Susan and David Hendricks - Part 2

On the night of November 8, 1983, David Hendricks returned home from a business trip to find his wife, Susan, and their three young children brutally murdered in their beds. They had been killed with an axe and a butcher knife—both from the family home. Investigators quickly turned their focus to David. There were no signs of forced entry, the burglary attempt seemed staged, and there were no other viable suspects. It was called the “cleanest bloody crime scene”. David’s unemotional demeanor, strange midnight business trip, and seemingly rehearsed account raised suspicions, and the coroner’s estimate of the time of death—based on the children’s stomach contents—suggested the murders occurred before David left for his trip. Prosecutors theorized he was growing restless in his strict religious life and may have killed his family to escape it. Did David Hendricks kill his family or was it an intruder?

Support us on Patreon

Today's snack: Buc-ee’s Copycat Beaver Nuggets

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hi. I'm Tina, and I'm Rich. And if there's one
thing we've learned in over twenty years of marriage, it's
that some days you'll feel like killing your wife, and
some days you'll feel like killing your husband.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
Welcome to love, Mary Kill Hi Rich, Hi Tina.

Speaker 1 (00:28):
How are you.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
I'm doing pretty good. How are you?

Speaker 1 (00:31):
I'm pretty good too. A little sleepy. I think you're
a lot sleepy.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
Him.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
My slept recording earlier than we normally record, so we
both just kind of rolled out of bed and yeah.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
Well, I slept writing nine hours last night and I
still I could have slept probably three more.

Speaker 1 (00:46):
Wow. Well, I hope you get a chance to catch
up soon.

Speaker 2 (00:48):
Me too.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
I have a bone to pick with you. Uh oh,
I got up before you and the bed was not made.

Speaker 2 (00:54):
Oh that's weird. Yeah, I wonder how that how did
not get made?

Speaker 1 (00:59):
Well, even if I round down, I am in bed
one hundred percent of the time after you And uh yeah,
so you were the last one up today. So which
is your responsibility to make the bed?

Speaker 2 (01:10):
It happens so rarely you do that real quick, Yeah,
let me go do that.

Speaker 1 (01:14):
What percentage of the time do you think most people
make their beds.

Speaker 2 (01:19):
Well, I don't know, like on average overall of all
the people.

Speaker 1 (01:23):
Yeah, you think it's fifty percent. Yeah, I bet it's
higher than that.

Speaker 2 (01:28):
Well, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:29):
We make ours pretty much one percent.

Speaker 2 (01:32):
That's when I get up after you par I.

Speaker 1 (01:34):
Mean, i'll make it later. Maybe you'll make it later.
I don't know. I think there's an intimidation factor sometimes
because you're not Maybe it's good.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
It's a skill and I am not very good at it.

Speaker 1 (01:45):
You're a scene. I think it probably sent you to
YouTube videos of like Pete. There's a competition bed making competitions. Yeah,
it's pretty impressive. But they're making the bed like from
the ground up. They're even putting like the Devey and
the cover. It's it's you don't remember seeing them. I'll
show you later. It's pretty entertaining.

Speaker 2 (02:03):
I just watch entertainment.

Speaker 1 (02:05):
I could watch it all day loud. I almost forgot.
I made you a snack, okay, because we have not
been able to go to BUCkies, I brought BUCkies to you, okay.
I made you homemade.

Speaker 2 (02:16):
Bever Oh wow.

Speaker 1 (02:18):
Yeah. We've been trying to eat a little healthier around
here and trying not to eat things that don't actually
look like food, and beaver nuggets are probably the least
foody thing that you can eat. But these are, if
I say, do say so myself, these.

Speaker 2 (02:32):
Are pretty really good.

Speaker 1 (02:34):
It's not like I made them from scratch. I actually
did see a recipe where you could make beaver nuggets
from scratch, like with corn meal. No, this, I just
bought a bag of.

Speaker 2 (02:43):
Like puffs, oh okay, like corn puffs.

Speaker 1 (02:46):
Corn puffs, and then you just put it. It's essentially
like caramel corn. But it does taste like a beaver's.
Bucky bucky beaver's nuggets. Beavers, why are you laughing at me?

Speaker 2 (02:57):
Say it does taste like a beaver's and waiting for
the next word, But yeah, I get it.

Speaker 1 (03:03):
They're actually the news this morning, the ann Arbor News.
Some beavers were killed at a damn. Oh yeah, isn't
that horrible?

Speaker 2 (03:10):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (03:10):
Okay, anyway, brought me down. Do you want to drive
these beaver nuggets real quick?

Speaker 2 (03:14):
I do.

Speaker 1 (03:20):
What did you think of the homemade beaver nuggets?

Speaker 2 (03:23):
Really good?

Speaker 1 (03:24):
They liked them.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
Taste pretty much like caramel corn. But yeah, they tasted
not very different from the BUCkies ones. Maybe a little
little chewier, but oh, they were really good.

Speaker 1 (03:32):
I didn't cook them quite as long as the recipe said.
You cooked them at two hundred and fifty degrees and
you were supposed to toss them every ten minutes, and
I was like, I'm busy for this, so I probably
cooked them for like forty minutes. And I think they
may be a little stickier than they should be, but yeah,
I think they're pretty pretty delicious. Can you rate my snack?

Speaker 2 (03:50):
I'll give you the nine out of ten.

Speaker 1 (03:52):
Wow, all right, cool? Do you ready to get back
to David Hendricks?

Speaker 2 (03:55):
Sun. Yeah, I'm really interested to see what happens in
this one.

Speaker 1 (03:58):
Do you want to give us a summary?

Speaker 2 (04:00):
On the night of November eighth, nineteen eighty three, David
Hendricks returned home from a business trip to find his wife,
Susan and their three young children brutally murdered in their beds.
They had been killed with an axe and a butcher knife,
both from the family home. Investigators quickly turned their focus
to David. There were no signs of forced entry, the
burglary attempt seemed staged, and there were no other viable suspects.

(04:23):
It was called the cleanest bloody crime scene. David's unemotional demeanor,
strange midnight business trip, and seemingly rehearsed account raised suspicions,
and the coroner's estimate of the time of death, based
on the children's stomach contents, suggested the murders occurred before
David left for his trip. Prosecutors theorized that he was
growing restless in his strict religious life and may have

(04:44):
killed his family to escape it.

Speaker 1 (04:46):
Is there anything else that we should mention? From episode one?

Speaker 2 (04:50):
We briefly mentioned his late night business trip. I thought
that was really interesting because he supposedly left it midnight
to drive to a business trip in Wisconsin, La four
and a half, four hours and forty five minutes away.

Speaker 1 (05:02):
It was three hundred miles, yeah.

Speaker 2 (05:03):
And so he left at midnight but didn't get there
until seven when we know.

Speaker 1 (05:07):
That he stopped at a Hearty's as I think it
was seven to seventeen am.

Speaker 2 (05:11):
So there's really an extra at least hour hour and
a half in there that doesn't really.

Speaker 1 (05:15):
There's no corroborating evidence that he left Bloomington at midnight.

Speaker 2 (05:20):
Right.

Speaker 1 (05:20):
I looked on zillow dot com and there are pictures
of three pin to three Carl drive the Hendricks home.
I'm sure that the home has been updated and it's
changed hands several times, but it does look like the
floor plan is similar, so I will put that in
our show notes if anyone wants to look at pictures
of the house. A break, small but potentially explosive, finally
came when investigators learned that David had hired models to

(05:44):
wear his brace, young attractive models, at least a dozen.
The state's attorney was sure that Hendrix had an inappropriate
relationship with at least one of these models. So up
until this point, we have had no real motive, right right.

Speaker 2 (05:58):
We know that he updated his hair.

Speaker 1 (06:00):
He opited his hairstyle, shaved off his loss lawsome weight,
but there's been no evidence that he's sought any relationship
out center business, and.

Speaker 2 (06:08):
There was no evidence of their marriage having no issues.

Speaker 1 (06:12):
Yeah, they seemed very happy. It wasn't much, but it
was something, something that portrayed David as someone different from
the devout and loyal husband and father that he claimed
to be. Investigators devised a plan bring David in for
questioning while simultaneously interviewing the women, hoping the pressure would
rattle him and shake loose a confession. One of the
women was also represented by Hale Jennings, David's own attorney.

(06:36):
When she called Hale seeking advice about complying with the
police interview, Jennings saw through the trap and called David
to give him a heads up. On Sunday, December fourth,
nineteen eighty three, David called his parents with a startling confession.
Something had been weighing heavily on his conscience. The next day,
December fifth, at one pm, David was arrested at his office.

(06:58):
As he was let out and handcuffs, he glanced over
his shoulder and shouted to his assistant, call my attorney.
David was paraded through the Bloomington police station, where he
saw several of the models he'd worked with being interviewed.
He seemed unbothered, most likely because he'd been tipped off.
He was read as rights booked and taken to the
McLean County Jail. He was put on suicide watch for

(07:18):
twenty four hours as a precaution. The next morning, he
asked for a bucket and a scrub brush to clean
his cell, which he scrubbed vigorously. So David likes things clean.
If he's a sastidious man, so now we know he
likes to clean. While David was in jail, the investigation
at three Pinet, three Carl Drive was ongoing. Investigators sprayed
the house from top to bottom with luminol. The hall

(07:41):
bathroom lit up impressively. The bathroom and shower walls were
covered in blue. Later that afternoon, during his arraignment, David
pleaded not guilty. He was denied bond. There was little
chance he'd be released before the trial. Despite being only
thirty years old. Susan Hendrix had left a will behind
as a reminder David, it's twenty nine and Susan thirty.

(08:02):
They're still very young. They've been married for ten years.
They got married very young. But he's doing really well.
He's super successful, right. Some people have referred to him
as a millionaire. I don't think he was quite there yet,
but he was doing really well. Susan's estate was worth
about one hundred and thirty thousand dollars were well named
David as her beneficiary, but because he was a suspect

(08:25):
in her murder, the money was to go to the
next named parties, who were the children in the instance
of their death. The money was to be split between
Susan and David's siblings. They all agreed to waive the
inheritance and donate the money to David's legal bills. Oh wow,
so the families. Both families are one hundred percent solidly
behind David. Interesting David sold the home on Carl Drive

(08:48):
for just eighty four thousand dollars, way below market value,
and he also sold the patent to his brace. I
think they bought the home about a year a year
and a half earlier for a ninety four thousand dollars.
On December fifteenth, the grand jury convened. Most of the
witnesses were investigators, but also bev David's assistant testified. The

(09:08):
new blood evidence found during the luminol test was presented.
The hearing took just over a week. At the end,
they voted for indictment. After Christmas, on December twenty seventh,
the police were finally done with the investigation of the
Hendricks home and released it back to his family. The
house that Susan had meticulously cleaned and cared for was
in shambles. After law enforcement was finished, the defense was

(09:31):
allowed an investigation of the house. We've probably talked about
this before, but luminol really destroys everything that it touches,
and it all has to be repainted and replaced. And
when the defense was finished with the home, Laverne Hendrix
and Nadine Palmer cleaned the house from top to bottom
and packed up the family's belongings, truly a heartbreaking task.

Speaker 2 (09:52):
In accordance with Illinois law, David was allowed to veto
a judge. He vetoed the first two and settled on
Judge James nect.

Speaker 1 (09:59):
I don't know if it's just Illinois law. I didn't
know that the defendant hand that right.

Speaker 2 (10:03):
Yeah, that's kind of weird. Like if you have a
reputation as a tough judge, you would probably always be
getting vetoed. Hal Jennings told David that he would need
to hire an additional attorney to work on the case.
He hired Mike Costello from Springfield, Illinois. The defense asked
for a venue change, citing a survey that they'd done
where ninety six percent of respondents had seen David Hendricks
on the news, sixty eight percent thought he was definitely guilty,

(10:27):
and ninety percent thought he was probably guilty.

Speaker 1 (10:29):
That's a pretty high yes.

Speaker 2 (10:31):
The judge reluctantly ruled to move the trial. Both attorneys
agreed on Rockford, Illinois, the second largest city in Illinois,
about two hours north of Bloomington near the Wisconsin border.

Speaker 1 (10:41):
I know her well, Yes you do. I grew up
in the Rockford area.

Speaker 2 (10:46):
In August, the defense team moved to have some of
David's conversations with police before he was mirandized stricken from
the record. They also wanted to limit any discussion of
the hendricks Brethren faith and the models who had worked
with David. Defense was also frustrated that they had no
idea what motive the prosecution would be arguing. The judge
ruled in favor of the state. The defense was nervous

(11:08):
about what the state might throw at them. They knew
that David wasn't the perfect Christian man he pretended to be,
and that he would be vulnerable in front of a jury.
The defense's strategy was to raise the possibility that the
murders had been done by a serial killer. The problem
was there were no similar killings in the area. Throughout
the country, however, there are examples of madmen showing up

(11:28):
to kill a family at random.

Speaker 1 (11:30):
There are instances where you know there's some killer on
the loose that will attack a family at random sometimes.
But would that person leave the house in Christine order?

Speaker 2 (11:41):
Right? Are they going to clean up and go in
the shower? Right?

Speaker 1 (11:43):
Would they take the time to make this weak attempt
at making the house look like a hitdmen burglarized?

Speaker 2 (11:48):
Right?

Speaker 1 (11:49):
So I do question that.

Speaker 2 (11:50):
I know it's possible, though, yeah, it seems very unlikely.
While David awaited trial, he sat in jail and read
over the Discovery documents. He was dismayed by some of
what he read, which prompted him to write a letter
he sent to two dozen friends and family members in
February nineteen eighty four.

Speaker 1 (12:06):
I'll read the letter for you. In reading through the Discovery,
I've seen many of the interviews the police have had
with some of you. I must say that I have
been very unpleasantly surprised at the way innocent statements of
yours are twisted to make them say things that you
didn't really mean to say. I say surprised because I
really expected the police and prosecutors to try to find
out facts and determine the truth. But it has become

(12:29):
obvious that they are simply interested in recording only those
things that they can use to convict me. They have
used guile to see and outright lies. Therefore, I would
advise you all, if you care about me want to
help me, do not talk to the police. Don't even
listen to them. Don't even record your no comment comments.

(12:50):
For now, silence is golden. Thanks. There are many things
I want to explain to you all and share with you,
but I can't because of these charges hanging over my head. However,
when this is over and I am free, we'll share everything.
One thing I ask is for your continued prayers. I
still miss Susie terribly and think of my dear children often.
I thought that perhaps by now grief would have largely

(13:12):
been assuaged, but it persists with seemingly undiminished force. Also,
of course, your prayers regarding my upcoming trial are greatly appreciated.
I also pray for many of you each day. Please
continue to write. I hope I haven't offended anyone by
this impersonal response. May God richly bless each of you.
I love you all affectionately and appreciatively. David. I took

(13:33):
some of the letter out just so you know.

Speaker 2 (13:35):
Some of that sounds a little like witness tampering. To me,
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like he's kind
of trying to influence, right. It sounded vaguely threatening, Yeah,
a little bit.

Speaker 1 (13:45):
Yeah, keep your mouth shut.

Speaker 2 (13:46):
David cell was checked three times a day. The jail
was afraid he would take his own life. Four days
before the trial was set to start, Hendricks asked state
Attorney Ron Dozer for a meeting, to which he agreed.
Doser posed a scenario to David that if he can,
he would not seek the death penalty. David acted offended
by the suggestion. He told Dojer that he was not
a murderer. He was innocent. He would never harm anyone,

(14:09):
let alone his family. David implored him to drop the
charges against him, told him it was his duty. Dojer
saw himself in Hendrix and began to think it was
possible that he was innocent. Quote, you're either a hell
of a good salesman or you're innocent. I don't know which.
Doser told him to give him a few days to
think about it. To close the meeting, the men set
a prayer together, led by Ron Dojer. Quote, we pray

(14:31):
God that you will give us the love and courage
to see that justice is done. Amen.

Speaker 1 (14:36):
That was kind of a strange meeting, right, It seems.

Speaker 2 (14:38):
Like that very strange. Yeah, the States Attorney would even
at that point they've.

Speaker 1 (14:42):
Already entertain dismissing the charges. I think dojer really struggled
with this case a lot.

Speaker 2 (14:50):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (14:50):
He also was a very religious man, so.

Speaker 2 (14:53):
Yeah, I think he felt a bond with David, I think.

Speaker 1 (14:56):
A little bit, and he I think had a hard
time wrapping his head around a man like himself committing
this horrible crime.

Speaker 2 (15:03):
Yeah. The trial faced an unexpected delay when Judge Necked
was hospitalized with a back injury that required surgery. In
his place, Judge Richard Bayner was reassigned to oversee the case.
Originally expected to last six to eight weeks, the proceedings
were pushed back by two weeks. Jury selection began at
the Winnebago County Courthouse in Rockford, Illinois, a change of

(15:24):
venue meant to help ensure fairness due to the case's
high profile status. Still, finding twelve impartial jurors who were
also open to imposing the death penalty proved challenging. After
nine days of questioning, the final jury was seated six
women and six men, all white, with an average age
of thirty three and largely middle class backgrounds. Four alternates

(15:44):
were also chosen. On October ninth, nineteen eighty four, the
first day of the trial, the courtroom was about half
full with curious spectators. Prosecutors Brad Murphy and Ron Doser
represented the state, while David was defended by Hal Jennings
and John Long.

Speaker 1 (15:58):
I know sometimes we go through the trials and it
can be a little bit boring, but in this case,
the trial revealed a lot of things about the case
that we hadn't learned up until this point. Okay, so
we're just going to highlight some of those things.

Speaker 2 (16:10):
David's legal bills were quickly mounting. Jennings and Long were
staying at the nicest hotel in Rockford. The Hendricks family
was footing the bill for their hotel and all of
their expenses. Irritated by their extravagant spending, the family complained
and the attorneys agreed to stay at a more modest hotel.

Speaker 1 (16:26):
Do you know what the nicest hotel in Rockford was?
So you spent a fair amount of time in Rockford.

Speaker 2 (16:33):
Tower Clack Tower, yeah, I remember that.

Speaker 1 (16:36):
The clock tower was just I mean you could see
it for miles. It was a big wedding there once
we went to Ye, my friend got married there. I
think we even stayed there.

Speaker 2 (16:46):
Yeah, I think so.

Speaker 1 (16:47):
Do you know what that it was demolished?

Speaker 2 (16:49):
Oh no, I didn't.

Speaker 1 (16:50):
Yeah, which was shocking to me. Wow, tower and everything. Yeah,
we haven't been back in a long time. Yeah, it's
all gone.

Speaker 2 (16:58):
In his opening statement, Prosecutor d Murphy painted a picture
of a man eager to escape the life that he
had built. David Hendrix, he argued, had found financial success,
lost weight, improved his appearance, made lavish purchases, and begun traveling,
more signs of a man seeking a more exciting, liberated existence.

Speaker 1 (17:16):
Be careful, guys, if you're losing weight out there, because
people will, you know, look at you differently.

Speaker 2 (17:21):
Oh yeah. Murphy suggested that David craved sexual freedom and
a lifestyle that no longer aligned with the strict beliefs
of the Brethren. While Susan was a kind and lovely woman,
she remained deeply committed to their faith and had no
interest in change. A divorce or extramarital affair would have
cost David everything, his status, his community, and the support

(17:41):
of his friends and family. Murphy implied that murder was
the only way David could be free without facing total rejection.
His opening argument lasted thirty eight minutes. Hal Jennings delivered
the opening for the defense. David wiped at his eyes
with a handkerchief while Jennings spoke about an intruder coming
into the Hendricks home to steal and murder. He accused

(18:02):
the police of confirmation bias and not understanding that David's
measured response to his family being murdered was due to
his deeply held religious beliefs. To him, his family being
in heaven was a good thing, Jennings continued. In the
two months that investigators had possession of the Hendricks home,
they hadn't found any evidence linking David to the crime.

Speaker 1 (18:21):
Nor did they find any evidence of anyone else being
in the home.

Speaker 2 (18:24):
Right The defense attorney admitted that David may have been
slightly inappropriate with some of the models, but never had
an extramarital affair. We'll be back after a break.

Speaker 1 (18:41):
The guilt or innocence of David Hendricks hinged on one
major point. What time had the family been killed. You
remember the timeline, Like he said, he left at midnight,
and if the family had been killed before midnight, we
could prove that obviously he was the murderer. Anytime after
midnight it was an introu.

Speaker 2 (19:00):
But even the midnight thing, all we have is his
word on that, right, Yeah, he has. Theoretically, he could
have left Bloomington as late as like what two in
the morning and still gotten to where he was going
at that to the heart use for breakfast at seven
or whatever.

Speaker 1 (19:14):
Yeah, I think investigators think that he left at twelve
forty five for some reason. I'm not sure why they
pinpointed it to that, but okay, Yeah, we know that
he did stop at Perkins for coffee, but I don't
think he had a receipt for that. Okay, I could
be wrong. Though, typical measures used to determine time of death,
such as rigor mortis and body temperature, were not reliable

(19:34):
in this case, because almost twenty four hours had passed
before the bodies were found. The prosecution relied heavily on
what time the children had last eaten to prove that
David was the killer. The Winnebago County Coroner testified that
he believed the children had eaten one to three hours
before their deaths. The defense was able to largely discredit
his testimony. However, the coroner was wise enough to save

(19:56):
the stomach contents for others to analyze the coroner as
a part time farmer, so they tried to make him
look like country bumpkin. Yeah right. Doctor Michael Bodden testified because,
of course he didn't. Of course, it was nineteen eighty
four and he was already the most expert of expert witnesses.
He served as New York City Chief Medical Officer before

(20:19):
he was demoted by Mayor Ed Koch after allegations of
sloppy record keeping, poor judgment in cooperation, although it's rumored
that he was fired after revealing private information about the
death of Nelson Rockefeller during a drunken Oh interesting, I
think Nelson Rockefeller died in the arms of another woman.

(20:40):
Oh bought and believe that the time of death for
the children was about two hours after their last meal,
which would be about nine PM. Without getting too graphic,
we have the stomach contents at trial. They're put in
like these styrofoam cups, and the pizza had been a
veggie pizza, and some of the vegetables remained identified. Boden

(21:01):
was on the stand for over two days, for nine hours,
and most of that time was spent by the defense
trying to credit him as an expert in the science
of food digestion. The next witness, when asked to rate
the level of digestion, said that the food was only
about ten percent digested. During the police interviews, David had
been less than upfront with investigators. He implied that they

(21:22):
had taken some of the leftover pizza home and he said, oh,
the kids ate the pizza right before they had another snack,
right before they went to bed, and you'd be with
the leftover pizza right But there was no pizza box
ever found. That's something that investigators really struggled with, like, well,
you have a medium pizza and you've got three kids
plus yourself, Like they just didn't think that any of
the pizza had been left.

Speaker 2 (21:43):
Over, and if you did bring it home, there would
be a pizza box someone.

Speaker 1 (21:46):
Pizza box, but the travage had gone. Yeah, and that
was one of the things. They had searched a landfill
and they had looked for this pizza box. The pizza
box was never found. It was a major win for
the defense when the deputy coroner testified that he had
gathered the stomach contents from the victims using a ladle
of funnel and a plastic cup before he washed the

(22:07):
rest down the sync. The defense argued that without the
entire contents of the stomachs to analyze, no conclusions could
be drawn. So that's kind of frustrating, right, yeah, And
I see their point, because if you can't look at
all of the contents, you can't really determine you digested exactly.
But the deputy corner hind of thought that he had

(22:29):
a good sampling of what the remnants and the stomachs were.
Some of the most compelling witnesses to take the stand
where the young women David had hired to model his
orthopedic backbrace, first for a promotional pamphlet and then for
a trade show. The presence of the models in the
courtroom brought an undeniable visual impact that bolstered the prosecution's narrative.

(22:49):
Aware of how damaging their testimony might appear, the defense
fought to have it excluded, arguing it would unfairly tarnish
David's character. But after weighing the arguments, the judge ruled
their testimony could proceed with strict limitations. The women would
not be allowed to speak to David's moral character directly. Instead,
their accounts were admitted solely to suggest potential motive that David,

(23:12):
beneath his religious exterior may have been driven by desire,
what the prosecution described as lust in his heart. The
first model to testify, a young woman named Echo, had
been eighteen when she met David in the summer of
nineteen eighty one. They met at the photo studio and
she was wearing a leotard under the brace. She said
he was a perfect gentleman and there'd been no inappropriate

(23:34):
contact or conversation. The second woman to testify was named Diana.
She was nineteen when David hired her. He asked her
to come to his office for a fitting. She came
with her mother. David told her that she needed to
be in her bra and underwear. Then he told her
she needed to take her bra off because he needed
to make a plaster cast of her chest. David asked
Diana's mother to leave the room. She at first refused,

(23:57):
but when David said he'd be embarrassed, if she'd see
She begrudgingly left. Well, first he said, well, I don't
want your daughter to be embarrassed, and the model was like,
I'm fine. And then he said, well, I don't want
your mother to be embarrassed, and she said I'm fine.
But then David said, well I'd be embarrassed.

Speaker 2 (24:14):
We can for any reason to get her out of
the room.

Speaker 1 (24:16):
It sounds like exactly David put basiline under her breasts,
on her stomach, and below her panteline before applying the plaster.
Seems like there's no reason for him to be making
plaster casts of anyone's bodies. Several women testified about David's
odd behavior with them. He put a plaster cast on
a woman's legs and she had no idea why he

(24:37):
measured their body parts with a tape measure and mark
their skin with a sharpie. The youngest of the models
was just sixteen. David had taken her picture himself in
the basement of his home. In the summer of nineteen
eighty three, David was driving along when he saw a
sixteen year old girl named Penny walking to the swimming
pool wearing a bikini top in shorts. He pulled over

(24:57):
and asked her if she wanted to model for him.
He gave his card. Later, the girl's mother called him
and gave him a piece of her mind, but the
judge did not allow her to testify. Another woman testified
that he showed up at her apartment and asked her
to be a model. She'd never met him before. He
said he'd gotten her information from her friend. This time,
he told her that she needed to be naked for

(25:18):
the fitting, and she complied. Another young woman said that
he came within inches of kissing her before she pushed
him away and told him to leave her apartment. A
woman who brought her husband to the fitting was never
asked back. He gave yet another woman a back and
frontal massage, caressing her breasts. David, it seemed, was becoming
more brazen with the models. When traveling out of state,

(25:38):
he began having the models meet him in his hotel room.
He asked one of the young women to show him
around Phoenix. She agreed because she thought his assistant, Bev,
would be joining them. He confided in her that he
was having doubts about his religion. He told her that
he'd had several affairs that his wife didn't know about.
When he tried to kiss her, she told him to
back off. Twelve models testified It took three days to

(26:00):
hear all of their testimony. Hendricks had told several of
the models that he was a doctor, increasing their trust
in him when he requested they disrobe. We should probably
point out that most people who wear back braces are overweight, older,
plenty of men, But anyone that modeled the brace was,
you know, young women, young beautiful women. A doctor testified

(26:22):
as to the ease of fitting the brace, said it
only took a few minutes, and he always fitted it
over a person's clothing, and the brace was designed to
be worn over a light T shirt. You weren't supposed
to even wear it, you know, without your undervironments on.
There were a few more interesting moments in the trial.
David Hendricks elected to excuse himself from the courtroom during

(26:43):
sensitive testimony. Remember when the bathroom lit up blue after
the luminol was sprayed. A crime scene technician testified that
some cleaning products and other biological materials can activate the chemicals.

Speaker 2 (26:55):
Right, I forgot about that. I didn't know that, though you.

Speaker 1 (26:57):
Did know that the only blood found in the house
than in the bedrooms. Was one tiny, unidentifiable print on
a vanity in the upstairs bathroom. One piece of evidence
that wasn't gathered from the crime scene in the two
months that law enforcement had possession of the house, but
later found in a photo was a single wooden match
on the stairs, or what appeared to be a match.

(27:18):
It could also have just been a sliver of wood.
To the defense, it was proof that someone else had
been inside the house. But how would they missed this
one match on the stairs for two months?

Speaker 2 (27:29):
Oh? Yeah, they It seemed like they went through the
house very thoroughly.

Speaker 1 (27:31):
Right, And how do we know one of them didn't
drop it?

Speaker 2 (27:34):
Right?

Speaker 1 (27:34):
An expert testified that the robbery was staged for several reasons.
Drawers were opened but not really gone through, and the
stereo equipment, which was valuable, was not taken. At the
end of the seventh week of the trial, the prosecution
was finishing with its seventy sixth and final witness long trial.

Speaker 2 (27:51):
On November sixth, nineteen eighty four, the defense began Later
that day. Ronald Reagan would be re elected to a
second term. Hendrick's attorney, John Long started the day moving
for an acquittal, citing lack of motive and no hard evidence.
He argued his case until lunch, but the judge denied
his motion. The defense continued to argue that stomach contents
are not a good indicator of time of death and

(28:14):
vary from person to person. Several witnesses testified that exercise,
or in this case, the children playing at Chuck E Cheese,
could prolong digestion and increase the amount of time food
remained in the stomach.

Speaker 1 (28:26):
Do you remember Chuck E Cheese back in nineteen yeah,
eighty four.

Speaker 2 (28:30):
We spent a lot of time. Oh no, I didn't
spend a lot of time when.

Speaker 1 (28:33):
We had kids. Yes, but Chuck E Cheese used to
be a lot more fun than it is now.

Speaker 2 (28:37):
I haven't been there a long time.

Speaker 1 (28:38):
Well, you know, they used to have the ball pit,
which they took the ballpit, so it was a little
more physical.

Speaker 2 (28:43):
Okay, Yeah, there were like.

Speaker 1 (28:45):
More I think running around today. I think it's mostly
video game.

Speaker 2 (28:49):
Rid of germs passing around. I guess they took away
some of that stuff.

Speaker 1 (28:53):
Were really you know, when we would take our kids
to any kind of play area like that, we would
just immediately like disrobe them and put them in the
bathroom they were, I think they would still throw them down. Yeah,
because this case weighs so heavily, and that digestion of food.
I did a little bit of research on my own,
and vegetables do tend to digest faster than fat and protein, right. Yeah,

(29:17):
So the fact that, in my expert opinion, that you
could still see like particles of vegetables tells me that
I tend to think that their digestion was ceased early
in the process.

Speaker 2 (29:29):
Yeah, that makes sense to me as well. Another expert
testified that he thought as many as four weapons were
used in the murders, consistent with two or more assailants.
He also said he thought the house had been burglarized,
pointing to an open freezer door as proof. Okay, burglars
always opened the freezer. That's one thing I've learned. At
least a dozen people testified about David's character. He was

(29:52):
well liked, respected and a good husband, father, friend, and neighbor.

Speaker 1 (29:57):
I'm growing increasingly frustrated by expert Witnes.

Speaker 2 (30:00):
Yeah. I've always been frustrated by it.

Speaker 1 (30:02):
Yeah, But the longer we do this, it just seems
like at least twelve people I believe expert witnesses and
food digestion gave differing opinions.

Speaker 2 (30:12):
Yeah. Yeah, it seems you can pay somebody to say
whatever you want them to say.

Speaker 1 (30:16):
Yeah, and you can you know, manipulate a science experiment
to right a little bit. So it is really it's
really tough as a juror, yeah, to know you know
which expert to believe, right.

Speaker 2 (30:26):
Yeah. I think all you can do is trust your
instinct of who seems the most believable, who seems the
most honest. But it's really hard to do.

Speaker 1 (30:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (30:34):
On November thirteenth, David was called as a witness. He
was ready to defend himself after sitting in the courtroom
for weeks as a passive observer.

Speaker 1 (30:42):
Are you surprised that he tested?

Speaker 2 (30:44):
I am surprised, yeah, especially because he didn't talk to
the police or anything.

Speaker 1 (30:47):
But again, remember he's he's a smart guy, and he
he sees him I don't think even everyone sees him
as a charismatic talker and a good salesman.

Speaker 2 (30:57):
Yeah. When asked what time he left his house on
the night of September seventh, he said around eleven pm,
which was an hour earlier than he had told the
police previously. Hmmm. He cried several times when asked about
the models. He denied a lot of what the women
testified to, like saying he was a doctor or my
wife can't find out about this. He admitted to only

(31:17):
improperly touching one woman. As they were breaking for the weekend,
the judge gave the jury a choice. Would they rather
be sequestered for the weekend or have a special two
night court session. A mini series was airing on television
that weekend that the judge did not want the jury
to see. Oh, okay, I thought you were either. You're
going to say the judge didn't want to miss this
mini series.

Speaker 1 (31:37):
Well, but the judge really wanted to watch it. Can
you guess what the mini series was? Think? Really hard?
You know this?

Speaker 2 (31:45):
I don't know it.

Speaker 1 (31:46):
So the mini series, the case that the mini series
is about is similar to this case, and it's a
case that we covered very early on.

Speaker 2 (31:55):
Okay, do you know I can't remember the name of.

Speaker 1 (31:58):
Jeffrey McDonald's story. Yes.

Speaker 2 (32:01):
Nadine Palmer, Susan's mother, and Laverne Hendrix, David's mother, both
testified for the defense. They both spoke glowingly of the
marriage and were in agreement that neither of them knew
of a better relationship than the one they'd witnessed between
their children. I wonder if Susan's mother was there. She
probably wasn't allowed to hear the testimony of all the models,
so she ate. Yeah. The mothers were the final witnesses

(32:24):
for the defense. Doctor Michael Bodden was called as a
rebuttal witness, because of course he was. He said that
he thought there could have been more than one assailant.
The court adjourned for Thanksgiving before closing arguments and jury instructions.

Speaker 1 (32:37):
So we are weeks and weeks and weeks into this
trial at this point.

Speaker 2 (32:41):
Yeah, it's a marathon. During closing, the prosecution said there
was no record of David ever leaving so late for
a business trip before, and he had scheduled zero appointments
while in Wisconsin and failed to bring a brace with him.
Just after five pm on November twenty eighth, the jury
was given the case to deliberate. After sixty four days
and over one hundred and thirty witnesses, the jury was

(33:02):
grateful to finally be able to talk about the case together.
They all hoped to quickly come to a consensus and
avoid sequestration. A forty seven year old affable man named
Joe was nominated to be foreman. He was the oldest
of the group. At eight thirty pm, the first vote
was taken, six guilty, six not guilty. They knew they
still had a lot of work to do, so they

(33:23):
called it a night.

Speaker 1 (33:24):
Wonder said, if both of these mothers think that he's innocent,
who are we to think differently? And when they said that,
it does make me question things because if Susan's mother
is one hundred percent behind David, she knows him, knows
the relationship. Yeah, that's fight.

Speaker 2 (33:41):
It, I mean not really like I can understand that
thought process. It's like, well, yeah, if the victim's mom
thinks he's innocent, but still, you know, people only can
know someone so well. And she wasn't his mother, she
was Susan's mother.

Speaker 1 (33:54):
So yeah, yeah, Well, while I have you here looking
at me and not looking ahead, Okay, do you think
the jury will find him guilty or not guilty?

Speaker 2 (34:03):
I don't know, to be honest with you, I think
there is I think from everything I know so far
that he is the most likely person to have done this,
but there really isn't a lot of hard evidence.

Speaker 1 (34:15):
So you have to make a decision. What is the
jury going to decide?

Speaker 2 (34:19):
I am going to say they will decide not guilty.

Speaker 1 (34:21):
Okay.

Speaker 2 (34:22):
At nine pm the jury was busted to the Ramada
Inn for the night. The next day, another vote was
taken eight to four, eight to four in favor of
guilt or not guilt.

Speaker 1 (34:32):
Keep reading.

Speaker 2 (34:33):
By one point thirty that afternoon, after five and a
half hours of deliberation, they had reached a verdict. As
they filed back into the courtroom, all of the jurors
avoided eye contact with David Hendrix, always a bad sign
for the defendant. Starting with Benji, the judge read the
verdicts for the four victims guilty on all counts.

Speaker 1 (34:51):
Which of the evidence is most compelling to support David's
guilt in your.

Speaker 2 (34:55):
Opinion, I think the food evidence is definitely the most compelling,
And to me, I know this isn't really evidence that
a jury can consider or should consider, but there's no
other likely explanation other than him.

Speaker 1 (35:07):
I think, though, if you're sitting on the jury, that
the defense did a really good job disproving the digestion evidence.
So I don't know if they considered that right.

Speaker 2 (35:17):
David didn't express any emotion, but his family members behind
him weeped. But the jury's duty wasn't done yet. David
had a day to decide if he wanted the jury
or the judge to decide his sentence. The jury was
sent back into sequestration until he made up his mind. Ultimately,
he let the judge decide his fate. A hearing was
held on December seventeenth, nineteen eighty four, to determine if

(35:39):
David was eligible for the death penalty. That question was
whether or not the children had suffered. His sentencing hearing
was held on January seventeenth. A psychiatrist who had spent
two days with Hendrix testified that he diagnosed him with
bipolar disorder. However, other mental health professionals disagreed, finding no
evidence of a personality disorder or or any formal diagnosis.

(36:02):
In the end, the judge spared him the death penalty
and sentenced him to four consecutive life sentences without the
possibility of parole. During sentencing, the judge admitted that he
disagreed with the verdict. Wow, that's kind of shocking to
hear that he personally wasn't sure the state proved their
case beyond a reasonable doubt. Quote. I cannot in good
conscience apply the sanction of death unless I have been

(36:23):
convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I have not,
and mere belief is not enough. Wow. That's really interesting
to hear that. I thought a judge could vacate a
jury's decision if they disagreed with it.

Speaker 1 (36:36):
I'm not sure about that. But one thing to think
about here is that if David had had a bench trial,
he would have been released.

Speaker 2 (36:42):
Yeah. Interesting. David was sent to the Menard Correctional Center,
a maximum security prison about an hour south of Saint Louis.
He appealed his conviction. Of course, In February nineteen eighty six,
an inquest was held into the Hendrick's family murders. A
three judge panel upheld the conviction, but later in March
nineteen eighty seven, the Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case.

(37:04):
It took twenty one months for their ruling. David's conviction
was upheld by a four to two decision.

Speaker 1 (37:10):
Twenty one months.

Speaker 2 (37:11):
That's a long time you.

Speaker 1 (37:12):
Imagine sitting in jail, just having the hope that you
know you might be Yeah, a new trial. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (37:18):
The Hendricks and Palmer families offered a twenty thousand dollars
reward for information about the murders, but no one bit.
We'll be back after a break.

Speaker 1 (37:33):
In December nineteen eighty eight, David was married to a
divorcee from Toledo, Ohio, named Pat Miller. They were married
in the prison. David's family attended the wedding, and Pat
and her children relocated to Illinois to be closer to
the prison. Pat, along with David's friends and family, created
Faith Friends Against Injustice to Hendricks.

Speaker 2 (37:54):
Okay, they had to work really hard to make that
acronym fit, didn't they.

Speaker 1 (37:58):
In September nineteen eighty nine, the Illinois Supreme Court decided
to take another look at Hendrix's case after receiving a
petition from his new Chicago attorney, Thomas Decker. He was
seeking a second trial. Included in the petition was a
statement written by David accusing his former brother in law,
John Lewis of the murders. Quote, I am convinced I

(38:20):
know why he did it. If I could give you
all of the evidence I have, I think you too
would be convinced and closed were four pages of evidence
against Lewis. Martha, Susan's sister, divorced John Lewis in early
nineteen eighty nine after seven years of marriage. David claimed
that John hated the Plymouth Brethren and had forbidden his
wife from attending the meetings. He accused Louis of being

(38:42):
jealous of his and Susan's marriage, financial success, and lifestyle.
The Sunday before the murders, Susan and David drove Martha
and her son to a meeting they attended together. Remember
the night of the murders that Susan had attended a
baby shower while Martha was not invited, and she was
very hurt. John was incensed that his wife had been slighted.

(39:02):
David said that John had a key to his home
and was very familiar with the layout. He knew that
David owned an axe, in fact, he'd even borrowed it before.
The brief continued quote. Shortly after the murders, John brought
home a pair of scrubs, the front of which were
covered in blood spatter. He told Martha to wash them.
When investigators asked him about them. Recently, he claimed he

(39:23):
got up from a doctor. John named the doctor. The
doctor denies giving bloody scrubs to John, and it turns
out the doctor didn't work in the hospital with John
until months later. When the investigators confronted John with the information,
he refused to talk about it, further intriguing. Right the
source of all this new evidence was Martha Lewis. When

(39:43):
she had first talked to the police in November nineteen
eighty three, she said that John was with her in
bed sleeping at the time of the murders, but she
recanted her original story and now after the divorce, told
police that John had left the house after ten pm
to go to the gym. She called him mental unstable.
John worked as an EMT and he would have access

(40:04):
to scrubs and certainly sometimes they would be bloody from
his work. He cooperated with police, who performed a search
of his house and submitted to a lie detector test,
which he passed with flying colors. He said that Martha's
allegations against him were caused by her bitterness. In response
to David's allegations, he said quote, I'm dumbfounded. I was
visited by two of David's investigators and I told them

(40:27):
all that I could remember. It wasn't until after the
divorce that they started coming after me, And he said
that he believes David is innocent of the murders. He
said that the story regarding the scrubs is true, but
that is pretty damning evidence. And why would a doctor
give him scrubs to take home and wash when hospitals
have a service that washes their scrubs for them.

Speaker 2 (40:47):
Yeah, that doesn't make a lot of sense. And it's
strange that John would admit the story about the scrubs,
that he would tell police.

Speaker 1 (40:53):
That the Palmer and Hendrick's family hired private investigators over
the years to find the real killers. They claimed that
Lewis is who they pointed to, but the Bloomington Police
Department said he is actually only one of the suspects
that the family has accused over the years.

Speaker 2 (41:08):
Yeah, it seems like the one thing I really question
about him potentially being the killer is the motive, Like
he's mad because his wife was slighted, it wasn't invited
to a baby shower that he didn't seems pretty weak.
I know there were other things too, but it just
doesn't seem to add up to killing.

Speaker 1 (41:24):
When anyone ever uses jealousy as a motive for a murder,
like in this situation like this, Oh, they were so
jealous of my success that just seems. Yeah, I'm not
sure I buy it. There was some weird story, and
I might not get it right, but John had taken
Benji on a walk, passed a cemetery and said something, oh,
you're going to be coming here soon, or something to

(41:44):
that effect. I didn't really believe that story. July thirtieth,
nineteen ninety, the Illinois Supreme Court, in an unprecedented move,
voted six to zero to overturn David's conviction, ruling that
testimony about his religion and womanizing was judicial and unnecessary,
but he wasn't a free man. He'd have to go
through a new trial. The trial was held in McClain County,

(42:07):
where the murders had taken place seven years earlier. The
jury was busted in from Decatur each day. A member
of the jury from the first trial attended each day
wearing a discutch. Many I think jurors sometimes they're just
really Oh, yeah, I think I would be too for that.

Speaker 2 (42:21):
If you're sitting through that much of testimony.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
You're invested. Many of the same witnesses and evidence was presented,
except for one big difference. None of the models were
allowed to testifying. And I think that model testimony was Yeah.

Speaker 2 (42:34):
It's one of the most compelling things in terms of
pointing to a motive.

Speaker 1 (42:38):
At the last minute, a man named Danny Wayne Stark,
who was serving a thirty year sentence for a theft
in Indiana, came forward with a shocking story. He claimed
that David had confessed to him. He passed a polygraph
test and was allowed to testify. He said quote he said,
nobody's seen him do it. A lot of it had
to do with his family. He was running around on
his wife, living a different lifestyle. His wife became suspicious

(43:01):
of it and began to threaten him with it. He
was really worried about his father finding out. He said
divorce would ruin him. David said he got married too young.
All of a sudden, he had a family, He came
into money and found himself stuck in his situation he
couldn't deal with. He said his wife was a plain woman,
small breasted.

Speaker 2 (43:20):
I think Danny nailed it. That sounds very plausible. That
whole thing. Hey, the plain woman being small breasted seems
a little irrelevant.

Speaker 1 (43:27):
But while three other men who served time with both
men testified for the defense that Stark was a known liarer,
one last witness of interest was David's younger brother, James.
He testified that he had traveled to San Francisco a
few weeks earlier to confront John Lewis. He claimed that
Lewis said, quote, I hacked up his family and then

(43:47):
allegedly said he would deny ever admitting that. However, the
judge ruled that the testimony was inadmissible.

Speaker 2 (43:54):
That sounds very much like hearsay. Yes.

Speaker 1 (43:56):
Once the case was handed to the jury, they deliberated
for ten hours before landing on an innocent verdict. David's
family and friends cheered raucously. David emerged from the courthouse
a few minutes later and hugged his wife and two
young step children. After nearly eight long years, David Hendricks
was a freeman. Wow, are you surprised?

Speaker 2 (44:16):
I am A well, I'm not that surprised because they
didn't allow the testimony the models, so I'm not too
surprised that he was found.

Speaker 1 (44:23):
Really, there wasn't much there.

Speaker 2 (44:25):
But I don't know. I still think he did it.

Speaker 1 (44:27):
After David's exoneration, he and Pat moved to Toledo, Ohio.
He opened a very successful arthotics practice, but divorced Pat
about a year later. During their marriage, he'd undergone a
vasectomy because he felt like her three children would be enough.
I think she had two younger children and then one
older child.

Speaker 2 (44:44):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (44:44):
David later said, quote, it was a very dumb decision
to go into that marriage. We were not at all compatible.
I think I would a little nuts after prison. It
was like a midlife crisis where the guy goes out
and buys a red Corvette. Well, I had one of
those and a silver Porsche. I flew a Bonanza, which is,
I guess must be a nicer plane. I had to
get past that, and it took a couple of years. Pat,

(45:07):
for her part, said she never doubted his innocence, but
implied there were some shady dealings. I think the shady
dealings had to do with other women. David entered into
a third marriage with a secretary named Brenda, but that
marriage only lasted a year. Today, David Hendrix, now seventy,
lives in Orlando, Florida, with his fourth wife of fourteen years.

(45:28):
I'm not sure how to pronounce her name, but I
think it might be Gazel. She is twenty five years
his junior. They have two young children, a son and
a daughter, like really young, really like under ten. He
has done very well for himself professionally. He bought, renovated, rented,
and then sold sixteen homes in the Orlando area at
a large profit. He's also ran and sold several orthotic

(45:52):
businesses over the years. In twenty thirteen, David wrote a
book called Tom Henry Confessions of a Killer, about former cellmate.
He said someday he would like to write his own story.
As for David's faith, in nineteen ninety seven, he told
the Tampa Bay Times quote, I don't think I'm an atheist,
but I'm an agnostic. I doubt I guess it went

(46:13):
in stages. The first thought was how could a good
and just God allow this bad thing to happen to
a good person like me? The second thought was how
can I say that when others have been through so
much more than I have. The third thought is how
can a good and just God allow all those awful
things to happen to other people? And finally, the thought
maybe God's just not running things. That's kind of shocking, right,

(46:37):
Like his whole life, he was raised to be very
religious and devalued a little bit.

Speaker 2 (46:41):
Yeah, I'm a little hung up on the first thing
he says is, how could God allow such a bad
thing to happen to me, a good person like me? Like,
it's not all about you, David, I mean your wife
and three children exactly.

Speaker 1 (46:53):
That was my first thought too.

Speaker 2 (46:54):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (46:55):
In November nineteen seventy three, church leaders of the Plymouth
Brethren disciplined Roger Pains, a beloved family man famous for
his faith and dedication, for a minor offense. They placed
him in a state of spiritual and social exile known
as shut up. He was completely cut off even within
his own home, from worship meals and intimacy with his

(47:16):
wife and children. The extreme isolation pushed him into a
mental crisis after a failed suicide attempt, The crisis culminated
in a horrendous atrocity in March nineteen seventy four. He
murdered his wife and three children with an axe while
they slept, and hung himself.

Speaker 2 (47:31):
That sounds very familiar, right, That's really weird.

Speaker 1 (47:34):
Probably not related all this was ten years earlier. Right, Yeah,
the Bloomington Police Department consider the Hendricks murder case closed,
but somewhere in an evidence locker the stomach contents of
the Forest Lane Hendricks family members.

Speaker 2 (47:47):
Sits.

Speaker 1 (47:48):
In high profile cases like this, the victims get lost. Yeah,
we're just consumed with you know, easy guilty or innocent.
But I believe that Susan, Becky, Grace, and Benji all
have been lost at a lot. Susan Hendricks was a
loving wife and a devoted mother who lived her faith
every day. She was deeply committed to raising her children
and a home filled with love, structure, and spiritual guidance.

(48:11):
Friends remember her as kind, thoughtful, and nurturing, the kind
of mother who made each of her children feel cherished.
Her three children were her world. She was looking forward
to adding to their family by adoption at the time
of her death. Backy nine was intelligent, responsible, and already
showing signs of becoming a natural leader. She loved to
read and often helped her mother care for the younger two.

(48:33):
Grace seven had a gentle spirit and a spark of playfulness.
She was the one most likely to offer a hug
or try to lift someone's spirits with a joke or
a song. Benji, just five, was lively, affectionate and adored
by his sisters. He loved trucks, sports, and crawling into
lapse for a story or a snuggle. Together they made
a close knit family, one that should have had more

(48:53):
ordinary days, birthdays and milestones together. We honor them not
just as victims, but as people deeply loved and profoundly missed.
Rest in peace, Susan, Becky, Grace.

Speaker 2 (49:04):
And Benji, Rest in peace.

Speaker 1 (49:05):
My main source for this case was a book written
by Steve Vogel called Reasonable Doubt, written in nineteen eighty nine,
but he has nicely updated it since. Any quotations in
this episode come from his book. In twenty eighteen, Steve
Vogel re released the book for the thirty fifth anniversary
of the crime. At the book signing, Charlie Crowe, Lee,
detective from the case, and Ron Doser, former prosecutor and

(49:28):
then judge, came to see him. Later, David Hendricks emailed
him to congratulate him on the book. He told him
that he had jury duty the following week. Vogel would
ask by the Bloomington Pentagraph newspaper if he thought Hendricks
was guilty or innocent, said quote today, I believe David
Hendricks did not commit the crime. All the family members
have stood beside him and never doubted his innocence.

Speaker 2 (49:50):
Interesting.

Speaker 1 (49:51):
Can you imagine David Hendricks sitting on a jury. No,
they would dismiss it pretty quickly.

Speaker 2 (49:56):
I was going to say, it doesn't seem quite right,
but yeah.

Speaker 1 (49:59):
Book Reasonable Doubt was great. He did a fabulous job.
I would give it five stars. I would highly recommend it.
One of the most thorough true crime books I read.
And I like that Steve presented both cases for guilt
and innocence.

Speaker 2 (50:12):
Okay. I was going to ask you if his book
seemed to present an opinion one way or another, but
it seems like it was pretty even.

Speaker 1 (50:19):
I think the updated part, you know, you could definitely
tell that. I think he must have had some sort
of relationship with David. Yeah, I think he had come
to the point of believing that he was innocent. In
nineteen ninety one, Hale Jennings, David's attorney in the first trial,
married one of David's models.

Speaker 2 (50:35):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (50:36):
Another of the models purchased the hendricks old home at
three one three Carl drive.

Speaker 2 (50:40):
It's weird.

Speaker 1 (50:41):
I just read this last night. But in nineteen ninety four,
Ron Doser claimed that Hendrix failed a polygraph, but hal
Jenkins denied this ever happen.

Speaker 2 (50:50):
Mmmmm interesting to.

Speaker 1 (50:52):
Remember that David was like, I'm not taking a polygraph
unless you guarantee me that you'll release me as a suspect.
They wouldn't do that. So I don't know if this
is just a case of bad memory or right, or
hal Jenkins is still defending David. I don't know. Yeah,
something that has stood out to me in this case
is how lucky David Hendricks is to have that second chance. Yeah.

(51:16):
A lot of men would not get that second chance.
It's pretty unprecedented for the Illinois Supreme Court to take
such an interest in a case.

Speaker 2 (51:24):
Yeah, and they considered it twice, right, Like the first
time they denied his appeal, but then they went back
and considered it again, which is really unusual.

Speaker 1 (51:33):
Why do you think the murderer used two weapons?

Speaker 2 (51:36):
That's a good question. I don't know. Why would you
use two weapons.

Speaker 1 (51:40):
Perhaps to make a look as if there were two Yeah,
to just make the you know, put a little doubt there.

Speaker 2 (51:47):
Well as it was two murderers.

Speaker 1 (51:48):
But yeah, right, do you think we should go over
how you properly burghle a home. This comes up over
and over again.

Speaker 2 (51:57):
I'm not sure what the proper way is because I
think we've talked about this a couple times before. But
you know, some people, I think try to make it
look like a burglary by like just throwing stuff out
of drawers and stuff like that. But I don't know,
maybe sometimes burglars do do that to look for valuables.

Speaker 1 (52:11):
Well, I think it's Steve Bogol's book. He addressed that
a little bit. Maybe he talked to her criminal and
I think they said that they look in the drawer, right,
but they just kind of rake their hands through it
and see if there, you know.

Speaker 2 (52:23):
Might be just yeah, they don't just pull stuff out
and start scattering things around the room.

Speaker 1 (52:27):
And in this case, whoever the murderer was went to
all the bedrooms and opened like a ton of drawers.
But this makes me think that David could be guilty
because again, you know, fastidious man, Nothing was really thrown
out of the drawers they just opened.

Speaker 2 (52:42):
And yeah, you know, well, I just keep going back
to the fact that I'm sure there are cases where
burglars have killed a family in the home, but to
kill them so violently, so horribly, it just doesn't seem
likely that a burglar would do that.

Speaker 1 (52:58):
When they were all asleep in their beds. No one
was killed all the way or the entryway, you know.

Speaker 2 (53:03):
Right, I'm sure usually when a burglar does kill somebody
it's because they walk in on the scene. And yeah,
so it doesn't It just seems very unlikely.

Speaker 1 (53:10):
I know, you didn't read the book, and you didn't
read all the testimony. So Steve Ogel's book had a
lot of the testimony like written out our stomach contents
a good indicator of time of death.

Speaker 2 (53:20):
I mean, I'm sure there's variability. I'm not, of course,
not an expert on this. I'm sure, I'm sure it
does vary a lot from person to person. But it
does seem like having the vegetables that were not disintegrating
or not digested, it seems like it had to be
relatively soon after, and it.

Speaker 1 (53:38):
Was all three of the children's so I think that, Yeah,
you know, even if the stomach contents are not like
a perfect indicator, you have you know, consistency among the children.

Speaker 2 (53:47):
Yeah, yeah, that's a good point.

Speaker 1 (53:49):
Susan was at the baby shower, and she also she
had some vegetables. I think that she, you know, she
and David were on this diet. But her mother said
that she also had some cookies on her plate. She
could not confirm that she ate the cookieska, but her
stomach contents. She didn't have much in her stomach compared
to the children.

Speaker 2 (54:06):
Okay, And remind me what time she got home or
left the baby.

Speaker 1 (54:09):
Shower ten forty five okay?

Speaker 2 (54:11):
And was she killed in her bed also?

Speaker 1 (54:13):
Yeah, And the covers were pulled up, so.

Speaker 2 (54:14):
She had probably gone home and gone to bed.

Speaker 1 (54:17):
David said that she came to bed pretty quickly. And
I think she must have read murdered first because the
axe had hairs on it from the shi.

Speaker 2 (54:25):
That would make sense too. That.

Speaker 1 (54:27):
Yeah, So you believe that David was.

Speaker 2 (54:30):
The murderer based on everything I've heard, I think so, yes.
I don't know if I would have convicted him, that's
the weird thing, but I just don't see any other explanation.
And I do think the models that whole thing tells
me that he was looking outside of his marriage. She
was pretty creepy with these really young girls so to me,
that does point to motive of wanting to be free,

(54:51):
wanting to date other girls, and he felt like he
couldn't really do that in his current week.

Speaker 1 (54:56):
Motive though there was no evidence that he had any affair. Yeah, seriously,
romanticizing being with any of these women, he just.

Speaker 2 (55:06):
I guess so. But it just points to the fact
that he wasn't happy with his life as a married
man with three kids, and that to me, maybe it's
not the strongest motive, but it is a motive.

Speaker 1 (55:16):
Yeah, he was definitely creepy and his behavior was hugely interpeting.

Speaker 2 (55:20):
Oh yeah, I do.

Speaker 1 (55:21):
Believe the women when they said that he said he
was a doctor, and I believed him. He was not
a doctor, and you know, he had no right to
touch their bodies he did.

Speaker 2 (55:31):
Yeah. Well, let me ask you what you think. Do
you think he is guilty or innocent?

Speaker 1 (55:34):
I do think that David is guilty. I'll give you
some reasons why he lied about the time that he left. Yes,
he said he left at midnight, but then at trial
he said he left at eleven. Why would he do that?
And once you lie about one thing, how do we
believe anything that you write? He lied about how much
pizza was consumed. I don't think I mentioned this, but

(55:56):
he later said that, yes, the whole pizza was eaten,
So he had about that during the investigation. He wanted
it to make it seem that the kids had eaten
later and they didn't. Another thing I have an issue
with is why he contacted the police early. You might say, oh,
he didn't contact the police at early, but at that point,
Susan was supposed to be at her family's house, and

(56:16):
he talked to the police at like six point thirty,
but his brother or his brother in law, the two
brothers in laws were going to the house already. There
was a Heida key, right, the neighbor had been to
the house. You know, he could have said, why don't
you just let yourself into the house.

Speaker 2 (56:30):
And check things, Yeah, see if anything's wrong.

Speaker 1 (56:32):
So it seemed to me that in the nine one
one call he said a few times like, well, I'm
out of town. I'm out of town, so I can't look.
That was a little fishy to me.

Speaker 2 (56:40):
Yeah, it definitely made it seem like he was trying
to basically, you know, plant an alibi for himself and
establish that.

Speaker 1 (56:47):
And yeah, it must have been really tired, because we
don't know if he We don't think he slept the
whole day, right, I think that that were you. He
didn't have any meetings the next day, He didn't have
anything scheduled, you know, these were all impromptu meetings. I
think you would have gotten in your car and come home. Yeah,
and then I don't know, what do you think you
would have done?

Speaker 2 (57:06):
Well, you mean when he thought she when he couldn't
get a hold of her, but he didn't really know
anything was wrong at that point. Yeah, I don't know
if I would have. I mean, he was four four
and a half, five hours away or six hours. I
don't know if I would have gotten in my car
and driven home at that point. But I wouldn't have
called the police yet. That just seems a little fishy
to me. I would, like you said, I would have
called one of our relatives and said, hey, there's a

(57:26):
heide gee, just go in and check, make sure everything's
all right.

Speaker 1 (57:29):
Yeah. And the meticulous nature of the crime scene, which
left virtually no evidence, really that's impressive. Yeah, whoever the
murderer is to leave behind, you know, no blood other
than in the bedrooms. Yeah, when the killing sure how
that would have happened, right.

Speaker 2 (57:43):
And the killing is done with an axe and a
butcher knife. That just seems like, yeah, really hard to
clean up.

Speaker 1 (57:48):
So the brother in law, you know, he had access
to scrubs, but David did too. He worked, I think
in a doctor's office. Sometimes he used that as his
lab when he was like working on his brace, Okay,
things like that. So and he had access to scrubs too,
so possibly he could have worn right, Actually, probably not scrubs,
maybe more like.

Speaker 2 (58:07):
Just something to cover him up and has just throw
it out.

Speaker 1 (58:10):
Or another thought is maybe he didn't naked.

Speaker 2 (58:13):
Yeah, it could be, Yeah, it could be.

Speaker 1 (58:16):
I'm going to ask you about pea traps again, Okay.
I believe that there were seven pea traps in the
house that the police took out and analyzed for Do
our neighbors know every time we record?

Speaker 2 (58:28):
They totally know every time we record. Time to mow
the law?

Speaker 1 (58:31):
Yeah, I'm sorry if you can hear that, But they
how long would it take for the water to be
flushed out of a pea trap? They looked at the
pea traps for evidence of blood, and there was no
evidence of blood. But I would think if he knew
to like, you know, go right to the shower, you
would flush that out.

Speaker 2 (58:48):
I would think so too. I don't know, so I'm
not an expert. Again, not an expert in really many
things at all, but especially not this. So so I
would think that blood is going to be heavier than water,
so it's going to kind of sink to the bottom
of the pit trap. So I could see that blood
might you know, remain in traces on the very bottom

(59:09):
of it. But I also think it wouldn't take long
to flush it out either, Like if you've got water
running through it, Yeah, it's going to push all that through.
I mean, so, yeah, it does seem a little unlikely
that you would find blood there.

Speaker 1 (59:21):
Yeah. The night time trip also was suspicious to me.
I mean, it's really abnormal to leave at midnight, drive
all night and then expect yourself to be fresh as
a daisy in the morning and sell your dice.

Speaker 2 (59:33):
But in his defense, let me just say she was
at a baby shower that night, so she wasn't going
to get home until ten thirty, so he had to
be there for the kids, right, So.

Speaker 1 (59:43):
I carried babysitters, okay, yea, all right, And he could
have left at you know, six in the morning and
still been there by noon. He didn't have to miss
his calls at eight am.

Speaker 2 (59:52):
Yeah, no, that's a good point. Yeah, it does seem weird.
I would never do that.

Speaker 1 (59:55):
I believe his assistant Bev testified that he did this
all the time, but other people that know this was unusual.

Speaker 2 (01:00:02):
Interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:00:03):
So to sum it up, I do think that David
Hendrix is the most likely person that killed his family.
I can't get to John Lewis killing them, and really
I just don't think there's evidence that anyone else had
a motive, even though the motive here I think is
pretty weak.

Speaker 2 (01:00:17):
Yeah, well, as usual, we're on the same page.

Speaker 1 (01:00:20):
Well, thank you so much to Katie and Evelyn for
recommending this case. It was a good one.

Speaker 2 (01:00:25):
Yeah, very interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:00:26):
Really enjoyed it. And thank you so much to our
friends Lisa and Tammy for sending us snacks in part
one that I forgot to think.

Speaker 2 (01:00:33):
Yeah, that's so kind.

Speaker 1 (01:00:34):
And thank you to myself for making the beaver.

Speaker 2 (01:00:37):
Of Yes, thank you to you for making those. They're
really good and we'll post the recipe.

Speaker 1 (01:00:42):
Sure. I felt like during this episode both of our
voices were not the best.

Speaker 2 (01:00:52):
I thought you sounded fine, but I definitely lacking sleep
that I talked so much this week. I was at
a trade show for my company, and you're at trade jo,
You're just talking all the time, and I just don't.
My voice is not used to that. So I'm still
recovering a little bit.

Speaker 1 (01:01:07):
Yeah, And there's always these allergies in the air, and
I take an allergy pill every day, but you know,
a little allergy pill tries its best, always get there.
Have you had a chance to try the new sleep
trick that I talked to you about.

Speaker 2 (01:01:21):
I tried it one time, and how did it work?

Speaker 1 (01:01:24):
Well?

Speaker 2 (01:01:24):
I can't I don't remember, which tells me that maybe
it did work, because I must have fallen back asleep.

Speaker 1 (01:01:30):
So I saw this on Instagram this week because someone
was talking about you know a lot of times you
go to sleep, but then you wake up and and
you kind of get panicked and you can't fall back
to sleep.

Speaker 2 (01:01:40):
Right. A lot of times my body feels like, oh,
I just took a nap and I'm done napping now, right.

Speaker 1 (01:01:44):
Yeah, So you just close your eyes and first you
go back and forth.

Speaker 2 (01:01:48):
You move your eyes back and forth.

Speaker 1 (01:01:50):
Yeah, behind your closed eyelids and then you move them
up and down. You just kind of move them. Then
you might want to like do an eight pattern. Then
you're supposed to like cross your We're supposed to do
that for a few cycles, and it's supposed to help
you nod right off.

Speaker 2 (01:02:05):
And have you tried it.

Speaker 1 (01:02:06):
Yeah, it feels really weird to make those. I'm ok
with your like, I feel like I think I'm doing it,
but I don't know if I'm doing it.

Speaker 2 (01:02:15):
Yeah, No, it totally does. You don't have the visual
feedback to know whether you're moving your eyeballs or Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:02:21):
For me, it seems like, yeah, I have fallen asleep
after that, not during it, So I don't know if
that's you're supposed to just I'm not sure which how
it's supposed to work. If you're supposed to immediately fall asleep,
or as.

Speaker 2 (01:02:31):
Long as you fall asleep pretty quickly after that, that
it's a good thing. But I'll try to remember to
try it again next time that happens. It's not something
like when you wake up in the middle of the night.
You don't not something you think of automatically, I should
try this, So, yeah, you have to kind of plant
it in your brain before you go to sleep.

Speaker 1 (01:02:45):
Well, because I was working in this case really hard
this week. Not to make you feel guilty, but because
you were out of town, I stayed up later. And
then when I do that, I have a hard time sleeping.
When I have a hard time sleeping and you're not home,
I like to listen to a sleepy podcast, the Sleepy Bookshelf.
I love that so much, the moost soothing voice in

(01:03:08):
the world. And I fall asleep usually pretty quickly. Have
you never tried that? Have you do?

Speaker 2 (01:03:12):
I can't sleep when something is on, when a TV
is on or a podcast is on, I just my
brain won't just detach from it and fall asleep.

Speaker 1 (01:03:20):
I can and the opposite. So I would rather have noise.

Speaker 2 (01:03:23):
I know a lot of people, yeah, are like that.
I don't mind like white noise or things like that.
But if somebody's talking, you know, there's dialogue, it just
I can't not listen to it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:33):
It puts me to sleep like a baby. I'm looking
at Keith, looking at you, Keith. Keith over there in
the corner of Morison from Dateline.

Speaker 2 (01:03:41):
He's here in the room with Yes.

Speaker 1 (01:03:42):
That's always He's always in the room with us. He
puts me to He's one of my preferred voices.

Speaker 2 (01:03:47):
Really interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:03:47):
People say that they fall asleep to us all the time.

Speaker 2 (01:03:50):
Yeah, they have such a names sweet.

Speaker 1 (01:03:53):
Dreams that we want. We have the best night's sleep. Okay,
one last thing before we go. I pulled up this quiz,
this true crime quiz. You're gonna hate it, but I
think our listeners might like it. I'm just going to
ask you a few questions because I don't think you're
going to do super great. We'll put the link in
our show notes because I think a lot of listeners
will probably do really well on this. Okay, we're interested

(01:04:13):
by true crime. We have a true crime podcast, but
we're not true crime experts or historians. Right you ready?
I am which serial killer enjoy dressing up as a
clown and working charity events?

Speaker 2 (01:04:26):
Oh something? Right?

Speaker 1 (01:04:31):
Ian Brady, Dennis Raider, John Wayne gaze.

Speaker 2 (01:04:35):
Oh, John Wayne Gazey. There's another series.

Speaker 1 (01:04:38):
It was the only one. I was like, I know,
get I should have gotten it.

Speaker 2 (01:04:41):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:04:41):
The Saint Valentine's Day massacre is associated with which famous
criminal Al Capone, John Dillinger Junior or George.

Speaker 2 (01:04:50):
Moran have no idea al Capone.

Speaker 1 (01:04:53):
Al Capone is right in Chicago. Criminal H. H. Holmes
had a house in Chicago that eventually Which nickname is
that The Devil in the White City?

Speaker 2 (01:05:03):
Yes, that's the Devil in the White City. The names, Yeah,
I don't remember the nickname of the house.

Speaker 1 (01:05:08):
The Dungeon, Fraudeville, or Murder Castle.

Speaker 2 (01:05:13):
I'm gonna guess murder Castle.

Speaker 1 (01:05:15):
That is correct.

Speaker 2 (01:05:15):
I remember the story very well. It's The Devil in
the White City. It is an amazing book if.

Speaker 1 (01:05:19):
You have a raised a story, yeah, because it's.

Speaker 2 (01:05:21):
Not just about the murder. It's also about the World's
Fair and it's really really about that.

Speaker 1 (01:05:26):
Book by Eric Larson, who has since written many similar
like true crime.

Speaker 2 (01:05:31):
Not really true crime very often. Most of his books
are just historical.

Speaker 1 (01:05:34):
Well it was just say history wrapped true crime wrapped
up in history.

Speaker 2 (01:05:38):
Yeah, he's a really good writer.

Speaker 1 (01:05:40):
But the first book is phenomenal. I don't think the
other ones have been quite as interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:05:44):
They've all been interesting for different reasons, but yeah, that
was probably the best that I've read.

Speaker 1 (01:05:48):
Which man was the most prolific known serial killer in
the United States history? Gary Ridgway, Jeffrey Dahmer or Paul Knowles.

Speaker 2 (01:05:56):
I think Gary Ridgeway.

Speaker 1 (01:05:58):
You are correct.

Speaker 2 (01:06:00):
Dumbs.

Speaker 1 (01:06:01):
Which serial killer claimed that a demonic dog commanded him
to commit murdermnic Dog, Dennis Raider, David Berkowitz or Bobby
Joe Long Gosh, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:06:13):
I'm going to guess David Burkewitz.

Speaker 1 (01:06:14):
You're correct. He was known as the son of Sam
and he killed six. Okay, I'm just going to be
one more. Let me pick a good one. This is
actually a really long quiz. A serial killer Ted Bundy
once worked at which location a funeral home, a heart hospital,
or a suicide prevention hotline?

Speaker 2 (01:06:33):
I will say a suicide prevention hotline?

Speaker 1 (01:06:36):
Correct? Do you know who he was? And Rule?

Speaker 2 (01:06:39):
I do know that. I was trying to think where
would I because I thought Ann Rule worked for the
police at some point, so I thought, well, maybe the
suicide prevention hotline was somehow related to that work.

Speaker 1 (01:06:48):
So yeah, yeah, you did. You did a very good well.

Speaker 2 (01:06:51):
You gave me the choice of giving me the options.
Let's help ques the.

Speaker 1 (01:06:55):
Quiz, though I didn't give you any clue, you know,
any extra clues. Yeah, I was just trying to allow
you to prove your intelligence to everyone. Once again, it's
trying to find a cuiz that was, like, you know,
am I a genius? But which clearly you are. Clearly
I have not let you know. I remind him pretty

(01:07:16):
much hourly that he is the smartest one percent of
the population. Well, I think that's all that we have
for you today. Thank you so much for listening.

Speaker 2 (01:07:27):
Yeah, thank you. Please rate, review, follow and subscribe. Find
us on social media and YouTube, or send us an
email at Lovemarykill at gmail dot com. Please consider supporting
us on Patreon dot com slash Lovemrykill. We have one
tier five dollars a month and you get early ad
free access plus a monthly bonus episode.

Speaker 1 (01:07:46):
We give this closing and we say it so fast,
but if you really could take the time to give
us a rating, whether you're on Spotify or Apple, you
don't have to leave a review, but just give us.
If you could give us a five star review, that
really does help us. It makes us feel really warm
and fuzzy inside and help other people find the podcast.
The higher our rating is and we love to hear

(01:08:08):
your Spotify comments.

Speaker 2 (01:08:10):
We sure do. Until next time, don't kill a wife
and don't kill your husband.