September 2, 2024 • 43 mins
I love a good murder story set in the South and this is an intense one. It centers on a vicious murder in a crumbling Kentucky mansion and a killer who managed to cover it up for months. Author David Domine writes about it in his book: A Dark Room in Glitter Ball City: Murder, Secrets, and Scandal in Old Louisville.
Support this podcast by shopping our latest sponsor deals and promotions at this link: https://bit.ly/4gF2K18
See more information on my books: katewinklerdawson.com
Follow me on social: @tenfoldmore (Twitter) / @wickedwordspod (Facebook) / @tenfoldmorewicked (Instagram)
2024 All Rights Reserved
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
This story contains adult content and language. Listener discretion is advised.
Once they run that dark little room with the dirt floor,
they could see a patch against a wall, and they
started to dig, and four hours later they dug up
this blue rubber mad container with the remains of Jamie Carroll.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
I'm Kate Winkler Dawson, a nonfiction author and journalism professor
in Austin, Texas. I'm also the co host of the
podcast Buried Bones on Exactly Right, and throughout my career,
research for my many audio and book projects has taken
me around the world. On Wicked Words, I sit down
with the people I've met along the way, amazing writers, journalists, filmmakers,
(00:52):
and podcasters who have investigated and reported on notorious true
crime cases. This is about the choices writers make, both
good and bad, and it's a deep dive into the
unpublished details behind their stories. I love a good murder
story set in the South, and this is a pretty
intense one. It centers on a vicious murder in a
(01:14):
crumbling Kentucky mansion and a killer who managed to cover
it up for months. Author David Domine writes about it
in his book A Dark Room in Glitterball City, Murder, Secrets,
and scandal in Old Louisville. You are someone after my
heart because you love a good ghost story. Tell me
(01:36):
about how you found the story to begin with. I've
read about it.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
It's just one of those stories that kind of fell
in my lap. So I live in Louisville, Kentucky right now.
I'm not from this area. I'm from Wisconsin. I came
here in nineteen ninety three to go to law school,
and you know, I didn't really look forward to coming
to Louisville, Kentucky. I've never been here before. So my
plan was to do my time and get out of town,
but that never happened. I ended up loving the city,
(02:00):
and in nineteen ninety nine I bought a house. I
fell in love with one part of the town. It's
called Old Louisville. It's one of the largest historic preservation
districts in the country. There's forty five scare blocks of
old houses, roughly fourteen hundred old homes and mansions, mostly
from the eighteen eighties and the eighteen nineties, and so
that area just kind of sucked me in. Well. In
(02:22):
nineteen ninety nine, I had a chance to buy a
house in that neighborhood, and my partner and I lived
there for eight years. But right before we moved into
this house, the previous owner just casually mentioned that the
house was haunted and we moved in, we'd be getting
a resident polter guys named Lucy, and so I just
kind of, you know, pooh poohed her warnings and we
moved in, and sure enough, all the crazy stuff she
(02:44):
said what happened began to happen. And long story short,
I never saw that ghost that was I was hoping
to see to kind of make me a true believer.
But all these other things of a paranormal nature people
would say began happening in the house. And that's when
I began to discover more about the neighborhood, and I'd
found out more about the house, and I discovered you
(03:04):
can use ghost stories and hauntings as vehicles for more
than just talking about the pair ofanormal And there's history
and there's architecture. So I got into writing about the neighborhood.
And when we moved out in two thousand and eight
from that house, I was a food writer and I
heard right around the corner a new house had come
on the market a house that hadn't been for sale
(03:24):
in years. It was called the Richard Robinson House and
it was massive. It was like twelve bedrooms over ten
thousand square feet. But I heard they had the original
wine cellar from when the family built in eighteen ninety eight,
and I got into my head somehow, if you're going
to be a food rid, you have to have a
wine cellar. So I made an appointment to go look
at the house and it was huge. It was just
(03:48):
too much work. I could tell right away, right when
I walked in. Despite the grand stairs and the beautiful
parquet in lay on the hardwood floors and the beautiful
molding and stained glass windows, I knew it was going
to be too much work. But I thought, well, go
look at the wine cellar. You know you're looking at
the house because you're interested in the wine cellar. So
went down to the basement, worked our way through this
maze like warrn of little rooms, and finally found the
(04:10):
wine cellar. And it was a disaster. Like much of
the house, it had a dirt floor, but previous tenants
had just thrown boxes of you know, trash in there,
and you could only tell it was a wine cellar
because of the shadows the outlines of the shelves that
had been on the brick wall at one time but
then had been removed over time, and so that was
(04:31):
kind of the nail in the coffin. I thought, no,
don't need to do this, and so said thank you
to the real estate agent. And as we were going
out the front door and down the walkway to the
sidewalk out in front of the house, a man was
rushing up the stairs and it turns out he had
the appointment right after we did, and he kind of
bumped into me and didn't say excuse me. I thought
(04:52):
that was kind of, you know, rude, but I didn't
really think anything of it, and we went on with
the rest of the day and that was that, or
so I thought. Two years later, it was the morning
of June eighteenth, twenty ten. I teach at a local university.
I was up drinking my coffee, getting ready to go teach,
and I had one of the local stations on, and
all of a sudden, there was kind of a newsflash
(05:13):
and a big, boxy, red brick house popped up on
the screen and there were police out front that had
caution tape all around it. And I saw the house
and I thought, well, that house looks awfully familiar. And
I thought, well, probably down in old Louisville where all
the old Victorian houses are. And then a mug shot
popped up, and I stared at that mugshot, and I thought,
who is he? I know that guy, you know? I
thought maybe just from the neighborhood or something. And then
(05:36):
all of a sudden it dawned on me that was
the guy who had the appointment with the real estate
agent that morning.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
So tell me about Jeffrey Mund, Joey Bannis, and Jamie
Carroll separately, and then tell me about when they came together.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Yeah. So at the time they were all thirty seven
years old. Jeffrey Mount went to a good high school
here in Louisville. Is future boyfriend Joey Bannis did as well.
They both came from kind of privileged backgrounds. Jeffrey ended
up getting a scholarship at Indiana University and he studied
(06:12):
computer sciences and got a very good job. He was
a big it person. He ended up in Chicago for
a time. He was working at Northwestern Universities in charge
of their big technology overhaul and he had had other
jobs as well. Joey Bannis, on the other hand, he
was more of a ne'er do well. He was a
(06:33):
deadhead for a while and worked in restaurants, supposedly as
a ski instructor. He had designs of opening his own
club in town. He claimed to have already opened a club,
but some people dispute that. But he was known in
the community for being kind of a colorful figure at
the local clubs. He bartended very often and he would
(06:54):
often have like his hair done in a bright blue
neon mohawk. He had body painting, and he really stood out.
And so Jeffreymont, according to his story, had just moved
back to Louisville from Chicago. He said his then boyfriend
had dumped him by text and he was kind of
coming back home to lick his wounds, and that's when
(07:14):
he met Joey Bannis in an online chat room and
they kind of hooked up and they started going out together. Eventually,
Joey moved himself into the house on four Street, and
when he moved in, he had had several hookups with
Jamie Carroll. They met online and Jamie Carroll was a
(07:37):
drug dealer. Joey Bannis was a drug dealer as well,
but they had also kind of dated on and off,
and so the three of them kind of hooked up.
And so the night in question, June seventeen, twenty ten,
Jamie Carroll was in town and he had some outstanding
warrants and the idea was he had come to town
(07:57):
with the plan of turning himself in the next day.
He was going to go to jail and try to
do his time and come out and be on the
straight and narrow, you know, get a fresh start. But
before he turned himself in that next day, he wanted
one last night out on the town. And when Joey
found out that he was in town, he said, come
on over to the house and bring lots of drugs
and Jeffrey and I will party with you. We'll send
(08:19):
you off with a bang. And Jamie arrived and they
started doing crystal meth and other things. And supposedly after
they ran through the first batch of drugs, Jamie left
went back to his hotel room to get more drugs.
And in that window of time that's where whoever you
believe Jeffrey floated the idea or Joey floated the idea
(08:43):
of killing Jamie and keeping his drugs and money because
Jeffrey and Joey were having major financial issues. Jeffrey had
been working at the University of Louisville as an IT consultant.
He was making over a quarter million dollars a year,
but he started missing work and showing up Hie, so
they let him go, so no money was coming in
to pay the bills. Jamie did come back, and Jamie
(09:04):
was a hairdresser. He had a shop in Lexington, and
he had a checkered pass. You know, he had been
a drug dealer, and some people described him as ruthless,
but a lot of people said he was charming in
high school and he was out in the nineties in
eastern Kentucky and said he was very confident being a
gay man. And some said he didn't look like he
had a care in the world. But when he came back,
(09:25):
the three of them were in bed and they took
a little break from things, and depending on who you believe,
Jeffrey got out of the bed, left Jamie and Joey
on the bed. When he went to pull up the
laptop and look at some porn and he heard a
scuffle and turned around and found Jamie yelling for help,
and there was Joey stabbing him. If you believe Joey,
(09:47):
he's the one that got out of bed. He heard
the scuffle at the computer, turned around and he saw
Jeffrey attacking Jamie. But whatever happened, Jamie ended up on
the floor or kind of cowering in a corner. He
was bleeding profusely. He had fallen into like a glass shelf,
and there was blood all over the place. And then
(10:08):
one of the two guys took a pistol and shot
him in the head, kind of execution style, and then
they took his body down to the basement and that's
when they proceeded to bury him. And it took well
over the course of a day. You know, they were
planning what to do and stuff, but they ended up
down in the basement. And it took him hours to
dig the pit where Jamie was buried, because he was
(10:30):
well over four feet into the ground. And yeah, whoever
you believe, Joey said he was terrified of Jeffrey. He
said Jeffrey had gone into kind of commando mode, ripped
out all the SIM cards in Jamie's phone and like
he had done stuff like this before. Jeffrey said, no,
that's what Joey did. And then this is where it's
really interesting when the trials finally did take place, because
(10:53):
they were both arrested charged with murder. In the end,
they both admitted to covering up the body, but they
each insisted they had only done this because each had
been living in fear of the other for the previous
seven months. And so in the first trial, Joey went
on trial first, separately. Several months later, in twenty thirteen,
(11:15):
Jeffrey went on trial, and originally the death penalty would
have been an option, but the prosecutor agreed to take
it off the table if they each agreed to testify
against the other. So when Joey was on the stand first,
it came out that one of the reasons he was
terrified of Jeffreymont is because Jeffreymont had worked for the
(11:39):
CIA as an assassin and I killed over thirty some people. Okay,
that's why he was terrified. And everyone in the courtroom
just kind of rolled their eyes. When Jeffrey was brought
to the stand and kind of asked about that, he said, no,
I never have been an assassin, but he said Joey
and Jeffrey they had like role playing games for sex
and stuff, and one of their role plays was that
(12:00):
Jeffrey liked to play that he was an assassin from
the CIA. So no one really put too much store
in any of that until later on some weird things
came out and all of a sudden, people wondered if
maybe Jeffrey Wont wasn't working for the CIA, because they
found out he's an expert in different European languages, Eastern
European languages. There were pages and pages of text messages
(12:22):
and transcripts from emails in Russian and German that never
made it back from the translators in time. And what
was interesting is when the murder was found out on
June eighteen, two thousand and ten, Joey and Jeffrey were
already out on bond from another crime in April of
that year, twenty ten. They were up in Chicago when
(12:43):
they were arrested, so this was when Jamie's body was
down in the ground. They were arrested because they had
been counterfeiting money the whole time in the house on
four Street, the second floor. They kind of turned into
a counterfeit money operation. They were taking dollar bills, they
were bleaching them ands and then restamping those cleaned papers
as higher denomination bills as fifteen hundred dollar bills. So
(13:06):
that weekend in April of twenty ten, they went up.
They checked into the Highatt Regency in downtown Chicago. I'm
assuming the idea was they were going up to see
how good they were, how much fake money they could pass.
Evidently they weren't very good, because they had just checked
into the hotel and hadn't even left before they were arrested.
They had given the dorman a fake hundred dollar bill
(13:27):
and he knew right away something wasn't right. He said,
it kind of felt kind of oily, and he called
the police. The police came and ended up arresting Jeffrey.
They found fifty four thousand dollars in counterfeit money in
their rooms, in addition to bags and bags of date
rape drugs, bomb making supplies, guns forged documents, and fake IDs.
They were planning a bank heist while they were up
(13:48):
in Chicago, and so the murder trial that kind of
trumped everything. But they were supposed to be all these
federal charges outstanding, you know, the counterfeit money and stuff
like that, and whatever happened with those trials, no one
really knows because they never made the news or anything.
And some people have been floating the idea that it's
because Jeffrey was involved with the CIA and they kind
(14:09):
of got him off.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
So how long had Joey and Jeffrey been together before
all of this starts to happen. And I know it's
very sort of a loose term because they're bringing other
people into the relationship, but how long had they been involved?
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Well, and of course it depends which side you listen to,
the prosecution or the defense, but it wasn't very long
in either case if you believe what Joey said. He
made it sound like they met around Halloween of two
thousand and nine. So the prosecution kind of painted it
as they were in this long term relationship and they
(14:44):
did everything together. But Jeffrey Month's defense attorney was kind
of able, i think successfully to point out, no, they
were only together for a few months, and he was
able to bring an evidence that Joey, who had just
gotten out of prison, had plans on finding a mark.
He was looking for a man to live with and
mooch off of and he had I mean, they had
lists that he had made and one of the first
(15:05):
things was get money for bail tracking devices on the car.
I mean, just all this crazy stuff. Was looking for
machine guns, and every day the trial just kept getting
more and more bizarre. They had suicide tapes that Joey
had made, but then when they showed them, people suggested
that they were manufactured, you know, they were fabricated. They
had made those thinking that if they ever did get arrested,
(15:28):
they would have these things to kind of throw a wrench.
That's what a lot of people think happened. It's just
a bizarre story, a bizarre murder trial.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
So when police separate Jeffrey and Joey, which is always
a good idea, and they start going back and forth,
well Jeffrey did this, well, actually, you know, Joey's the
one that did this. Was there not a way to
tease out whose story actually matches the physical evidence? You know,
is there any way for the police to suss out
exactly what happened versus what these two guys who are
(16:02):
high on crystal meth. I'm assuming still during the interrogation
are telling the truth or not.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
Yeah, I mean I don't know that. They everyone bothered
to try to look at the logistics of three people
being on the bed and how it could have panned
out a certain way. But one thing was interesting. Certain
things were suppressed. And so when I sat through the
trials the first time, one of the things that was
kind of a mystery is the defense painted it as
(16:30):
Joey Bannis was the one who first brought up the
notion of the body being buried someplace, and their whole
justification was, now, if he's guilty, why is he going
to bring up a body in the basement. But then
it came out later on in the trials that Jeffrey Month,
according to the police reports, is the one that first
brought it up. He said to the responding officer, ask him,
(16:53):
pointing to Joey, ask him about the body and the basement,
and the defense successfully had a statement suppressed. So the
way the defense painted it, it did look like Joey
was the one to bring up this body in the
first place, and that's why so many people were confused.
You know, why would he be bringing this up. He's
going to, you know, bring himself down if he's you know,
(17:15):
pointing out this body in the basement. But it turns
out esupposedly Jeffrey Munt had brought it up, and then
that kind of lent more credence to the overall notion
of what happened that night, And that's still kind of
a big mystery. But people suspect that Jeffrey had had
enough and he was probably going to go to the
police and had told Joey that night, the evening of
June seventeen, twenty ten, and Joey, you know, he had
(17:39):
been to prison numerous times already, he knew that was
going to be the end for him. He was going
to be going back. So he either he was high
and didn't know what he was doing, or else he
knew very well what he was doing and thought he'd
probably take Jeffrey down with him, probably thinking, you know,
if I'm going to go down, you're going to go
down with me.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
With these two men, what is the caliber of their
defense teams? Are they school or because Jeffrey, I know
he's in debt, but because he had a job, does
he afford an attorney or do you have the classic
attorneys come to them because they want the publicity.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
You did notice, first of all, the size. They both
had excellent defense attorneys. Joey, who went on trial first,
had Darren Woolf. He's quite a well known figure, and
he was assisted by Justin Brown. And then Jeffrey he
had four people on his defense team. Steve Romanes is
kind of a Mattlock Southern type of lawyer, you know,
folksy kind of lawyer, was the lead defense and he
(18:33):
was assisted by Ted Shause, and then they had their
two assistance as well. And you just noticed by the number,
you know, Jeffrey had twice as many people, you know,
sitting next to him when he was at the table.
And then the other thing is by that point Joey
was convicted of the bulk of the crimes during that
(18:54):
first trial, so when Jeffrey went on trial, they were
able to say, we already got person. He's been convicted.
And I think that really helped the defense a lot,
and also I think the prosecution they got somewhat complacent
after the first trial. Much of their argument for the
second trial was exactly the same. Some of their lines
(19:16):
were verbatim, so they were just I think, kind of
coasting thinking they were going to use the same defense,
but by that point, Jeffrey Month's defense attorneys were able
to study things, and there was just all this stuff
that came out. It was two completely different trials. I
mean to see the stuff that was suppressed in the
first trial that was allowed to come out in the
second trial, and vice versa. And in the second trial
they brought up all this stuff about Joey Bannis. One
(19:39):
of the things that kind of impressed me during the
first trial is Joey Bannis. He was always even keeled,
he was soft spoken, he was articulate, he never changed
his story once, and so a lot of people went
into that first trial thinking, like the media had painted it,
that Joey was probably more guilty of the two because
he had this rap sheet and he was notoriously violent
(20:01):
and volatile. Jeffrey mont had never had trouble with the
law before. They made it seem like he kind of
got swept up in all of this. But after that
first trial, just seeing Joey maintain his composure on the
stand and Jeffrey get caught in a lot of lies,
a lot of people left that first trial thinking that
Jeffrey probably was the more guilty of the two. But
during the second trial, then they brought in all this
(20:23):
other stuff about Joey, like how psychotic he really is psychopathic,
and just all these things that he had planned. You know,
they were able to, like I said, provide these lists,
and we found out a little more about some of
his other crimes and stuff, and people were testifying against him.
Supposedly his own family was telling people to stay away,
(20:44):
that their brother, their son, you know, was evil. So
if your own family members are talking like that, that
says a lot about you know, you as a person.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
I think what is the difference between as far as
the sentence goes, They're not acquitting either one of these
guys everything, no matter what they decide, right, because there's
always what covering up accessory Secondarymber. I don't know what
else the other choices were, and you can tell me that,
but you know, I want to know what's at risk.
So you said that they took the death penalty off
(21:13):
the table for both of them.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
Is that right?
Speaker 2 (21:14):
What are the charges that they're facing as well as
the sentences that they're facing.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
Here the sentences were twenty five to life. That's in
effect what Joey Bannis got, and the charges were murder.
I forget what the terminology is in Kentucky, but when
you tamper with a corpse, hiding evidence, drug possession, burglary
because they stole stuff from Jamie Carroll. So there were
(21:41):
like eight major counts and then the first trial, Joey
was convicted of all but the two minor counts. In
the second trial, Jeffrey was acquitted of all but the
two minor counts, so he got eight years for his part.
He had already been in prison three years by that point,
so the next year, twenty fourteen, he was halfway through,
so they let him go. He was out on parole,
(22:03):
already went to a half way house, and as far
as I know, he's out and he's living his best life.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
What is Jamie's family saying about all of this or
were they there to represent him at all?
Speaker 1 (22:17):
To a certain extent, And this is another situation where
you got to kind of parse things not to offend
the family too much. And depends which side you believe.
But Jamie's mother, I mean rightly, so she was devastated
and she's on record sobbing saying how much she missed
her son. But the other thing is others have reported
(22:39):
his family life wasn't the best. And what was kind
of damning for Jamie's mother is she didn't even know
he was missing until the night of the nine one
one call.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
I was wondering about that. Did somebody actually say seven
months earlier, this guy's missing.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
People, they might have suspected something. But this is another
interesting thing because this was one of the reasons the
prosecution used as a motive. Supposedly, Jeffrey and Joey knowing
that Jamie was going to go to prison the next day,
they figured, no one's going to notice if he just
diks off the face of the planet.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
Yes, they would. He's supposed to turn himself in, right.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
Well, that's the thing. He didn't turn himself in the
next day. And guess what. They dropped the ball. Normally
put out a bench warrant or something. They totally dropped
the ball, so he fell through the cracks. So he
wasn't in the system. And his mother, who supposedly, you know,
was devastated by his loss, didn't even know he was missing.
She just assumed he was in prison and she'd probably
hear from him when he came out. But you know,
(23:39):
your son's in prison, for seven months, and you don't
know that for certain. He did have family and friends
who did miss him, that's for sure. But yeah, it's
kind of a tragedy that he fell through the cracks
and wasn't noticed until it was too late.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
And what's awful is to bring up the irony here
is he's at this house with the two men partying,
thinking this is his last night of freedom. And obviously,
if he had known that this was going to be
something where, you know, he would kind of be able
to scoot away and go to Mexico or someplace and
never be found and nobody was going to come look
for him, none of this would have likely happened. It
(24:17):
is sad, and it brings up something that is always
a challenge I think for people who write true crime,
which is, how do you take a victim who is
not the perfect victim? And I don't mean you know,
the missing white Wooman syndrome. I mean the person who
has clearly made some questionable choices. It doesn't mean they
deserve what happened, but it must have been difficult for
(24:40):
you to tease out the really positive things about Jamie
that then readers could really connect to and say, this
person deserves justice just like everybody else.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
Yeah, and that's that was one of the challenges I
had right away, because it seemed when the details of
the murder were released, it was always this drug, drug
fueled night of sex, and it was so sensationalized, and
I had to, you know, be careful that I wasn't
feeding into the sensationalism, you know. But yeah, I mean
(25:12):
they did a lot of victim shaming, and so it
was a challenge to keep reminding people that Jamie was
the victim. He didn't deserve what happened to him. Even yes,
he did have a checkered past, as was pointed out
right away, but yeah, he didn't deserve to die that way.
He didn't deserve to have someone execute him. So it
was a challenge, and there were other challenges. You know,
(25:34):
the whole gay aspect of the.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Trial jury selection is something you talk about. I think
that would be a great example to explain.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
So in Kentucky they record, they videotape all their trials
and so one of the you know, the book took
me ten years to write, and one of the reasons
was it was a daunting project, you know, trying to
just get it all under my belt. But then a
lot of it was doing the research and going back
and I sat through the trials. I was there every day.
(26:01):
But then later on I was able to get the
videotaped proceedings in the courtroom, and that's when it got
really interesting, because when you get those videotape proceedings, you
get all the stuff that you don't get to see
that you're not privy to when you're sitting in the
gallery in the courtroom. For example, you know, if you're
in a courtroom and there's an objection or something and
the judge calls both councils to the bench and they
(26:24):
hit the white noise button and everything is blocked out.
You get to hear what that all was about once
you get the tapes afterwards, and the same thing. They
record all the jury polling, and so you got to
see the prospective jurors on the stand being questioned. And
this is where you saw, unfortunately, a lot of homophobia
(26:44):
rear its ugly head. But it was, you know, over
ten years ago that that happened, and you like to
think we've come a long way since then, but I'm
not really sure about that. But it was fascinating just
to see people's answers to some of these questions, and
it was interesting to see how the defense and the
prosecution were able to kind of weed out people they
didn't want.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Yeah, you talk about how it sounds like both sides
are asking if you have a prejudice against you know,
gay people, are you able to put that to the
side to be fair? And there are people who are
sitting there actually having to think about it for a second,
which is so upsetting to read, but of course not surprising.
And I'm not going to pin this on Kentucky. I'm
just going to say across the nation, it wouldn't surprise.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Me in any state. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
So tell me a little bit more about maybe did
we find homophobia in the media during this time? How
did the Louisville Press also known as the litter Ball City.
I had never known that. How did the Louisville Press
handle all of this? Do you think that they were
pretty fair and impartial?
Speaker 1 (27:46):
I think for the most part they tried to be
as fair and impartial as they could be, But you
couldn't get around some of the details. It was, you know,
some people called it the pink Triangle.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Murder.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
It was a kind of gay lover's try angle kind
of thing. And I think the fact that some people
were trying to really trying hard to not come across
as homophobic, I think that might have affected how the
case was covered in the press in general. Because the
trial of Joey and Jeffrey was going on at the
(28:18):
same time of the Jody Arius trial. Oh yeah, of
course that was national two three months, that was national news.
That's what dominated all, you know, the news channels and
true crime things. And a lot of people were saying,
had that not been going on, Joey and Jeffrey's trial
might have been the big national story. But a lot
(28:39):
of people, a lot of journalists weren't opting to cover
it because they were afraid, I suspect, of coming across
as homophobic by covering it and you know, dredging up
all these sensational details.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
When I teach students at the University of Texas, I
teach journalism there, I often tell them when they're pitching
me an idea for like a nonfiction story or a documentary,
you need to I immediately identify who your deal breaker
interview is. Who do you have to get or this
is a dead story, and you know I'm going to
tell you no. So who was that for you, David,
(29:15):
with this story. Is there somebody you knew you had
to secure, like Jamie's mom or somebody who you just thought,
I don't know if the book is going to be
okay if I don't if I don't get this person.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
Yeah. Well, actually for me, it was Joey and Jeffrey themselves.
You know, as I was writing, I thought, you know,
this is one of the reasons it took me so long.
They weren't talking to me. I got in my head, well,
unless I talk to them and get their sides of
the story, I can't really paint, you know, an accurate picture.
You know. Yes, I've got interviews and I have courtroom drama,
(29:48):
I have you know, files and documents, But until I
hear it, you know, from the accused killer's mouse, I
was like, you can't really do the story justice. Well,
seven or eight years into that, I finally realized they're
not going to talk to me, and that's when I
decided to kind of go on and just build that
into the story. And I did have a brief exchange
(30:10):
with Joey at the very end right before the book
was going to press. But yeah, to this day, that's
what I really wanted was to talk to those two
to get their you know, take on the situation, and
also to kind of find out more about what happened
that night of the nine one one call, because that's
you know, it's also a mystery. Did they do it together,
(30:31):
like the prosecution argued that they conspire. Was it a
joint effort or did one of them kind of take
the initiative and the other was swept up? Or did
one of them take the initiative and the other wasn't
swept up, he was just a bystander. You know, that's
an unanswered question. And then you know what actually provoked
the fight that night was Jeffrey going to go to
(30:52):
the police and tell him about the body and the basement.
You know what what sent Joey, you know, off the
deep end like he went that night.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
I wonder why the prosecutor didn't decide to try the
two of them at the same time, because it seems
like a risk to do what they did to put
Joey on first, and then it's like, well, what's the
second jury going to do? You've already convicted one person.
Unless you have really strong evidence that Jeffrey really was
right next to him committing the crime, then it doesn't
(31:21):
seem like they have any other choice. Do you have
any reason or any idea about why that happened?
Speaker 1 (31:26):
I think without each one testifying against the other, they
didn't really have much of a case. That was the
whole crux of their case, and without that, I think
it would have been really really hard to put them
on trial because it just wasn't a lot of evidence.
You know, there were text messages and things like that,
but as far as a motive for why they would
(31:46):
have done this, there really wasn't much out there.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
What do you think is important about this book?
Speaker 1 (31:53):
Now?
Speaker 2 (31:53):
Why tell the story?
Speaker 1 (31:54):
Now? What is it for you? Do you think, well,
the homophobia needs to be addressed, just the nuances of
a courtroom trial. You know, I'd like to say I'm
not going to second guess a jury ever again just
by seeing how different these two trials were. But then,
you know, it just it's amazing how little people who
have to make a decision about a person's innocence or guilt,
(32:18):
how little they're actually shown sometimes that I think is amazing.
I think that's an issue. But then the other thing is,
you know, this was kind of my story. You know,
if you read the book, I take a first person approach,
and I kind of as I was finishing things up,
you know, we were going on ten years, and ten
years is a lot of time you can go back
(32:38):
and reflect. So I decided to insert myself more into
the story, include a lot of quirky neighborhood flavor and characters,
and I kind of made it the story about me
on this journey trying to figure out what happened that night.
So just for purely selfish reasons, it's kind of my story,
you know, my story as a writer and trying to
take a journalistic approach and trying to be fair to
(33:00):
all parties involved. But still, you know, it's so often
the case you're rubbing salt and open wounds, and some
people weren't happy I was writing this story. So just
on its face, it's my story, but it's a story
of how I got involved in this murder and how
I went after loose ends, tried to figure out what
the murder was all about, what really happened, and in
(33:21):
the process I just uncovered this interesting neighborhood and a
fascinating city. So yeah, you mentioned literabal city. That's a
nickname a lot of people don't know Louisville enjoys. I'm
hoping the book will kind of change that though. But yeah,
I love quirky things and I love eccentric characters. So
there's a lot of these quirks that pop up in
(33:42):
all angles of the book and some one of the
reviewers said, this is my love letter to Louisville. And
I kind of like the conscription. It's a true crime book,
but it's more than a true crime book. You know,
it's not just straight true crime. It's got memoir, it's
got you know, just history and local flavor. And that's
kind of what I like to do when I'm writing,
you know, they say write what you like to read.
(34:03):
So I basically wrote the book that I'd want to read,
and that's all she wrote.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
So one last thing, what does your gut say happened?
Who is the one that held a knife that night?
Or do you think it was both of them? Just
reading everything you've read and hearing everything you've.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Heard, And that's another thing. Every time I go back,
and like every six months, I go back and just
reread the book and just you know, to refresh my
senses and my recollections, because you forget things over time.
But every time I go back and read the book,
I kind of come to a different conclusion. And every
time I go back and watch the trial tapes, I
noticed something that I didn't notice before. So I guess
(34:42):
it depends on the day of the week or what
month of the year it is, and I might have
a different answer. But the more it happens, the more
I tend to believe the prosecution was kind of on
the right track. That Joey and Jeffrey they work together
to a certain degree. One thing I'm convinced of is
Jeffrey is not as innocent as the verdict makes him
(35:05):
out to be. There are things in the trial that
come out that are just kind of, you know, dead giveaways.
For example, one of the lawyers, they brought up all
these text messages between Joey and Jeffrey, and supposedly one
time they were fighting for whatever reason, but Joey sent
Jeffrey a text saying, Jeffrey, don't make me. Don't make
me tell them about what's in the basement, you know,
(35:28):
And if someone were to text that to you, if
you were involved, and you were innocent, what would you say, right, say,
why do I have to worry about You're the one
that killed him and buried him down there, You'd say
something like that. Yeah, Jeffrey Mont just totally glosses over it,
you know, like so he knows, he definitely knows more.
He's more involved than the verdicts lead us to believe.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
I am shocked, and this is going to sound terrible,
but I am shocked that one of them ultimately did
not kill the other one in this situation at some point.
I mean, really, seven months go by and one of
them does not completely freak out and kill the other one.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
Yeah, and there's some of the people they put on
trial were, for example, a former prisonmate of Joey's who
had come to town and he was staying with them for
a while, and he talks about how Joey pulled out
a gun and like shot it above Jeffrey's head went
into a door or something. So yeah, it could have
very well happened, probably would have been Joey killing Jeffrey.
But yeah, it's surprising that they made it as long
(36:27):
as they did.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
Seven months did their families come at all? Did they
have any kind of representation?
Speaker 1 (36:32):
Yeah, both families had people there. Wow, And you asked about, like, like,
when I was trying to, you know, get people to talk,
who my most prized interviews would have been. And that's
one thing I didn't do. I didn't go after family members.
You know, I'm not that kind of journalist who can
go knock on people's doors and kind of be a
thorn in their side either. I never approached the family
(36:55):
members directly, but I let it be known that if
they wanted to talk to me, I'd be more than
willing to talk to them. Jeffrey's family, Joey's family, and
Jamie's family. So I didn't approach any of the relations directly,
but I let it be known through channels that if
they wanted to talk, I'd be available. But none of
them wanted to talk.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
I'm a little surprised Joey wasn't willing to talk to you.
Is he expecting to get out on parole or something.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
In another ten years or so. But yeah, that was
one of my biggest surprises because you would think, after
the verdicts have come down and he's in prison, you know,
living the rest of his life like he's going to
live it. Being the narcissist that he is, you think
he'd want to put his spin, you know, on the
story and kind of get his two cents out there
(37:43):
so he can kind of narrate the story himself, kind
of direct how it's going. But yeah, right before the
book went to press, I finally got him to answer
an email. And you know, I was going through different channels.
I finally someone found his Tumblr page and sent me
an email, and I sent it like five months from
by six seven months. I thought he's not going to talk,
(38:03):
and then all of a sudden, I got this email
through the prison email system JPAL, and he's like, oh, sorry, David.
I was, I've been in the hole the last six months.
And then he was really excited. He wanted to talk
and and he ended up being in a prison right
outside of Louisville. But he said, if we talk, then
we have to do it face to face because you know,
(38:24):
they can record, you know, phone calls and stuff like that, emails,
and so I made plans to visit him. And then
this is when some of the CIA stuff was coming out,
and I was like, don't ask about the CIA stuff.
Don't ask about the CIA stuff. Well, I couldn't keep
my mouth shut. So the day before I was supposed
to go meet him, I said, so, some of the
(38:46):
things I want to talk about tomorrow. By the way,
what about all the CIA stuff? Whatever came of that?
Why did you say that? And he never got back
to me, and he went he wouldn't accept my visit.
When I went, oh, wow, So it makes you think
that maybe there was something with the CIA angle, which
is so crazy. Wow, what a story.
Speaker 2 (39:06):
And I love learning about Louisville. I've never been there before,
and it's interesting because it's such a sad story. But
it's a story that I think is so illuminating about
different parts of society and certainly this part of Kentucky.
What I was struck by, I will say the most,
is the idea of, especially after you telling me it
(39:26):
didn't seem like they were trying to kill each other afterward,
that this combination of these three men could create something
so ultimately deadly and vile. You know, if you strip
them apart, would that have ever happened? But together, particularly
Jeffrey and Joey together, it's like they're emboldened to do this,
(39:49):
And I do wonder what you think if we separated them.
Is this something that would have happened if they were
on their own with Jamie?
Speaker 1 (39:57):
Yeah, good question. Like I said, that's another thing. Depending
on the month of the year, the day of the week,
I'll probably have a different answer. But my first inkling
is Joey Bannis very well could have ended up doing
something like this. Whoever he en came with. I mean,
some of the stuff that came out, he did have
those propensities. Whether or not jeffreymont ever would have gone
(40:20):
in that direction, I see that less likely. But they
both had some of their dark sides revealed during the trials.
And another thing that I tried to address in writing
this book was yeah, like you said, and the prosecution
pointed out, Joey and Jeffrey came together, it was just
like this deadly mixture, you know, just they were swirled
(40:40):
up and all this stuff and this terrible stuff happened.
But yeah, they did something terrible, But does that invalidate
their whole lives? You know, people do bad things. Do
we just discount them because of this one horrific thing
that they were involved in? Or did they still have
some value as human beings? Is there some redemp in
store for them down the road?
Speaker 2 (41:02):
Well, I will say it makes me uncomfortable that Jeffrey
Mont is out there now because did he really learn
a lesson? We don't even know if Joey learned a
lesson and now he's out there.
Speaker 1 (41:13):
Yeah, And while there's all kinds of rumors. Some people
say he's he changed his name and he's working in
Europe under an assumed identity. Some people say, no, he
bought a house that's kind of similar to the house
he bought and he's fixing up that house. Someone says
he's with another boyfriend that kind of looks like Joey.
Joey's got his little acolytes in prison. From what I hear,
(41:33):
he's got a following, and he's quite the charmer. He's
meticulous in the way he dresses and in prison, uh huh,
So who knows?
Speaker 2 (41:42):
Who knows he'll be in his Would it be late
fifties early sixties when he gets out? Is that right?
He was convicted in twenty ten and he.
Speaker 1 (41:50):
Got twenty ten, convicted twenty thirteen, so early sixties. Everyone says,
still young and spry enough to do some more killing
when you get out at home. Not the case.
Speaker 2 (42:01):
I hope so too. I hope so too. If you
love historical true crime stories, check out the audio versions
of my books The Ghost Club, All That Is Wicked,
and American Sherlock and Don't Forget. There are twelve seasons
(42:24):
of my historical true crime podcast, Tenfold More Wicked right
here in this podcast feed, scroll back and give them
a listen if you haven't already. This has been an
exactly right production. Our senior producer is Alexis M. Morosi.
Our associate producer is Christina Chamberlain. This episode was mixed
by John Bradley. Curtis Heath is our composer. Artwork by
(42:47):
Nick Toga. Executive produced by Georgia Hardstark, Karen Kilgarriff and
Danielle Kramer. Follow Wicked Words on Instagram at tenfold More
Wicked and on Facebook at Wicked Words pod
Speaker 1 (43:03):
M
This story contains adult content and language. Listener discretion is advised.
Once they run that dark little room with the dirt floor,
they could see a patch against a wall, and they
started to dig, and four hours later they dug up
this blue rubber mad container with the remains of Jamie Carroll.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
I'm Kate Winkler Dawson, a nonfiction author and journalism professor
in Austin, Texas. I'm also the co host of the
podcast Buried Bones on Exactly Right, and throughout my career,
research for my many audio and book projects has taken
me around the world. On Wicked Words, I sit down
with the people I've met along the way, amazing writers, journalists, filmmakers,
(00:52):
and podcasters who have investigated and reported on notorious true
crime cases. This is about the choices writers make, both
good and bad, and it's a deep dive into the
unpublished details behind their stories. I love a good murder
story set in the South, and this is a pretty
intense one. It centers on a vicious murder in a
(01:14):
crumbling Kentucky mansion and a killer who managed to cover
it up for months. Author David Domine writes about it
in his book A Dark Room in Glitterball City, Murder, Secrets,
and scandal in Old Louisville. You are someone after my
heart because you love a good ghost story. Tell me
(01:36):
about how you found the story to begin with. I've
read about it.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
It's just one of those stories that kind of fell
in my lap. So I live in Louisville, Kentucky right now.
I'm not from this area. I'm from Wisconsin. I came
here in nineteen ninety three to go to law school,
and you know, I didn't really look forward to coming
to Louisville, Kentucky. I've never been here before. So my
plan was to do my time and get out of town,
but that never happened. I ended up loving the city,
(02:00):
and in nineteen ninety nine I bought a house. I
fell in love with one part of the town. It's
called Old Louisville. It's one of the largest historic preservation
districts in the country. There's forty five scare blocks of
old houses, roughly fourteen hundred old homes and mansions, mostly
from the eighteen eighties and the eighteen nineties, and so
that area just kind of sucked me in. Well. In
(02:22):
nineteen ninety nine, I had a chance to buy a
house in that neighborhood, and my partner and I lived
there for eight years. But right before we moved into
this house, the previous owner just casually mentioned that the
house was haunted and we moved in, we'd be getting
a resident polter guys named Lucy, and so I just
kind of, you know, pooh poohed her warnings and we
moved in, and sure enough, all the crazy stuff she
(02:44):
said what happened began to happen. And long story short,
I never saw that ghost that was I was hoping
to see to kind of make me a true believer.
But all these other things of a paranormal nature people
would say began happening in the house. And that's when
I began to discover more about the neighborhood, and I'd
found out more about the house, and I discovered you
(03:04):
can use ghost stories and hauntings as vehicles for more
than just talking about the pair ofanormal And there's history
and there's architecture. So I got into writing about the neighborhood.
And when we moved out in two thousand and eight
from that house, I was a food writer and I
heard right around the corner a new house had come
on the market a house that hadn't been for sale
(03:24):
in years. It was called the Richard Robinson House and
it was massive. It was like twelve bedrooms over ten
thousand square feet. But I heard they had the original
wine cellar from when the family built in eighteen ninety eight,
and I got into my head somehow, if you're going
to be a food rid, you have to have a
wine cellar. So I made an appointment to go look
at the house and it was huge. It was just
(03:48):
too much work. I could tell right away, right when
I walked in. Despite the grand stairs and the beautiful
parquet in lay on the hardwood floors and the beautiful
molding and stained glass windows, I knew it was going
to be too much work. But I thought, well, go
look at the wine cellar. You know you're looking at
the house because you're interested in the wine cellar. So
went down to the basement, worked our way through this
maze like warrn of little rooms, and finally found the
(04:10):
wine cellar. And it was a disaster. Like much of
the house, it had a dirt floor, but previous tenants
had just thrown boxes of you know, trash in there,
and you could only tell it was a wine cellar
because of the shadows the outlines of the shelves that
had been on the brick wall at one time but
then had been removed over time, and so that was
(04:31):
kind of the nail in the coffin. I thought, no,
don't need to do this, and so said thank you
to the real estate agent. And as we were going
out the front door and down the walkway to the
sidewalk out in front of the house, a man was
rushing up the stairs and it turns out he had
the appointment right after we did, and he kind of
bumped into me and didn't say excuse me. I thought
(04:52):
that was kind of, you know, rude, but I didn't
really think anything of it, and we went on with
the rest of the day and that was that, or
so I thought. Two years later, it was the morning
of June eighteenth, twenty ten. I teach at a local university.
I was up drinking my coffee, getting ready to go teach,
and I had one of the local stations on, and
all of a sudden, there was kind of a newsflash
(05:13):
and a big, boxy, red brick house popped up on
the screen and there were police out front that had
caution tape all around it. And I saw the house
and I thought, well, that house looks awfully familiar. And
I thought, well, probably down in old Louisville where all
the old Victorian houses are. And then a mug shot
popped up, and I stared at that mugshot, and I thought,
who is he? I know that guy, you know? I
thought maybe just from the neighborhood or something. And then
(05:36):
all of a sudden it dawned on me that was
the guy who had the appointment with the real estate
agent that morning.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
So tell me about Jeffrey Mund, Joey Bannis, and Jamie
Carroll separately, and then tell me about when they came together.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
Yeah. So at the time they were all thirty seven
years old. Jeffrey Mount went to a good high school
here in Louisville. Is future boyfriend Joey Bannis did as well.
They both came from kind of privileged backgrounds. Jeffrey ended
up getting a scholarship at Indiana University and he studied
(06:12):
computer sciences and got a very good job. He was
a big it person. He ended up in Chicago for
a time. He was working at Northwestern Universities in charge
of their big technology overhaul and he had had other
jobs as well. Joey Bannis, on the other hand, he
was more of a ne'er do well. He was a
(06:33):
deadhead for a while and worked in restaurants, supposedly as
a ski instructor. He had designs of opening his own
club in town. He claimed to have already opened a club,
but some people dispute that. But he was known in
the community for being kind of a colorful figure at
the local clubs. He bartended very often and he would
(06:54):
often have like his hair done in a bright blue
neon mohawk. He had body painting, and he really stood out.
And so Jeffreymont, according to his story, had just moved
back to Louisville from Chicago. He said his then boyfriend
had dumped him by text and he was kind of
coming back home to lick his wounds, and that's when
(07:14):
he met Joey Bannis in an online chat room and
they kind of hooked up and they started going out together. Eventually,
Joey moved himself into the house on four Street, and
when he moved in, he had had several hookups with
Jamie Carroll. They met online and Jamie Carroll was a
(07:37):
drug dealer. Joey Bannis was a drug dealer as well,
but they had also kind of dated on and off,
and so the three of them kind of hooked up.
And so the night in question, June seventeen, twenty ten,
Jamie Carroll was in town and he had some outstanding
warrants and the idea was he had come to town
(07:57):
with the plan of turning himself in the next day.
He was going to go to jail and try to
do his time and come out and be on the
straight and narrow, you know, get a fresh start. But
before he turned himself in that next day, he wanted
one last night out on the town. And when Joey
found out that he was in town, he said, come
on over to the house and bring lots of drugs
and Jeffrey and I will party with you. We'll send
(08:19):
you off with a bang. And Jamie arrived and they
started doing crystal meth and other things. And supposedly after
they ran through the first batch of drugs, Jamie left
went back to his hotel room to get more drugs.
And in that window of time that's where whoever you
believe Jeffrey floated the idea or Joey floated the idea
(08:43):
of killing Jamie and keeping his drugs and money because
Jeffrey and Joey were having major financial issues. Jeffrey had
been working at the University of Louisville as an IT consultant.
He was making over a quarter million dollars a year,
but he started missing work and showing up Hie, so
they let him go, so no money was coming in
to pay the bills. Jamie did come back, and Jamie
(09:04):
was a hairdresser. He had a shop in Lexington, and
he had a checkered pass. You know, he had been
a drug dealer, and some people described him as ruthless,
but a lot of people said he was charming in
high school and he was out in the nineties in
eastern Kentucky and said he was very confident being a
gay man. And some said he didn't look like he
had a care in the world. But when he came back,
(09:25):
the three of them were in bed and they took
a little break from things, and depending on who you believe,
Jeffrey got out of the bed, left Jamie and Joey
on the bed. When he went to pull up the
laptop and look at some porn and he heard a
scuffle and turned around and found Jamie yelling for help,
and there was Joey stabbing him. If you believe Joey,
(09:47):
he's the one that got out of bed. He heard
the scuffle at the computer, turned around and he saw
Jeffrey attacking Jamie. But whatever happened, Jamie ended up on
the floor or kind of cowering in a corner. He
was bleeding profusely. He had fallen into like a glass shelf,
and there was blood all over the place. And then
(10:08):
one of the two guys took a pistol and shot
him in the head, kind of execution style, and then
they took his body down to the basement and that's
when they proceeded to bury him. And it took well
over the course of a day. You know, they were
planning what to do and stuff, but they ended up
down in the basement. And it took him hours to
dig the pit where Jamie was buried, because he was
(10:30):
well over four feet into the ground. And yeah, whoever
you believe, Joey said he was terrified of Jeffrey. He
said Jeffrey had gone into kind of commando mode, ripped
out all the SIM cards in Jamie's phone and like
he had done stuff like this before. Jeffrey said, no,
that's what Joey did. And then this is where it's
really interesting when the trials finally did take place, because
(10:53):
they were both arrested charged with murder. In the end,
they both admitted to covering up the body, but they
each insisted they had only done this because each had
been living in fear of the other for the previous
seven months. And so in the first trial, Joey went
on trial first, separately. Several months later, in twenty thirteen,
(11:15):
Jeffrey went on trial, and originally the death penalty would
have been an option, but the prosecutor agreed to take
it off the table if they each agreed to testify
against the other. So when Joey was on the stand first,
it came out that one of the reasons he was
terrified of Jeffreymont is because Jeffreymont had worked for the
(11:39):
CIA as an assassin and I killed over thirty some people. Okay,
that's why he was terrified. And everyone in the courtroom
just kind of rolled their eyes. When Jeffrey was brought
to the stand and kind of asked about that, he said, no,
I never have been an assassin, but he said Joey
and Jeffrey they had like role playing games for sex
and stuff, and one of their role plays was that
(12:00):
Jeffrey liked to play that he was an assassin from
the CIA. So no one really put too much store
in any of that until later on some weird things
came out and all of a sudden, people wondered if
maybe Jeffrey Wont wasn't working for the CIA, because they
found out he's an expert in different European languages, Eastern
European languages. There were pages and pages of text messages
(12:22):
and transcripts from emails in Russian and German that never
made it back from the translators in time. And what
was interesting is when the murder was found out on
June eighteen, two thousand and ten, Joey and Jeffrey were
already out on bond from another crime in April of
that year, twenty ten. They were up in Chicago when
(12:43):
they were arrested, so this was when Jamie's body was
down in the ground. They were arrested because they had
been counterfeiting money the whole time in the house on
four Street, the second floor. They kind of turned into
a counterfeit money operation. They were taking dollar bills, they
were bleaching them ands and then restamping those cleaned papers
as higher denomination bills as fifteen hundred dollar bills. So
(13:06):
that weekend in April of twenty ten, they went up.
They checked into the Highatt Regency in downtown Chicago. I'm
assuming the idea was they were going up to see
how good they were, how much fake money they could pass.
Evidently they weren't very good, because they had just checked
into the hotel and hadn't even left before they were arrested.
They had given the dorman a fake hundred dollar bill
(13:27):
and he knew right away something wasn't right. He said,
it kind of felt kind of oily, and he called
the police. The police came and ended up arresting Jeffrey.
They found fifty four thousand dollars in counterfeit money in
their rooms, in addition to bags and bags of date
rape drugs, bomb making supplies, guns forged documents, and fake IDs.
They were planning a bank heist while they were up
(13:48):
in Chicago, and so the murder trial that kind of
trumped everything. But they were supposed to be all these
federal charges outstanding, you know, the counterfeit money and stuff
like that, and whatever happened with those trials, no one
really knows because they never made the news or anything.
And some people have been floating the idea that it's
because Jeffrey was involved with the CIA and they kind
(14:09):
of got him off.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
So how long had Joey and Jeffrey been together before
all of this starts to happen. And I know it's
very sort of a loose term because they're bringing other
people into the relationship, but how long had they been involved?
Speaker 1 (14:24):
Well, and of course it depends which side you listen to,
the prosecution or the defense, but it wasn't very long
in either case if you believe what Joey said. He
made it sound like they met around Halloween of two
thousand and nine. So the prosecution kind of painted it
as they were in this long term relationship and they
(14:44):
did everything together. But Jeffrey Month's defense attorney was kind
of able, i think successfully to point out, no, they
were only together for a few months, and he was
able to bring an evidence that Joey, who had just
gotten out of prison, had plans on finding a mark.
He was looking for a man to live with and
mooch off of and he had I mean, they had
lists that he had made and one of the first
(15:05):
things was get money for bail tracking devices on the car.
I mean, just all this crazy stuff. Was looking for
machine guns, and every day the trial just kept getting
more and more bizarre. They had suicide tapes that Joey
had made, but then when they showed them, people suggested
that they were manufactured, you know, they were fabricated. They
had made those thinking that if they ever did get arrested,
(15:28):
they would have these things to kind of throw a wrench.
That's what a lot of people think happened. It's just
a bizarre story, a bizarre murder trial.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
So when police separate Jeffrey and Joey, which is always
a good idea, and they start going back and forth,
well Jeffrey did this, well, actually, you know, Joey's the
one that did this. Was there not a way to
tease out whose story actually matches the physical evidence? You know,
is there any way for the police to suss out
exactly what happened versus what these two guys who are
(16:02):
high on crystal meth. I'm assuming still during the interrogation
are telling the truth or not.
Speaker 1 (16:08):
Yeah, I mean I don't know that. They everyone bothered
to try to look at the logistics of three people
being on the bed and how it could have panned
out a certain way. But one thing was interesting. Certain
things were suppressed. And so when I sat through the
trials the first time, one of the things that was
kind of a mystery is the defense painted it as
(16:30):
Joey Bannis was the one who first brought up the
notion of the body being buried someplace, and their whole
justification was, now, if he's guilty, why is he going
to bring up a body in the basement. But then
it came out later on in the trials that Jeffrey Month,
according to the police reports, is the one that first
brought it up. He said to the responding officer, ask him,
(16:53):
pointing to Joey, ask him about the body and the basement,
and the defense successfully had a statement suppressed. So the
way the defense painted it, it did look like Joey
was the one to bring up this body in the
first place, and that's why so many people were confused.
You know, why would he be bringing this up. He's
going to, you know, bring himself down if he's you know,
(17:15):
pointing out this body in the basement. But it turns
out esupposedly Jeffrey Munt had brought it up, and then
that kind of lent more credence to the overall notion
of what happened that night, And that's still kind of
a big mystery. But people suspect that Jeffrey had had
enough and he was probably going to go to the
police and had told Joey that night, the evening of
June seventeen, twenty ten, and Joey, you know, he had
(17:39):
been to prison numerous times already, he knew that was
going to be the end for him. He was going
to be going back. So he either he was high
and didn't know what he was doing, or else he
knew very well what he was doing and thought he'd
probably take Jeffrey down with him, probably thinking, you know,
if I'm going to go down, you're going to go
down with me.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
With these two men, what is the caliber of their
defense teams? Are they school or because Jeffrey, I know
he's in debt, but because he had a job, does
he afford an attorney or do you have the classic
attorneys come to them because they want the publicity.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
You did notice, first of all, the size. They both
had excellent defense attorneys. Joey, who went on trial first,
had Darren Woolf. He's quite a well known figure, and
he was assisted by Justin Brown. And then Jeffrey he
had four people on his defense team. Steve Romanes is
kind of a Mattlock Southern type of lawyer, you know,
folksy kind of lawyer, was the lead defense and he
(18:33):
was assisted by Ted Shause, and then they had their
two assistance as well. And you just noticed by the number,
you know, Jeffrey had twice as many people, you know,
sitting next to him when he was at the table.
And then the other thing is by that point Joey
was convicted of the bulk of the crimes during that
(18:54):
first trial, so when Jeffrey went on trial, they were
able to say, we already got person. He's been convicted.
And I think that really helped the defense a lot,
and also I think the prosecution they got somewhat complacent
after the first trial. Much of their argument for the
second trial was exactly the same. Some of their lines
(19:16):
were verbatim, so they were just I think, kind of
coasting thinking they were going to use the same defense,
but by that point, Jeffrey Month's defense attorneys were able
to study things, and there was just all this stuff
that came out. It was two completely different trials. I
mean to see the stuff that was suppressed in the
first trial that was allowed to come out in the
second trial, and vice versa. And in the second trial
they brought up all this stuff about Joey Bannis. One
(19:39):
of the things that kind of impressed me during the
first trial is Joey Bannis. He was always even keeled,
he was soft spoken, he was articulate, he never changed
his story once, and so a lot of people went
into that first trial thinking, like the media had painted it,
that Joey was probably more guilty of the two because
he had this rap sheet and he was notoriously violent
(20:01):
and volatile. Jeffrey mont had never had trouble with the
law before. They made it seem like he kind of
got swept up in all of this. But after that
first trial, just seeing Joey maintain his composure on the
stand and Jeffrey get caught in a lot of lies,
a lot of people left that first trial thinking that
Jeffrey probably was the more guilty of the two. But
during the second trial, then they brought in all this
(20:23):
other stuff about Joey, like how psychotic he really is psychopathic,
and just all these things that he had planned. You know,
they were able to, like I said, provide these lists,
and we found out a little more about some of
his other crimes and stuff, and people were testifying against him.
Supposedly his own family was telling people to stay away,
(20:44):
that their brother, their son, you know, was evil. So
if your own family members are talking like that, that
says a lot about you know, you as a person.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
I think what is the difference between as far as
the sentence goes, They're not acquitting either one of these
guys everything, no matter what they decide, right, because there's
always what covering up accessory Secondarymber. I don't know what
else the other choices were, and you can tell me that,
but you know, I want to know what's at risk.
So you said that they took the death penalty off
(21:13):
the table for both of them.
Speaker 1 (21:14):
Is that right?
Speaker 2 (21:14):
What are the charges that they're facing as well as
the sentences that they're facing.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
Here the sentences were twenty five to life. That's in
effect what Joey Bannis got, and the charges were murder.
I forget what the terminology is in Kentucky, but when
you tamper with a corpse, hiding evidence, drug possession, burglary
because they stole stuff from Jamie Carroll. So there were
(21:41):
like eight major counts and then the first trial, Joey
was convicted of all but the two minor counts. In
the second trial, Jeffrey was acquitted of all but the
two minor counts, so he got eight years for his part.
He had already been in prison three years by that point,
so the next year, twenty fourteen, he was halfway through,
so they let him go. He was out on parole,
(22:03):
already went to a half way house, and as far
as I know, he's out and he's living his best life.
Speaker 2 (22:11):
What is Jamie's family saying about all of this or
were they there to represent him at all?
Speaker 1 (22:17):
To a certain extent, And this is another situation where
you got to kind of parse things not to offend
the family too much. And depends which side you believe.
But Jamie's mother, I mean rightly, so she was devastated
and she's on record sobbing saying how much she missed
her son. But the other thing is others have reported
(22:39):
his family life wasn't the best. And what was kind
of damning for Jamie's mother is she didn't even know
he was missing until the night of the nine one
one call.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
I was wondering about that. Did somebody actually say seven
months earlier, this guy's missing.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
People, they might have suspected something. But this is another
interesting thing because this was one of the reasons the
prosecution used as a motive. Supposedly, Jeffrey and Joey knowing
that Jamie was going to go to prison the next day,
they figured, no one's going to notice if he just
diks off the face of the planet.
Speaker 2 (23:13):
Yes, they would. He's supposed to turn himself in, right.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
Well, that's the thing. He didn't turn himself in the
next day. And guess what. They dropped the ball. Normally
put out a bench warrant or something. They totally dropped
the ball, so he fell through the cracks. So he
wasn't in the system. And his mother, who supposedly, you know,
was devastated by his loss, didn't even know he was missing.
She just assumed he was in prison and she'd probably
hear from him when he came out. But you know,
(23:39):
your son's in prison, for seven months, and you don't
know that for certain. He did have family and friends
who did miss him, that's for sure. But yeah, it's
kind of a tragedy that he fell through the cracks
and wasn't noticed until it was too late.
Speaker 2 (23:55):
And what's awful is to bring up the irony here
is he's at this house with the two men partying,
thinking this is his last night of freedom. And obviously,
if he had known that this was going to be
something where, you know, he would kind of be able
to scoot away and go to Mexico or someplace and
never be found and nobody was going to come look
for him, none of this would have likely happened. It
(24:17):
is sad, and it brings up something that is always
a challenge I think for people who write true crime,
which is, how do you take a victim who is
not the perfect victim? And I don't mean you know,
the missing white Wooman syndrome. I mean the person who
has clearly made some questionable choices. It doesn't mean they
deserve what happened, but it must have been difficult for
(24:40):
you to tease out the really positive things about Jamie
that then readers could really connect to and say, this
person deserves justice just like everybody else.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
Yeah, and that's that was one of the challenges I
had right away, because it seemed when the details of
the murder were released, it was always this drug, drug
fueled night of sex, and it was so sensationalized, and
I had to, you know, be careful that I wasn't
feeding into the sensationalism, you know. But yeah, I mean
(25:12):
they did a lot of victim shaming, and so it
was a challenge to keep reminding people that Jamie was
the victim. He didn't deserve what happened to him. Even yes,
he did have a checkered past, as was pointed out
right away, but yeah, he didn't deserve to die that way.
He didn't deserve to have someone execute him. So it
was a challenge, and there were other challenges. You know,
(25:34):
the whole gay aspect of the.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
Trial jury selection is something you talk about. I think
that would be a great example to explain.
Speaker 1 (25:41):
So in Kentucky they record, they videotape all their trials
and so one of the you know, the book took
me ten years to write, and one of the reasons
was it was a daunting project, you know, trying to
just get it all under my belt. But then a
lot of it was doing the research and going back
and I sat through the trials. I was there every day.
(26:01):
But then later on I was able to get the
videotaped proceedings in the courtroom, and that's when it got
really interesting, because when you get those videotape proceedings, you
get all the stuff that you don't get to see
that you're not privy to when you're sitting in the
gallery in the courtroom. For example, you know, if you're
in a courtroom and there's an objection or something and
the judge calls both councils to the bench and they
(26:24):
hit the white noise button and everything is blocked out.
You get to hear what that all was about once
you get the tapes afterwards, and the same thing. They
record all the jury polling, and so you got to
see the prospective jurors on the stand being questioned. And
this is where you saw, unfortunately, a lot of homophobia
(26:44):
rear its ugly head. But it was, you know, over
ten years ago that that happened, and you like to
think we've come a long way since then, but I'm
not really sure about that. But it was fascinating just
to see people's answers to some of these questions, and
it was interesting to see how the defense and the
prosecution were able to kind of weed out people they
didn't want.
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Yeah, you talk about how it sounds like both sides
are asking if you have a prejudice against you know,
gay people, are you able to put that to the
side to be fair? And there are people who are
sitting there actually having to think about it for a second,
which is so upsetting to read, but of course not surprising.
And I'm not going to pin this on Kentucky. I'm
just going to say across the nation, it wouldn't surprise.
Speaker 1 (27:27):
Me in any state. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2 (27:30):
So tell me a little bit more about maybe did
we find homophobia in the media during this time? How
did the Louisville Press also known as the litter Ball City.
I had never known that. How did the Louisville Press
handle all of this? Do you think that they were
pretty fair and impartial?
Speaker 1 (27:46):
I think for the most part they tried to be
as fair and impartial as they could be, But you
couldn't get around some of the details. It was, you know,
some people called it the pink Triangle.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Murder.
Speaker 1 (27:57):
It was a kind of gay lover's try angle kind
of thing. And I think the fact that some people
were trying to really trying hard to not come across
as homophobic, I think that might have affected how the
case was covered in the press in general. Because the
trial of Joey and Jeffrey was going on at the
(28:18):
same time of the Jody Arius trial. Oh yeah, of
course that was national two three months, that was national news.
That's what dominated all, you know, the news channels and
true crime things. And a lot of people were saying,
had that not been going on, Joey and Jeffrey's trial
might have been the big national story. But a lot
(28:39):
of people, a lot of journalists weren't opting to cover
it because they were afraid, I suspect, of coming across
as homophobic by covering it and you know, dredging up
all these sensational details.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
When I teach students at the University of Texas, I
teach journalism there, I often tell them when they're pitching
me an idea for like a nonfiction story or a documentary,
you need to I immediately identify who your deal breaker
interview is. Who do you have to get or this
is a dead story, and you know I'm going to
tell you no. So who was that for you, David,
(29:15):
with this story. Is there somebody you knew you had
to secure, like Jamie's mom or somebody who you just thought,
I don't know if the book is going to be
okay if I don't if I don't get this person.
Speaker 1 (29:25):
Yeah. Well, actually for me, it was Joey and Jeffrey themselves.
You know, as I was writing, I thought, you know,
this is one of the reasons it took me so long.
They weren't talking to me. I got in my head, well,
unless I talk to them and get their sides of
the story, I can't really paint, you know, an accurate picture.
You know. Yes, I've got interviews and I have courtroom drama,
(29:48):
I have you know, files and documents, But until I
hear it, you know, from the accused killer's mouse, I
was like, you can't really do the story justice. Well,
seven or eight years into that, I finally realized they're
not going to talk to me, and that's when I
decided to kind of go on and just build that
into the story. And I did have a brief exchange
(30:10):
with Joey at the very end right before the book
was going to press. But yeah, to this day, that's
what I really wanted was to talk to those two
to get their you know, take on the situation, and
also to kind of find out more about what happened
that night of the nine one one call, because that's
you know, it's also a mystery. Did they do it together,
(30:31):
like the prosecution argued that they conspire. Was it a
joint effort or did one of them kind of take
the initiative and the other was swept up? Or did
one of them take the initiative and the other wasn't
swept up, he was just a bystander. You know, that's
an unanswered question. And then you know what actually provoked
the fight that night was Jeffrey going to go to
(30:52):
the police and tell him about the body and the basement.
You know what what sent Joey, you know, off the
deep end like he went that night.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
I wonder why the prosecutor didn't decide to try the
two of them at the same time, because it seems
like a risk to do what they did to put
Joey on first, and then it's like, well, what's the
second jury going to do? You've already convicted one person.
Unless you have really strong evidence that Jeffrey really was
right next to him committing the crime, then it doesn't
(31:21):
seem like they have any other choice. Do you have
any reason or any idea about why that happened?
Speaker 1 (31:26):
I think without each one testifying against the other, they
didn't really have much of a case. That was the
whole crux of their case, and without that, I think
it would have been really really hard to put them
on trial because it just wasn't a lot of evidence.
You know, there were text messages and things like that,
but as far as a motive for why they would
(31:46):
have done this, there really wasn't much out there.
Speaker 2 (31:51):
What do you think is important about this book?
Speaker 1 (31:53):
Now?
Speaker 2 (31:53):
Why tell the story?
Speaker 1 (31:54):
Now? What is it for you? Do you think, well,
the homophobia needs to be addressed, just the nuances of
a courtroom trial. You know, I'd like to say I'm
not going to second guess a jury ever again just
by seeing how different these two trials were. But then,
you know, it just it's amazing how little people who
have to make a decision about a person's innocence or guilt,
(32:18):
how little they're actually shown sometimes that I think is amazing.
I think that's an issue. But then the other thing is,
you know, this was kind of my story. You know,
if you read the book, I take a first person approach,
and I kind of as I was finishing things up,
you know, we were going on ten years, and ten
years is a lot of time you can go back
(32:38):
and reflect. So I decided to insert myself more into
the story, include a lot of quirky neighborhood flavor and characters,
and I kind of made it the story about me
on this journey trying to figure out what happened that night.
So just for purely selfish reasons, it's kind of my story,
you know, my story as a writer and trying to
take a journalistic approach and trying to be fair to
(33:00):
all parties involved. But still, you know, it's so often
the case you're rubbing salt and open wounds, and some
people weren't happy I was writing this story. So just
on its face, it's my story, but it's a story
of how I got involved in this murder and how
I went after loose ends, tried to figure out what
the murder was all about, what really happened, and in
(33:21):
the process I just uncovered this interesting neighborhood and a
fascinating city. So yeah, you mentioned literabal city. That's a
nickname a lot of people don't know Louisville enjoys. I'm
hoping the book will kind of change that though. But yeah,
I love quirky things and I love eccentric characters. So
there's a lot of these quirks that pop up in
(33:42):
all angles of the book and some one of the
reviewers said, this is my love letter to Louisville. And
I kind of like the conscription. It's a true crime book,
but it's more than a true crime book. You know,
it's not just straight true crime. It's got memoir, it's
got you know, just history and local flavor. And that's
kind of what I like to do when I'm writing,
you know, they say write what you like to read.
(34:03):
So I basically wrote the book that I'd want to read,
and that's all she wrote.
Speaker 2 (34:09):
So one last thing, what does your gut say happened?
Who is the one that held a knife that night?
Or do you think it was both of them? Just
reading everything you've read and hearing everything you've.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Heard, And that's another thing. Every time I go back,
and like every six months, I go back and just
reread the book and just you know, to refresh my
senses and my recollections, because you forget things over time.
But every time I go back and read the book,
I kind of come to a different conclusion. And every
time I go back and watch the trial tapes, I
noticed something that I didn't notice before. So I guess
(34:42):
it depends on the day of the week or what
month of the year it is, and I might have
a different answer. But the more it happens, the more
I tend to believe the prosecution was kind of on
the right track. That Joey and Jeffrey they work together
to a certain degree. One thing I'm convinced of is
Jeffrey is not as innocent as the verdict makes him
(35:05):
out to be. There are things in the trial that
come out that are just kind of, you know, dead giveaways.
For example, one of the lawyers, they brought up all
these text messages between Joey and Jeffrey, and supposedly one
time they were fighting for whatever reason, but Joey sent
Jeffrey a text saying, Jeffrey, don't make me. Don't make
me tell them about what's in the basement, you know,
(35:28):
And if someone were to text that to you, if
you were involved, and you were innocent, what would you say, right, say,
why do I have to worry about You're the one
that killed him and buried him down there, You'd say
something like that. Yeah, Jeffrey Mont just totally glosses over it,
you know, like so he knows, he definitely knows more.
He's more involved than the verdicts lead us to believe.
Speaker 2 (35:50):
I am shocked, and this is going to sound terrible,
but I am shocked that one of them ultimately did
not kill the other one in this situation at some point.
I mean, really, seven months go by and one of
them does not completely freak out and kill the other one.
Speaker 1 (36:05):
Yeah, and there's some of the people they put on
trial were, for example, a former prisonmate of Joey's who
had come to town and he was staying with them for
a while, and he talks about how Joey pulled out
a gun and like shot it above Jeffrey's head went
into a door or something. So yeah, it could have
very well happened, probably would have been Joey killing Jeffrey.
But yeah, it's surprising that they made it as long
(36:27):
as they did.
Speaker 2 (36:27):
Seven months did their families come at all? Did they
have any kind of representation?
Speaker 1 (36:32):
Yeah, both families had people there. Wow, And you asked about, like, like,
when I was trying to, you know, get people to talk,
who my most prized interviews would have been. And that's
one thing I didn't do. I didn't go after family members.
You know, I'm not that kind of journalist who can
go knock on people's doors and kind of be a
thorn in their side either. I never approached the family
(36:55):
members directly, but I let it be known that if
they wanted to talk to me, I'd be more than
willing to talk to them. Jeffrey's family, Joey's family, and
Jamie's family. So I didn't approach any of the relations directly,
but I let it be known through channels that if
they wanted to talk, I'd be available. But none of
them wanted to talk.
Speaker 2 (37:16):
I'm a little surprised Joey wasn't willing to talk to you.
Is he expecting to get out on parole or something.
Speaker 1 (37:22):
In another ten years or so. But yeah, that was
one of my biggest surprises because you would think, after
the verdicts have come down and he's in prison, you know,
living the rest of his life like he's going to
live it. Being the narcissist that he is, you think
he'd want to put his spin, you know, on the
story and kind of get his two cents out there
(37:43):
so he can kind of narrate the story himself, kind
of direct how it's going. But yeah, right before the
book went to press, I finally got him to answer
an email. And you know, I was going through different channels.
I finally someone found his Tumblr page and sent me
an email, and I sent it like five months from
by six seven months. I thought he's not going to talk,
(38:03):
and then all of a sudden, I got this email
through the prison email system JPAL, and he's like, oh, sorry, David.
I was, I've been in the hole the last six months.
And then he was really excited. He wanted to talk
and and he ended up being in a prison right
outside of Louisville. But he said, if we talk, then
we have to do it face to face because you know,
(38:24):
they can record, you know, phone calls and stuff like that, emails,
and so I made plans to visit him. And then
this is when some of the CIA stuff was coming out,
and I was like, don't ask about the CIA stuff.
Don't ask about the CIA stuff. Well, I couldn't keep
my mouth shut. So the day before I was supposed
to go meet him, I said, so, some of the
(38:46):
things I want to talk about tomorrow. By the way,
what about all the CIA stuff? Whatever came of that?
Why did you say that? And he never got back
to me, and he went he wouldn't accept my visit.
When I went, oh, wow, So it makes you think
that maybe there was something with the CIA angle, which
is so crazy. Wow, what a story.
Speaker 2 (39:06):
And I love learning about Louisville. I've never been there before,
and it's interesting because it's such a sad story. But
it's a story that I think is so illuminating about
different parts of society and certainly this part of Kentucky.
What I was struck by, I will say the most,
is the idea of, especially after you telling me it
(39:26):
didn't seem like they were trying to kill each other afterward,
that this combination of these three men could create something
so ultimately deadly and vile. You know, if you strip
them apart, would that have ever happened? But together, particularly
Jeffrey and Joey together, it's like they're emboldened to do this,
(39:49):
And I do wonder what you think if we separated them.
Is this something that would have happened if they were
on their own with Jamie?
Speaker 1 (39:57):
Yeah, good question. Like I said, that's another thing. Depending
on the month of the year, the day of the week,
I'll probably have a different answer. But my first inkling
is Joey Bannis very well could have ended up doing
something like this. Whoever he en came with. I mean,
some of the stuff that came out, he did have
those propensities. Whether or not jeffreymont ever would have gone
(40:20):
in that direction, I see that less likely. But they
both had some of their dark sides revealed during the trials.
And another thing that I tried to address in writing
this book was yeah, like you said, and the prosecution
pointed out, Joey and Jeffrey came together, it was just
like this deadly mixture, you know, just they were swirled
(40:40):
up and all this stuff and this terrible stuff happened.
But yeah, they did something terrible, But does that invalidate
their whole lives? You know, people do bad things. Do
we just discount them because of this one horrific thing
that they were involved in? Or did they still have
some value as human beings? Is there some redemp in
store for them down the road?
Speaker 2 (41:02):
Well, I will say it makes me uncomfortable that Jeffrey
Mont is out there now because did he really learn
a lesson? We don't even know if Joey learned a
lesson and now he's out there.
Speaker 1 (41:13):
Yeah, And while there's all kinds of rumors. Some people
say he's he changed his name and he's working in
Europe under an assumed identity. Some people say, no, he
bought a house that's kind of similar to the house
he bought and he's fixing up that house. Someone says
he's with another boyfriend that kind of looks like Joey.
Joey's got his little acolytes in prison. From what I hear,
(41:33):
he's got a following, and he's quite the charmer. He's
meticulous in the way he dresses and in prison, uh huh,
So who knows?
Speaker 2 (41:42):
Who knows he'll be in his Would it be late
fifties early sixties when he gets out? Is that right?
He was convicted in twenty ten and he.
Speaker 1 (41:50):
Got twenty ten, convicted twenty thirteen, so early sixties. Everyone says,
still young and spry enough to do some more killing
when you get out at home. Not the case.
Speaker 2 (42:01):
I hope so too. I hope so too. If you
love historical true crime stories, check out the audio versions
of my books The Ghost Club, All That Is Wicked,
and American Sherlock and Don't Forget. There are twelve seasons
(42:24):
of my historical true crime podcast, Tenfold More Wicked right
here in this podcast feed, scroll back and give them
a listen if you haven't already. This has been an
exactly right production. Our senior producer is Alexis M. Morosi.
Our associate producer is Christina Chamberlain. This episode was mixed
by John Bradley. Curtis Heath is our composer. Artwork by
(42:47):
Nick Toga. Executive produced by Georgia Hardstark, Karen Kilgarriff and
Danielle Kramer. Follow Wicked Words on Instagram at tenfold More
Wicked and on Facebook at Wicked Words pod
Speaker 1 (43:03):
M
Host
Kate Winkler Dawson
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!