what's been going on,
what's transpired from thebeginning to now.

Speaker 3 (11:29):
So on October 21st just last month, there was a
call at about 4.55 am to 911,and it came from a young man who
still has not been identifiedpublicly and I'll talk about
that in a little bit from LakeAlice Road, saying that both of
his parents and four siblingshad all been shot and killed.

(11:49):
He goes on to say that he'shiding in the bathroom and that
it was his brother, who's nowdeceased, who did this.
He goes on to say the brotherbasically did this and committed
suicide and that he was theresafe and so they start sending
resources.
Well, shortly after, just sevenminutes later, another phone
call comes in from thesupposedly one of the sisters

(12:10):
who's supposedly deceased.
She's not deceased, she'smanaged to get out of the home,
she has been shot and she is ata neighbor's house about a
quarter mile down the road.
She says everybody's deadexcept my brother, names the
brother who's on the phone withdispatchers on the other line
and says he's actually theshooter.
So they relay that to deputiesat 5-11.

(12:31):
So we're now about 16 minutesinto call.
They get there and they detainthis one.
We're going to call him the15-year-old suspect.
They detain the 15-year-oldsuspect.
As they go through the housethey identify 43-year-old Mark
Humiston, who's deceased.
The wife is deceased.
Seven-year-old Catherine isdeceased and then also Joshua

(12:54):
who was 13 years old, alsodeceased.
They officially take Andrewinto custody.
So first they detain him, butthey take him into custody.
At 5.33 am the sister, sinceshe's been shot, is being
transported to the hospital forher injuries.
They have that initialstatement that they got on the
911 call, but they're going tobe sending investigators over

(13:14):
there to talk to her to learnmore about what all has happened
.
So as they do that and theyinterview her farther, according
to her she saw her brotherwe're going to call the
15-year-old suspect who's stillalive go and systematically
execute each family member,supposedly also shot her and it

(13:37):
sounds like from the reportsthat I have read, she got hit in
the neck and she either put ahand up or caught a second one
and then played dead.
And so cause he went around andchecked to make sure each one
was no longer breathing and nolonger had a pulse the bed that
she was in.
Apparently, according to her,it was an awkward reach for the
suspect who still checked anddidn't realize that she was

(14:00):
still breathing.
She held her breath.
So when he then went out ofthat room and finally made the
911 call.
That's when she went out of awindow and went over to this
neighbor's house.
It's not clear when he realizesshe's alive.
Obviously he finds out frominvestigators at some point that
she is still alive and thatshe's accusing him of doing it.
So by the very next day firstoff, I mean, massive amounts of

(14:24):
resources are on this thing now,outside of the initial response
, which of course is fire andaid and so on State patrol
joined the party Sammamishpolice, you've got the King
County Sheriff's Department,state Patrol crime lab gets
involved, just layers uponlayers upon layers.
By the very next day, which isthe 22nd, autopsies are done on
three of the family members andthe suspect appears in court,

(14:47):
and so, as I mentioned, I wasback by this point.
So I go in there and usuallythey waive that first appearance
.
They didn't, but the rules area little bit different over
there.
It's a lot harder because theyare juveniles, and so the
defense makes an argument thatsays, hey, we are arguing
identity, there's an issue withidentity, and so that kind of

(15:10):
generically means like whenthey're chasing people, there's
a pursuit and they lose a directcontact with the car.
They can't see it anymore, andthen they catch up to it later.
There's an argument that nowyou have a problem with identity
.
What's to say that really was asecond person.
So since we have sister sayingthis, but nobody, there's no
other evidence.
They're saying, hey, we haveargument of identity and we also

(15:31):
have a theory that it wasn'thim.
So determinations made, we'renot going to show his face.
The other determination, though,which is is not typical.
So as a general rule, the mediadoesn't name juveniles, but in
a case like this, where the restof the family is named, his
name is going to get out.
I'm sorry, not the lawyer.
The judge makes an additionaldetermination that the media

(15:53):
cannot name the suspect, and whythis also matters is all the
public records have him named.
Everything I have in front ofme.
When I post it and publish it,I have to redact out stuff.
Normally that's pre-redacted,but we're not allowed to speak
about what is actually publicrecord, and the general
consensus in the media world iswe don't believe that this would

(16:18):
actually hold up in court, butnobody wants to be the first and
lose their court privileges.
So if somebody does break therule, you can expect to see
everybody start naming him Untilthen he's not going to be the
first and lose their courtprivileges.
So if somebody does break therule, you can expect to see
everybody start naming him Untilthen he's not going to be named
.
So he has given two publicdefenders, career professionals,
amy Parker and Molly Campera.
They've done this for a longtime.
They're not doing this so thatthey can eventually land a big

(16:39):
firm job.
They believe in it.
They've done it well over 10years, very, very seasoned in
this type of thing.
They don't address bail.
There was no expectation ofbail being granted.
That's the end of the hearing.
They also one other thing theyasked to go and see the crime
scene.
They wanted to go visit it andthat is granted.
They're given an hour to go doso.
The next day, which is October23rd, autopsies are performed on

(17:02):
the last of the victims andeverybody's identified, and so
out of that there was someinteresting things.
So 9-year-old Joshua Humistongot a gunshot wound to the head.
43-year-old Mark Humiston,which is the father, multiple
gunshot wounds.
Catherine Humiston, the7-year-old, has one gunshot

(17:22):
wound to the head.
Sarah Humiston, the mother,multiple gunshot wounds to the
head and to the abdomen.
And then Benjamin Humiston,which is the 13-year-old who the
suspect says did this, hasmultiple gunshot wounds to the
head.
I don't know, because I haven'tbeen able to see the reports
exactly, where those enter andexit.

(17:43):
I don't know, because I haven'tbeen able to see the reports,
exactly where those enter andexit.
That, of course, will be a bigpart of the evidence later to
determine whether or not it ispractical for that person to
have sustained those in aself-inflicted way.

Speaker 2 (17:55):
What's interesting that sticks out to my mind here
on this case is if the victimwho shot himself allegedly was
checking on the bodies, wouldn'tthere be DNA evidence on said
suspect's hand?

Speaker 3 (18:13):
Yeah, absolutely, and so that is one of the things
that comes up later in thedocuments, one of the challenges
that comes with this.
You know, we get probable causedocuments.
We get a lot of things.
We don't get everything andthere's so much evidence and it
would be inappropriate.
A lot of these things can goout into the public and then end
up on gore sites and placesthat they really shouldn't be so
.
But at the time, you know, itwas very curious how you could

(18:35):
say malt, and it does happen.
You know my background.
I've mentioned before.
I was an emt right and I amfamiliar with suicide calls and
sometimes it does take more thanone.
That's usually low caliber andthey usually are a certain
direction.
You're not going like thisright and so it's more like this
.
So, depending on what comes outof that, I think that will be

(18:56):
discussed heavily down the line.
So on the 25th, there's adetermination at that point to
amend the charges.
25th, there's a determinationat that point to amend the
charges.
Originally it was going to befive murder charges with
domestic violence enhancements,and then the one attempted
murder.
They make a determination thatthe domestic violence

(19:16):
enhancement doesn't actuallyapply to siblings and so they
make some modifications.
It really doesn't matter.
It was a big headline at thetime but ultimately it's really
just making sure thateverything's compliant.
Again, no plea entered and thiswas one that stuck out to me as
well.
There was an ask at that pointand this is that Friday for a

(19:39):
mental health evaluation, andthe defense pushes to deny that
request and are ultimatelysuccessful in doing so.
And I talked to Ann Bremner, whohas been my quotable legal
source on a lot of this.
It's been amazing For those ofyou who don't know who Ann
Bremner is, if you remember ViliFulao with the Mary-Kay Laterno
case.

(19:59):
She was Vili Fulao's attorney.
She contributes to a lot ofcable news, really kind of a
local legend, and been involvedin a lot of big cases.
So if Ann, if you see this,thank you again for all of your
time.
She mentioned she goes.
Well, it's sometimes thathappens because the defense
really wants to control who thatperson is.
If it's done by the state, youdon't know who it is, and so on.

(20:19):
So nonetheless, that's where itis.
They then at that point plan tonot meet again till november
8th.
Well, they give the the houseback now to the maternal
grandmother.
So deceased mom's mom nowcontrols the estate and she has
scheduled a cleaning company toshow up that saturday the 26th.

(20:40):
The defense is saying now that,hey, we want to get back in
there, we need more time.
An hour wasn't enough.
And so first they say that theyasked the family to get in.
The family is not interested indoing that the maternal
grandmother.
And so on Saturday there's anemergency order filed to get
access to the scene again andthe judge that weekend says I

(21:05):
don't know where to even go withthis whole thing, but what I
will do is lock the scene down,it's ice, no one can go back in
and you'll have a hearing nextweek and you can argue your case
October 28th.
They have that hearing and thisis in front of Judge Veronica
Galvin, and this state basicallysays hey, you don't need to be
back in.
If you do, we should be therewith you.

(21:25):
The defense makes an argumentthat I haven't seen before and
they say well, we do need to goback in Some basics where we
want, from like 10 am to 8 pm,we want to be able to look in
all these places, but more thanthat, we believe that we are
inherently officers of the courtand because of that we

(21:46):
shouldn't be supervised.
King County Sheriff'sDepartment shouldn't be even in
the building.
We definitely don't want themhearing what we are saying and
we should be able to go inunobstructed.
The judge agrees, and this issomething a lot of us haven't
seen before, and it becomes kindof interesting later in the
argument, because the defense issaying, hey, this is a scene of

(22:09):
a crime, while the prosecutionis saying crime scene, it's
always a crime scene, it'llalways be a crime scene, and
that comes up later in the story.
So there's a few conditions made, so they agree to the 10 to 8
pm no entering cabinets orcontainers, only search binders
and papers in plain view in theboy's bedroom.
No searching of BAH, which iswhat we're calling the surviving

(22:30):
sister, because she has notbeen identified, which that is
typical and I should alsomention in all the documents I
have she's never fully, she'sonly listed as BAH, and that is
typical.
But they may enter for aFarrows scan.
And so for you real estateprofessionals out there, if
you're familiar with theMatterport, it's the 3D modeling
Farrows, basically the samething.

(22:50):
But it's the accepted standardin legal cases like this.
They're not allowed to look atschool docs, medical docs or any
legal records and no items canbe removed.
But all items identified forfurther review will be provided.
Meaning they say, hey, wereview will be provided.
Meaning they say, hey, we wantsomething in there.

(23:11):
Then they have to go through aprocess to get that.
So on October 29th they go back,but first the King County
Sheriff's Department, as part ofthe order, go in and document
the scene.
So they take picturesthroughout the house of what it
looks like before they enterDefense, enters the home, takes
up that entire time frame, thenleaves when the King County
Sheriff's Office goes tore-secure the home.
They say that they noticethings moved significantly.
They see things missing fromthe scene.

(23:32):
They mention that the cabinetsand containers have been opened
specifically cabinets, and itsounds like in the girl's
bedroom.
So they take photos of this.
They also notice a shoe thatthey said originally was outside
is now inside and there's thismissing container of Clorox
wipes.
And they then filed paperworkshortly after saying hey, you

(23:56):
guys touched the scene, you didthings you weren't supposed to,
and within 48 hours of this, thedefense team fully withdraws
from the case the existingdefense team, which was Amy
Parker and Molly Campera.
So, as this happens, on November1st a new attorney, kristen
Gestadt, joins on.
She is the owner of ObsidianLaw Group.

(24:18):
She's a private attorney,another career professional,
very good at her job.
But it stuck out to me becausethe first thing I thought was
well, how is that being paid for?
He had public defenders.
I know maternal grandmother'snot signing off on this.
That's the only place moneycould be coming from and I can't
imagine an attorney wantingthis case on pro bono, because

(24:39):
these are extremely heavy cases.
So then, on november 5th, thestate files a motion to cons to
compel discovery from thedefense.
They're saying hey, because youmade such a mess of this, we
want all your photos, all your,everything you collected, not
only from the time you went backbut also from the first time

(24:59):
you went in, and they outline itbecause of this significant
alterization to the scene.
So at that point the defensethen goes and makes a response.
It takes some time.
That was all I had to work with, and at that time that's when I
go on the John Curley show andI go through a similar rundown
that I just gave you, and a lotof the media is going with it.

(25:21):
The only other media outlet thatwas really on the cutting edge
of this was Como 4, which JeremyHarris and any of you who don't
know who Jeremy Harris isabsolute killer in this space.
I cannot speak highly enough ofhim.
I think he is a rare individual.
Highly enough of him.
I think he is a rare individual.
Not only is he a professional,great journalist, all the things
you would expect out ofsomebody in that spot but he

(25:46):
really understands the legalsystem.
He is extremely efficient inhis work and goes in and just
attacks things, and so we bothare putting stuff out within
about 30 minutes of each other,which is kind of fun because it
takes all the others.
So all the other stations endup trying to put something on
their website that night just tocatch up, and then, within days
, seattle times and all them arecatching up and you can tell
where they're using quotes thatwe already got and such, which
is in the news world Awesome.

(26:07):
It's never like, oh, you'recopying, it's like got it, you
watched it, you're catching up.
Yeah.
So they start catching up andthen comes this next hearing.
That happened this week.
Well, as they start filingdocuments, it got really wild.
First off, the accusations thatthey touched this stuff, took
things, is already really justoff the charts.
But the defense comes back andfiles about 60 pages of

(26:31):
documents and say what you'reaccusing of us of is provably
false.
You miscategorized your photos,you have them out of order.
We've checked the metadata andyou are being reckless in
accusing us of such things.
And they even put in therequotes from my appearance on the
John Curley Show and say SteveHickey says that he talked to
the prosecutor's office and theymade a comment about how they

(26:53):
were not surprised he called,which is true but in itself
really a non-issue.
What they're trying to say isthat the prosecutor's office was
trying to insinuate that.
Well, of course you would call,look what they're doing.
No, they just said yeah, wewere expecting to get a bunch of
phone calls and we don't have astatement, which I said on the
show.
They added I said well, what doyou think happens next?
They go, we don't really know.

(27:15):
There's not really a precedentfor this.
We don't have a statement.
Right, it was always kind ofjust like we don't know, we
don't know.
Well, they took that as as ifthe prosecutor's office was now
pushing information out todiscredit the defense, which I
didn't.
I don't interpret it that that.
I didn't interpret it as that.
I think they were actuallyextremely respectful to the

(27:35):
defense, saying we got nothingfor you.
Look at the documents.
The documents speak forthemselves what's up.

Speaker 2 (27:42):
It's wild to think that it could go down this
tumultuous world of hearsay.
But like, almost, like I don'tknow, like I don't want to put
anything out there, that's crazy, but it's like, almost, like
they're flailing a little bit.

Speaker 3 (27:58):
Yes.

Speaker 2 (28:00):
In regards to what was transpiring.
When I start sitting herelistening to you explain
everything, I start thinkingabout the OJ case and how that
all went down and how much timewas spent in the house.
That kind of thing.

Speaker 3 (28:18):
There's a couple ways to look at that too.
There are some defense teamsthat say you know what, let them
do all the investigation theywant.
And then it's up to us to justpick apart the investigation
when you make a decision to gointo the scene early, regardless
of this outcome.
Right, let's take out what theinsinuation of the outcome is.
When you go into that scene,you now have planted your flag
on what it was.

Speaker 2 (28:39):
Sure.

Speaker 3 (28:42):
And it's not as easy to go back and insinuate when
you also have borrower scans andso on.
It really depends on what youthink you're looking at.
I don't pretend to be anattorney or legal expert, but
from a strategy standpointthere's very different schools
of thought in that and if youlook at some of the big
historical cases, that's alwaysit Let the police do it, let
them then destroy the crimescene, so we can't go back and
see what it really was and thenjust prove that they screwed it

(29:03):
up.
But nonetheless, you know thiswas the decision they made and
you know I want to reiterate AmyParker and Molly Campari.
They're good at this.
They've done hundreds andhundreds of cases, many of which
involve homicides.
So you know they've, they havetalked with their client.
At this point I don't know whatthose conversations are, but
they came to the determinationthat this was a solid strategy

(29:25):
and they've also insinuated atthis point too, in writing, that
they are still going with thetheory that the brother did this
, the deceased brother did this,or at least working through
that theory and in the documentsthis, or at least working
through that theory, and in thedocuments they allude to
evidence that it's insinuatedthat the brother, the living
brother, the suspect, showered.

(29:47):
Between this happening and thephone call, and the timeline
shows a lapse in time from whensister leaves the house.
She has to go a quarter mile tothe neighbor's house and she
says that you know she was inthere playing dead for some
amount of time.
Over 10 minutes, possibly up to15 minutes, had passed and they

(30:08):
have said in the documentationthat there was a shirt of
suspect found that was wet anddid have blood on it and and I
don't know if they're going tosay, well, brother, deceased
brother, actually had that on,but it sounds like they also
found blood in the drain of thetub.
Now, any scene like this isgoing to have.
I won't get overly graphic withthis, but as somebody who has

(30:33):
been there on the first responseside as well, as somebody who
studies this frequently, youwould be probably surprised at
just how much fluid is createdin these situations.
And that was part of the reasonthe family said they didn't
even want to have the secondtime for the defense to go out
there because they say, hey,we've already got a cleaning
team in.
There's so much fluid that it'sdegrading the house.

(30:57):
And that's true Years ago,before any of this, I used to be
in construction and homebuilding.
We actually did somerestoration work for some
insurance companies where therewould be self-inflicted death,
and it was amazing what oneperson that process can destroy
a home, let alone.
You have all these people, andso I'm sure there's so much

(31:19):
evidence coming that we haven'teven seen yet that the state
crime lab is still going through.
But nonetheless, as theattorney, you have to go with
what you have and work throughthose processes.
So when we get to the hearingthis week which is something
I've really never seen before atthis point now Amy Parker and
Molly Kamper are now going to beon the other side of that
little half wall right, you gotthe half wall between the jury

(31:40):
and everybody.
Now they're on the side sitting, actually just a little ways
away from me, and ChristianGestalt is now in there, and
Jason Brookhiser, who's a seniordeputy prosecuting attorney,
are up on there as well as JudgeGalvin, and she's the one who
made the ruling before she'sgoing to overhear, oversee this

(32:03):
hearing now, and so as they gothrough this, the defense really
went on.
I, when I put this whole thingup, I really, uh, encourage
everybody to watch it becauseit's one of those rare ones.
I had a one of my camera guyswho hasn't worked court before
and afterwards.
Like man, I want to go to these.
All the time I was like theydon.
They're not usually thisexciting, but they go through
each photo and first they saidthe Clorox wipes were never
missing, they were in anotherroom.
How do I know that?

(32:23):
Because of the pictures yousupplied, sure, and then they go
through trying to pick apartthe other pictures.
Now the senior deputyprosecuting attorney does
acknowledge.
He says we concede you arecorrect on the Clorox wipes.
Those were not missing.
We concede that fully.
We stand by every otheraccusation in here.
You went through and openedcabinets.

(32:44):
There's apparently a bookshelfthat had been gone through.
And the defense says yeah, wedid, but it had glass doors on
the front of it.
We could see stuff in there, soit was in plain sight.
The prosecution says that's notenough and the judge says so
you're telling me that the plainsight doctrine doesn't apply
anymore, which is what lawenforcement uses heavily,
especially during traffic stops,to come up and look through

(33:06):
your windows and make adetermination if they can search
your car.
And the judge says I don'tthink you want to lean on this
what that will do to triggerthings down.
The you don't want, we don'twant, and decides that with
because there were glass doors,that it was plain sight and it
was reasonable to open it up.
Same thing about a lot of thecontainers.
Apparently these containerswere, you know, clear bins,

(33:29):
those type of things.
And so the judge says, yeah, inmy, in my order, I said you
can't touch that, but I I seethis as reasonable, what what
they went through, andreasonable what they tossed.
The prosecution then says, well, the sheets of the bed which
had a significant amount offluid on them had been tossed.
And the judge says, well, theyhad their expert there and he's

(33:50):
trying to see if he can getviable forensic evidence off of
it.
And you know, I think it's atestament.
Sometimes you see an orderthat's written very rigidly and
I think this order was writtenpretty rigidly but then comes
down to well, what did the judgeintend?
And now you have the same judgethis isn't an appeal later with
a different judge, you have thesame judge who wrote it, who

(34:11):
can then say, well, here's whatI intended.
And in the end it's determinedthat the defense did nothing
wrong, that they followed withinthe judge's intent.
Um, a lot of us in thecourtroom we're kind of looking
at each other, going really Likethis is we.
We didn't think it was,certainly didn't think it would

(34:31):
be that clean.
Once we heard, though, early onthe prosecution concede the.
Um, the early on theprosecution concede the Clorox
wipes, where they were like,okay, that's a big one.
But then it just seemed to godownhill from there.
And Judge Galvin also was aprosecuting attorney, as you
mentioned too in her previouscareer, and she really feels

(34:52):
like, hey, that this actuallycould have been solved just by
phone calls, feels like, hey,that this actually could have
been solved just by phone calls.
She almost admonished bothsides about why, why are we even
here?
She says literally quote shegoes this is much ado about
nothing.
You brings up an analogy abouthow, when she was a kid, she
would get vanilla ice cream, thesister, her sister, would get

(35:13):
chocolate.
They'd want to trade andsomehow that had to do with like
, basically, these are just kidsarguing over the things that
they've already been given.
And she felt like, had you guysjust called each other, gotten
to the bottom of this?
This wasn't necessary.
I will say the.
The prosecution did not seem to.
They accepted it,professionally accepted, but did

(35:34):
not agree with this.
This determination did notagree with this outcome one bit.
However, the defense was veryhappy with it.
I mean the body language.
Like I said, these are peoplewho were really trained to keep
their emotions locked in and itwas an emotional hearing.
So the suspect, the 15-year-oldsuspect, was in there for this

(35:54):
hearing as well and got to seethis thing go together.
It's been you, said earlier thesuspect looking at you.
I had that same thing.
So the first hearing I went tosure where he was going to be
out there.
Uh, you know, I go back to thathalf wall where we all sit on
the one side.
Yeah well, the tv cameras daisychains, so they have these
plugins, one camera films andeverybody plugs into the next so
they don't have a row ofcameras.

(36:14):
My camera can't daisy, so Ihave to go and film too.
So I go and talk to the bailiffand she goes oh, I'll get you a
spot.
And I was like I don't evenneed a special spot, I'm just
telling you why my sticks areout.
And she goes Nope, I'm going tosit.
She puts me on the other sideof the wall on the prosecution.
How do you get this spot?

(36:35):
I was like I don't know, man,I'm just up here but I'm out on
my own on that side and he comesin and looks at me First.
He looks at the crowd andfamily members are in there, by
the way, extended family.
He looks at me and just lockson me and I remember looking at
him going what?
And I'm thinking either onehe's wondering does you know
who's this camera guy comparedto those, and is this like a

(36:58):
court camera?
Or does he follow my work on onsocial media he's going.
Oh, that's that guy I'vewatched a bunch of times now.

Speaker 2 (37:05):
He's here.

Speaker 3 (37:11):
But I don't like being center of attention.
Anyways, in those scenarios Ialready felt awkward.
Being up front Is that theywere all looking.
And then to look at him and Iwas like I don't know, man, this
is just what we're doing today.

Speaker 2 (37:16):
What do you think?
How long do you think this caseis going to be?

Speaker 3 (37:19):
Yeah.
So that actually comes back toto what I found out about the
defense.
So, because the I had, I havesaid that my sources tell me
that they removed themselvesfrom the case because they were
conflicted out.
However, the they argue that no, it was a staffing issue.
That's why they pulled out ofthe case.
They since had to basically gooutside.

(37:43):
To the new private attorney.
They're paying her full boatbecause we owe this kid defense
and so I do crime news right,we're pretty black and white
over here.
Nonetheless, whether or not hedid or didn't do it, or you
think he did or didn't do it, inthis country we owe everybody
defense and then, once theentire public defense team

(38:04):
couldn't do it, you have tooutsource it.
But this thing they weretalking about in the hearing
upwards of five years.
The judge said this will nottake five years.
If that's the attitude you'rein, it will take five years.
Do not have that attitude.
But this will be a multi-yearcase.
You are looking at over amillion dollars in legal fees to
private defense to get there aswell, as there's going to be a
bunch of you know the expertwitnesses and more testing and

(38:29):
all of that.
So this is going to be a solidseven-figure cost to that
organization ultimately thetaxpayer.
But you know I don't hammer onthat much on the stuff I've put
out because I don't want peopleto feel like that in itself is
inappropriate.
That's exactly what we need todo.
I think how we got here mighthave been avoidable.
I also still wonder, behindclosed doors, what was the real

(38:53):
reason for outsourcing this.
But on record they say it wasspecifically because of staffing
issues over there that they'realready so backlogged.
They couldn't take on a casethis size.

Speaker 2 (39:02):
I'm sure I mean, especially if they're talking
multiple years in regards tothis case.
I know I just was watching someother stuff that was going on
in today's news.
What's going on in Bellevue, Imean oh yeah people.
Uh, I thought bellevue was likethe happy place.

(39:22):
You know everything's festiveand you get the lights and the
music and what's going on.

Speaker 3 (39:28):
I just walked in here from.
I was at a hearing for that andthen another case.
There's a big rollover onmichigan.
I worked and so I just walkedin the door and kind of
decompressing the hearing.
So we have a 87 year old man whowas accused or basically right
now accused, not charged yet ofkilling his 86 year old wife.
They both were living in anassisted living memory care

(39:48):
facility, and that matters,because it's not clear that he
knows what he did.
Um, he didn't understand whenhis Miranda rights were read to
him to that, and she may havenot known who he was.
We don't really know yet, butdevastating, it sounds like it.
And so Bellevue this is theirfirst homicide of the year, so

(40:10):
not a very violent place.
I don't know what that memorycare facility will be doing as
far as what they keep on siteand don't sure I don't know what
that memory care facility willbe doing as far as what they
keep on site and don't.
I don't know his case at all,but should he have had access to
knives in an organized facility?
I don't know.
I don't know what the historyis going to be.

Speaker 2 (40:29):
So Thanksgiving has already gone by us.
We were having dinner inEdmonds, uh for dinner and we
were heading home and to getback to west seattle you can go
two ways.
You can go back i-5 or you cango down the trusty 99 aurora,

(40:49):
yeah.
And so my daughter was likelet's go down down Aurora and
let's see what's going on.
Yeah, it was surprisingly quieton Thanksgiving evening.
There was nobody working.
Yeah.
So are we starting to see adownturn on the Ave there in

(41:11):
regards to ladies of the nightworking, Not at all, just that
night.

Speaker 3 (41:17):
I mean mean that was a fluke, just because everyone
had to get the turkey, yeah yeah, the men are out there trying
to uh do their family duties.
Yeah, sure, on every othernight it's it's plenty busy and
it's not really affected byweather rain a little bit just
because makeup and so on, but Imean you will see girls dress
like it's summertime, uh I don'tknow how they don't get around

(41:39):
I don't.
I would assume it's probablysubstance and so on that they're
having to manage the the painthat may go with that.
But yeah, so far I meanstatistic wise, numbers wise it
doesn't seem to be going down.
Um, I hit that area a bit.
It's not an area where a lot ofthe stuff I'm after happens.
It's really not.
You know, it's not the I'mlooking for homicides and scenes

(42:00):
of violence there are.
There is violence up there, forsure, but not people aren't
calling 9-1-1 but is it?

Speaker 2 (42:05):
is it a gang war?
Is it a turf war?
Is it a pimple?

Speaker 3 (42:08):
gang's got a lot to do with it.
You know the, the, the, thetrue pimps.
I'm speaking for them.
But uh, you know they're notinterested in that type of stuff
.
But when you get the gangcomponent in there, that's where
a lot of that comes from.

Speaker 2 (42:21):
I'm a lover, not a fighter.

Speaker 3 (42:23):
Yeah, I'm not trying to glamorize that life or any of
that, but nonetheless theyreally pride themselves in
saying, hey, we're not here forthe violence, we're not here for
shootouts and the gun totingand so on.

Speaker 2 (42:39):
But when gangs get involved, involved, that's going
to happen.
Do you think with uh, I meanwith a new administration coming
?
But do you see in the future ared light district where, like
maybe a portion of you know, 99becomes kind of a safe haven for
ladies of the night to be ableto work, to properly work, to
make an income, uh, to getsafely tested, uh, to understand

(43:03):
who their johns are?
That kind of thing do we?
Do we think that we seesomething like that in the
future?

Speaker 3 (43:07):
you know I don't do a lot of opinion, but I'll tell
you this I I think somethinglike that would probably make a
lot of sense.
Um, that's the closest I getinto giving my opinion.
I think you can see where I siton that.
But I feel like, fromeverything I see, the public's
just so far from that.
You have people who are verypassionate about it and I think
it gives a false sense of hopethat an organized structure can

(43:29):
be given to that.
I just don't see it, and Ithink it's a multitude of things
.
One, people just aren'tcomfortable with it too.
They've seen, seen it notorganized and not put together
and they're frustrated.
You know, I think it's also ifyou look at the las vegas and
nevada model.
Yeah, I think people get thisvision that it's like the strip

(43:51):
where this stuff goes down,where people.
It's not, it's far out and solike, geographically that may be
, yeah, it might be hard to puttogether out here because you
don't have a place where you cansay, okay, go out there x
amount of miles out.
You'd really have to have itwithin the city life and I don't
know that people would be readyfor that.
You know, and I think I thinkthe pushback for people against

(44:15):
something like that would bewell, look at safe, at safe
sites, safe use sites, look howwell that's worked right.
It's easy to then demonizesomething like that, where I
think this is.
I don't think that I don't.
I've seen that argument madebefore.
I don't think it applies tothis, because here you have two
consenting adults.
Over there I think you havesomething very different.

(44:36):
When you have people kind ofstuck in the bond and there's,
you know the whole, there's nota business structure to that,
which it shouldn't all be aboutbusiness.
But when you're looking attrying to structure something,
the business component is goingto help that happen we're not
condoling.

Speaker 2 (44:52):
Uh, you know we're just talking about and having
this the conversation becauseit's still an uptick in crime
and with this show, you know,we've been kind of covering some
horrific stories.
Um, man, yeah, we didn't seeanything on on the ave, which
was it was nice to see a quietnight driving down, although

(45:13):
there was cars that were stillkind of running around doing
their thing.
But it's interesting to me whenyou drive down that how much of
that still is that old school,industrial, 1980s vibe.

Speaker 3 (45:28):
Um, I kind of dig it, you know, just because it
reminds me I remember thosebuildings that I actually used
to see when I was a kid.
You drive around seattle somuch now and you forget what it
even looked like to see some oldfootage yeah, everything's
because it really just changedyeah tear down, rebuild, tear
down, rebuild.

Speaker 2 (45:42):
Yeah it's.
It's interesting because youthink about it too and you go
down, even like when I go downto Federal Way or down to Kent
Des Moines, and I head down thatway and I'm like man,
everything is so different nowand you know, being a part of
driving home.
I don't know if I've told youthis story, but I was little.
We were leaving the Mexicanrestaurant in Kent, down in

(46:06):
central Kent, heading homeacross the Green River Bridge,
and there were helicopters andthey found the first body that
night, that day, and I will saythis, being that young, I
thought the Green River Killerwas just coming after anybody.
I didn't know that he waslooking for young ladies or
prostitutes and things of thatnature.
And that's why I always thinkabout that piece coming after
anybody I didn't know.
I didn't know that he was, uh,looking for young ladies or, you
know, prostitutes and things ofthat nature.

(46:27):
And and that's why I alwaysthink about that piece where you
know, making a place where itmight be safe for ladies who do
that.
That's not something that I'minterested in, but maybe that's
you know, a safe haven to makesure that women aren't being sex
trafficked.
You know trafficked, or youknow trafficked, or you know
that they are able to.
You know, maybe theyrehabilitate themselves.

(46:49):
But again, it's the same thingas in you know the injection
sites.
It's like, oh, you knoweverything, everything has its
flaws.
And how do you make it flawlessor flaw proof?
I think that that's a long ways, you know.
You think about it.
You're like, okay, would youhave to put this on?
You know like way out inSnoqualmie, on you know like
incarnation or somewhere farwhere it's like a Carson city,

(47:11):
where it's on reservation, whereit's on sovereign land, that
kind of thing.
But then it gets, then it getsmessy when you start to think
about all those other thingsthat go along.

Speaker 3 (47:19):
I think, as you said, that that easy it's, easy it's,
you can never going to findperfection, and perfection is
the enemy of progress.
Sure, you know we got to trysomething.
What we know is going on is notworking.
Yeah, now there's a lot ofother reasons why, right, we
know that vice isn't what itonce was, and and there's other
things that could maybe belooked at.
But I think we can unilaterallyagree what we have doesn't work
.
So what else can we try?

(47:41):
And I think whenever you addstructure to something you're
going to have, you can go andtell everybody no, this is the
oldest game in the book, thisgoes back before the substances
we have.
Now.
This is not going anywhere.
Now you can maybe quell it, Iguess, and go down that route,
but I think a better optionwould be give the girls a way to

(48:05):
make money structured safely,and they're going to make more
money that way than they wouldwhere they're at now.
That's one of the rare thing.
If you look at I mean look atdrugs, or look at marijuana, I,
the people now with entiredispensaries, are making not the
money you would expect for whatit is.
All the other things seem tolower the price of structure.

(48:25):
It doesn't seem to work thatway in prostitution.
Yeah, you know that that'sstill very expensive, and then
the girls get to keep a lot moreof the money than they do when
they're when they're working fora pimp yeah, um, I was thinking
about this, a couple cases thatwe've talked about in the past,
um, the guy that uh pulled outa gun down in South Center, who

(48:46):
was?

Speaker 2 (48:47):
I mean, they made sure that that guy was unalive.
Any updates on that case, or isit pretty much no?

Speaker 3 (48:53):
I talked to people in close to the investigation and
you know they said,unfortunately, they really
wanted to go deeper because Ithink they believe that he was
involved in much more than weknow.
Sure, but they said whenthey're no longer there, they're
no longer a threat and we areso deep in other things that we
just don't get the resources tocontinue, and so they've moved

(49:14):
on.
I can tell you so icac internetcrimes against children are bus
people all the time.
I have a stack a mile high nowthey're trying to go through to
work those cases.
They're're certainly busy.
They get a lot of tips to.
I don't know if I mentioned inthe past.
They get a lot of tips actuallyfrom the platforms themselves
social media platforms, whenpeople have certain types of
chats or share certain types ofcontent.

(49:37):
I've still really been trying tofind a way I'd like to cover
not just their cases their casesare all well and good but
really get more into them as anorganization.
I've also really wanted to tryand look at creating an
organization to help try andcapture these types of people.
You know Chris Hansen, thoughhe did it very different.

(49:58):
You know he did it obviouslyfor salacious content, but it's
been a successful organization.
There's some other groups outthere that you don't see on TV
in the same way, but that dogood work.
The challenge is getting a goodrelationship with investigators,
because there's some people nowtrying this just to try and get
clicks on social media.
Where they meet these men justto shame them, and that doesn't

(50:20):
work.
You really just educate them onwhat to look for next time.
But more than that, to hit thatprosecutorial hurdle is really
hard, and so investigatorsreally don't like it, because
then they get this case that'skind of half full of shit
anyways, and now they have totry and make it into a
prosecution, or this person isjust going to be smarter for it
when they get out the other endand they're not convicted, and

(50:41):
so it's quite a challenge.

Speaker 2 (50:43):
Phot.
Steve 81.
Steve hickey, our guest thisevening.
Um any updates on, uh, our goodfriend, uh, gary ridgeway?
Do we know any?
Uh new updates from our buddy?
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (50:53):
you know, I don't know that he identified anything
or, if he did, they're stillworking through it, um, because
they've been very tight-lippedon it.
But by now, generally we shouldhave seen some sort of
breakthrough or some sort ofannouncement that, hey, here's
the fruits of that effort andnothing's come out.
And I know people who havehistorically been much closer to
the Gary Ridgeway cases than Icould ever dream of being, and

(51:16):
even they're saying, yeah, we'renot hearing anything, including
from some of the retired peoplewho were involved in the
investigation, saying we don'tknow what happened.
They obviously they went out,they thought it was credible, it
either hasn't panned out yet orit just didn't pan out.

Speaker 2 (51:32):
Vacation gary, you know, getting a little time back
in king county.
Um, it's strange to think abouthim.
Some of the other you knowserial killers wesley allen dodd
a lot of people don't talkabout him.
He was, you know, a childmolester, him.
Some of the other serialkillers Wesley Allen Dodd a lot
of people don't talk about him.
He was a child molester, scary,I mean 90s, and this guy said

(51:53):
if you don't hang me or if youdon't execute me, I will break
out of jail.

Speaker 3 (51:58):
That's right.

Speaker 2 (51:59):
And people need to start I don't know man, medicaid
, I don't know what's going onaround here the water or
something, steve, it's just,it's wild.
I mean, I can't you think ofthis case, the one that you've
been covering for us for thelast hour crazy to me, it's like

(52:22):
, horrific, like on levels thatI'm still in shock that anyone
has the capacity to do any ofthat remote stuff.
You know, and I'm surprisedthat I'm still in shock that
anyone has the capacity to doany of that remote stuff.
You know, and I'm surprisedthat I'm sure that this will
come out, that there will besome type of eval that will come
out on that young man, thesuspect.

Speaker 3 (52:38):
You know something, I should add.
So, talking to people who wereclose to this one, something
stuck out to me so there's thisteam that goes in whenever
there's a big case like that andit's called peer support, and
so peer support is alwaysbrought out to these big ones
and it's meant to help from thefirst responder side, because
they've seen things that mostpeople shouldn't, and they were

(53:00):
brought out to that site justlike they normally are, and a
lot who went in there would sayyou know what we're used to.
I mean, we know how to dealwith this stuff.
We've seen terrible things.
We've seen kids with theirheads blown off.
We've seen blood baths.
We're not dead to this stuff,but we know how to process that.
We know what that step lookslike.

(53:21):
What stood out to them was thecoldness of the suspect.
They said that was what at nightthey would wake up thinking
about, was this individual seemscompletely dead inside, and so,
whether or not this happenednow and he got caught now, or
would he have waited till laterin life and been a serial killer
or not, if he is indeed the onewho did this, we won't know.

(53:46):
I'm working on another story too, with CODIS, which is the DNA
database that we use out here,and so CODIS has had some
amazing breakthroughs just inthe last couple of years where
they're now taking the samesamples that are in the evidence
room from years ago that at thetime were not viable, and
they're coming back now andgetting viable, solid numbers

(54:07):
out of it.
Also, in the past you would getthis result, that is, this is
definitely the suspect, it's aone in seven million.
Now they're coming back saying,hey, we've taken a sample you
saw in the past that wasn'tviable, and we're not only
saying was it viable, but it'sone in seven billion.
That it's your sus, that thatrating you would hear in the

(54:30):
past and you think it was alwaysthe same number, like, yeah,
whatever, it's just it sure thatnumber's gotten so much bigger
and they're working stuff in thepast.

Speaker 2 (54:37):
So I'm hoping, as that continues to happen, we
will get to a point now whereyou realize that you really you
know why we're not seeing serialkillers in the same way anymore
like we did in the past well,it's interesting too when you
talk about this evidence in theuh dna piece with the whole jam,
uh jaminet ramsey case you know, reappearing, I I just still am

(54:58):
baffled that there's still notany like hard evidence of, like
yeah, it was x, y and z and Idon't know evidence wise.

Speaker 3 (55:04):
What happens with evidence from a case like that,
evidence of like, yeah, it was x, y and z and I don't know,
evidence wise, what happens withevidence from a case like that,
some of these?
There are times evidence doesfinally get tossed and sometimes
it gets kept.
I don't know the rhyme orreason.
I there's procedural issues,there's storage issues, there's
all those things that everydifferent agencies sure it's
going to come throughdifferently on um, but it's
getting to a point now and,talking to some of the people

(55:24):
involved in these testing,they're going.
You know we are now to a pointwhere, if it was practical which
it is not, but if it waspractical you could test every
stolen car on the steering wheeland we could tell you who stole
the car, who was in the car inthe last 24 hours.
It's not practical to backloadthat system to that level and
it's not cost effective.
But we are getting to a pointnow where they will find

(55:46):
something.
Now you still have to match it.
So there's that part.
You may get a viable sample,but you're one of those rare
people that nobody in yourbloodline has also done a
23andme right and you don't havea previous case and so on, but
it's getting very far and fewbetween.
There's a lot of these now whereit's distant relatives doing a

(56:08):
23andMe or Ancestrycom DNA testand then that's linking them
back and I think it's goodoverall.
But it's interesting to see thepublic now knows that and there
still seems to be no slowdownand people willing to take these
tests.
Right, we're so worried aboutcameras everywhere but we're

(56:30):
fine giving a dna sample.

Speaker 2 (56:32):
Sure, it like it's nothing and we do it for our
pets now and yeah, and speakingof cameras, they sure are
showing up all over the place inseattle now, yeah, I'm it's.
It's kind of wild, like if yougo down occidental, like they're
all over occidental, I don'tknow if they're uh and then the
back side over there, um, behindking five, I forget what the

(56:54):
street is over there where theykind of were, you know, hawk
alley, I believe, is what theycall it yep, there's so many
cameras that are just popping upeverywhere.
Is it because the city justdoesn't have the resources to
patrol, or is it Big Brother?
In regards to, hey, does theseprivate companies give Seattle

(57:20):
PD the video for that?

Speaker 3 (57:23):
Generally no, they should, and I think they're even
willing to, but it's quite abureaucracy.
I did a story last year about afire truck that was parked down
in Hunts Point that gotransacked while they were in the
side of the QFC and it had oneof these trailers outside that
has all the stuff.
So I went down the process ofjust trying to get that footage
and it was like dead end afterdead end after dead end.

(57:43):
These things are seen more asdeterrence than anything else.
They're just trying to preventcrime because if they do catch
it, you have to get the sign offof the business, you have to
get the sign off then of thenext person up and three other
managers, and all these thingshave to happen sure I don't know
why it's so difficult, but they, you know they're hoping that
by just putting it out it'llstop.
You also see more wash dotcameras.

(58:03):
So when you have city cameras,it's a very different process
than wash dot, which is thestate level, and you have areas
like seattle that have a lot ofhighways alaskan way viaduct,
not just the freeways, but youhave 99 aurora, all those places
too and they don't have to gothrough the approval process.
They can just put those thingsup, because state law is very
different, right, and so I thinkthings will adapt overall.

(58:27):
Maybe I'll start putting outcontent, just putting out the
hypocrisy of people giving theirDNA but being stressed about a
camera.
At the same time, I don't wantpeople not to give their DNA.
I think that's fine.
Sure, let's just be real here.
Why are we so worked up aboutone thing and yet giving away
far more data?

Speaker 2 (58:45):
I think, still, you think I'm on it too, and the
distraction of like, oh, youknow, you're like, oh, yeah,
cool, right, puppy, you know.
Oh, so I'm a quarter black, youknow, or?
Right right, I'm like this isthe thing I hear all the time.
Like, did you know?
I'm african-american.
I'm like what are you talkingabout?

Speaker 3 (59:03):
if you could add some sort of allure to security
cameras, like, oh, we're goingto get you this opportunity to
whatever later and you got uspeople probably be into it.
There's just no allure to it,but there is when you go do this
test and you get to find outsomething about yourself, sure,
make, make security cameras befun and people will give up
their rights no time I mean uh,I mean what?

Speaker 2 (59:23):
what did they do?
What was that stupid?
Uh, what was that stupid thingwhere, uh, that francis guy got
arrested for, uh, what was that?
Uh, the spring break guy wherehe was doing all the filming and
yeah, I forget his case.

Speaker 3 (59:37):
But yeah, that was a big deal because he was the one
doing the girls gone wild stuff.

Speaker 2 (59:40):
That's right, yes, the girls gone wild, yeah, and,
and when you think about that, Imean people were willing, were
willing, you know back in thosedays, but the repercussions of
what that looked like now andhow many of those were underage,
it just blows my mind.
I'm like….

Speaker 3 (59:55):
That would be an interesting documentary.
To go back and track thosepeople down and say, well, why
did you agree?
And I wonder how many of themsaid well at the time.
I'm not saying it was a gooddecision or not, but it was the
moment I didn't know it wasgoing to get that big.
It was the success of thecommercial product that then
amplified and they're going whoa, this is not what I signed up
for.
I thought I was at a party,whatever, making a stupid

(01:00:16):
decision in the moment.
Now there's mass distribution,right, and be able to really
learn those stories.
What's the psychology behindhow that whole thing went down?

Speaker 2 (01:00:24):
right and none of them.
You know a lot of them victimsof, you know yeah very scary.
I mean, you know when you thinkabout in a situation like that.
Excuse me getting back to as wewrap things up from the pacific
northwest.
Um man, I appreciate you comingto hang out, share your story

(01:00:47):
in regards to what this, thiscurrent, we call in the
carnation false city.
It's, it's not a massacre.
Are they calling the massacre?

Speaker 3 (01:00:55):
yeah, massacre's been pretty good.
You don't know what else tocall it.
I mean, when you got fivepeople stacked up, that's what
it's going to be.
Oh, I should also mention uh,real quick, we can name him once
he's charged.
He actually still has not beencharged.
Now, that's not a bad thing.
It's going to be.
Oh, I should also mention realquick, we can name him once he's
charged.
He actually still has not beencharged.
Now, that's not a bad thing.
It's because they're trying tomove it to adult court.
That probably won't happenuntil June, so that's why we're
saying suspect, that's why it'sbeing framed the way it is.

(01:01:16):
He will get charged, I promiseyou that.
But there has to be a processand it's not a quick process.
And and for those saying well,I thought you couldn't charge
juveniles like that, wheneveryou stack up five bodies, uh, or
accused of stacking up fivebodies, forget the rules.
The rules are out the door.
Uh, when you need a trailer tohaul everybody out, they're.
They're going to make new rulesoh, man, I mean it.

Speaker 2 (01:01:40):
Devastating for the town of Fall City.
Prayers to the family, thevictims, because at the end of
the day, man, it's just like myGod.
You think this cannot happen.
It's not possible.
It's possible.
It's always that one time thatyou need to be prepared, when

(01:02:04):
you're out and about, payattention to your surroundings,
know what's going on, have anunderstanding of what, what your
surroundings are.
You know, you don't know.
There may be someone who's opencaring.
I talk about it all the time,about my chipotle story, about
the guy that was open caring.
If that other guy who wasflailing around would have
grabbed his gun, oh it wouldhave been, it would have been,
it would have been ugly flailingaround would have grabbed his

(01:02:26):
gun.
Oh, it would have been, itwould have been, it would have
been ugly.
You know it's understandingwhat is around you.
Uh, our guest this evening,steve hickey, photog, steve 81
on the gram, on all his socialplatforms.

Speaker 3 (01:02:38):
Uh, any last parting words before we leave you know
we'll have some big stuff comingout.
Hopefully you guys can followon youtube too.
We're gonna start doinglong-form content and do more of
a true crime breakdown ofcurrent cases that are going on
and really work through thecharging docs and show you how
it is Investigators came to theconclusions that they have and
then what that looks like goingthrough the court system.

Speaker 2 (01:03:00):
For my entire team Mark Christopher, Jeff Jensen,
Sophia Magana and myself, MarioMagana.
Be sure to look up at the sky,because you never know what you
might see.
Good night.