May 16, 2025 • 50 mins
Following up on the players in the Write of Habeas Corpus for Peter Wilson yields some interesting results. More answers to questions posed which only yields more questions. I am going to cover the YouTube comments on the Zodiac Killer that has built up for the last 2 weeks, and quite possibly climb into Laura Miller’s murder in the League City Field of Death.
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac is broadcast live Fridays at 10AM PT on K4HD Radio - Hollywood Talk Radio (www.k4hd.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac TV Show is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac Podcast is also available on Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/hit-the-road-jack-finding-the-zodiac--5297837/support.
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac is broadcast live Fridays at 10AM PT on K4HD Radio - Hollywood Talk Radio (www.k4hd.com) part of Talk 4 Radio (www.talk4radio.com) on the Talk 4 Media Network (www.talk4media.com). Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac TV Show is viewed on Talk 4 TV (www.talk4tv.com).
Hit the Road Jack: Finding the Zodiac Podcast is also available on Talk 4 Media (www.talk4media.com), Talk 4 Podcasting (www.talk4podcasting.com), iHeartRadio, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, Audible, and over 100 other podcast outlets.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/hit-the-road-jack-finding-the-zodiac--5297837/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This program is designed to provide general information with regards
to the subject matters covered. This information is given with
the understanding that neither the hosts, guests, sponsors, or station
are engaged in rendering any specific and personal medical, financial,
legal counseling, professional service, or any advice.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
You should seek the services.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Of competent professionals before applying or trying any suggested ideas.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Good morning, True seekers and true crime junkies. Welcome back
to another episode of Hit the Roadjack Finding the Zodiac.
I would love to introduce to the show today, first
time live in many months. Harriet Souchet, Good morning everybody.
Am I reading already. It's good to see you. It's
(01:16):
good to have you back live. The girls, Welcome to
the show. Nolan del Campo, Good morning everybody. Good morning Nolan.
I think that I cut you off and we started
the show right at the point where I said that
Trump is at heart been a Democrat pretty much all
(01:37):
of his life, so heavy supporters of the Clintons, And
you said, what, Nolan, has we flipped over?
Speaker 2 (01:44):
He's not really Republican, He's a fascist.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
Uh pick whatever side benefits or is he a slid
in agenda by the Democrats.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
No, what do you mean.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
No, he's been he's been a Democrat all of his
life until running for presidency, maybe.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Nominally, but he's almost kind of like a dictator.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Well, but the thing is is he only gets the
agendas across that they allow him to get across. I mean,
we're seriously stupid if we think there isn't somebody there
controlling what it is that he can and can't do.
As Lotus, Well.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
He's taking a lot of liberty to show to say.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
You think about it. When he wanted to release when
he wanted to release the JFK files, When he wanted
to release the JFK files back in his first term,
he had people come to him and said, no, you're
not going to do that. That's control, that's power. Those
are the people with the plays. So yeah, he's going
to get certain amount of things he wants across, but
there are definitely things I'm sure that he's not going
(02:53):
to be able to touch because he's not going to
be allowed to so his his agendas, and we see
him speak about of these issues that he's going to
have or make happen, only to find out that he doesn't.
It started to dawn on me. Is this the reason
why people believe politicians are liars? They promise us the world,
we vote them into office, then they can't achieve what
it is that they promised us, and that is because
(03:15):
somebody else is not allowing them to do it. So
were they really liars or were they just stifled on
what their agenda was a little both.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
I honestly think that they waited for certain people from
that era to pass on before they released a lot
of those files, because.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
There were people that were still I.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
Went to the JFK conferences and a lot of those
people ten years ago are no longer here. There were
people that said I was there, you know, on what
they now call the Grassy Knoll, and they said what
they saw. But those people are gone now, and there's
I think the people that were saying that Lee Oswald
(04:04):
was standing in the doorway next to Billy Shelley because
they knew somebody who knew that Billy Shelley. Those people
are gone too. So you know, it's like they waited
for them to go so they can release these files
so there won't be somebody who might hold things up,
you know, and the possibilities of releasing them because we're
(04:26):
still supposed to be We're still supposed to believe that.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
I'll get it. No, of course, I think that the
agenda they serve us up, whatever it is that they
tell us their narrative, is what we're supposed to believe
and follow. And unfortunately, I, myself and you as well,
I think we're divergent.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
You know.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
I mean, I'm not going to accept for face value
what the news tells me anymore. I haven't since twenty twelve.
All right, So let's climb back into this. I have
some research that I did in the Peter Wilson case,
and I have come upon information I thought that was
truly interesting to share. I did pose more questions to
mister Wilson in prison, and I'm waiting his responses to those.
(05:11):
So we'll have probably one more section where I follow
up or at least cover some of the questions that
have been asked through either the podcast, Nolan, yourself, Harriet.
With this new research that you've done, I went online
myself and I tried to find some of the players.
One of them was the district Attorney Lynda Condron. Of course,
(05:33):
this would be the handwriting I'd like to get my
hands on to determine whether or not she removed those
two pages from the police file which were the alibi
evidence of Peter Wilson. And the reason why I think
that that's probably a good starting point is going to
be found in some of these articles that I found.
Of course, most everything was fluff pieces on the individuals,
(05:54):
the officer and the DA. However, you can always find dirt, right,
So in a couple links, I was able to find
something on each of them that kind of makes me
question their capabilities in railroading mister Wilson. So this is
out of the Daily Journal. This was written on April
eighth of twenty eleven. It says Judge Linda Urcondron admits
(06:17):
she can be tough on lawyers, but they say she's fair.
And it was written by Craig Anderson. It says San
Jose as a prosecutor, Santa Clara County Judge Linda R.
Condren was known as a hard charging advocate when she
won a judicial seat eleven years ago. So mind you,
she won the seat in two thousand and we're talking
about the initial trial of Peter Wilson that was done
(06:40):
in two thousand. See so it was only natural to
wonder how she would adapt to her new role as
an impartial jurist. In fact, Condron says she wondered about
that herself. Keenly aware that many former prosecutors are regarded
with suspicion by the defense bar, she says she worried. Oh,
(07:01):
I guess I didn't continue on with her worries. But
let's now we get to some more of the dirt
parts of it. So on almlaw dot com, I've found
judicial profile for Linda Condron. It says a career prosecutor,
Condron ran for election to an open seat in two thousand.
After she won, Governor Davis appointed her to the bench
(07:21):
so she could take her seat early earlier this year.
She was assigned a backlogged domestic violence calendar, where she's
expected to handle cases from arraignment through trial and seeing
she and the two other judges have cut down the
number of cases waiting for trial from eighty to twenty.
And she says, and if a prosecutor can't produce a
(07:43):
witness but doesn't have good cause for a continuous Lopez,
she will make the DA dismiss the case. So Lopez
is I believe an attorney who is speaking in regards
to Linda Condron. I thought that that particular statement right
there was interesting to note because in the Peter Wilson
in case, we know that William Coleman, the other roommate,
(08:03):
which is the suspect in my client's mind, mister Wilson's mind,
he believes that mister Coleman is the one that actually
committed the murder. He left the country, he was no
longer available to the district attorney as a witness, and
Linda Condrin stated in or stipulated to the court that
they were unable to locate him and if they were
(08:25):
not capable during this trial to find him, that they
would read his testimony into the court. Now, Nolan, I
can't imagine what that testimony could contain that would be
so important, obviously, U unless mister Coleman was fingering mister Wilson,
and that might answer one of those questions, right.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Was it a testimony and a deposition and growth.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
I have no idea. Again, I have did those transcripts
from mister Coleman or from mister Wilson to see if
he could provide with what mister Coleman's testimony was but
he was being called as a witness for the DA.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Yeah, that's generally allowable in a freelom, but her trial,
you want the witnesses their lives, so the jury could
see their faces and see if they're fidgety, and you
know their demeanor and their behavior and whatnot.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Well, and that's what made this statement by this attorney
so interesting. If a prosecutor can't produce a witness but
doesn't have good cause for continuance, Condren makes the district
attorney dismiss the case.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
But she didn't do it as a prosecutor.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
Though heck, no, she didn't. And so it gets better, huh,
says Condren. Said she doesn't try to hide her displeasure
if an attorney isn't ready or intentionally miss represents facts
in court. Oh, somebody's on a soapbox. But the judge said,
she doesn't let frustration or emotion color her decision making.
(09:54):
Early on, I made a decision for exactly the wrong reasons,
Condron explained, And out of custody, I defendant violated a
court order, didn't show up for a hearing, and was
found sitting in a car in the court's parking lot
with a bottle of tequila. It had been a stressful day. Yeah,
I thought that was comical. It had been a stressful day,
(10:15):
Condron said, And when the bailiff brought the defendant into
her courtroom, she remanded him into custody. Condron said she
doesn't regret the decision, just how she reached it. None
of it was cold, clear, calculated decision making, Condron said.
She said she agonized all night and went in at
four am the next morning to make sure the defendant
was on that day's calendar. After that experience, Condron said,
(10:37):
she vowed, I'd never ever in my life do this again.
I highly doubt that she could make any you know,
promises to herself, especially when she was vying for a
seat as a judge back when she was a district attorney, says.
These days, Condron says she strives to be dispassionate. If
her temper flare, she'll step off the bench for a
(10:58):
few minutes and have a sip of water. Sometimes, she added,
she'll run, pointing to a treadmill in the corner of
her office. Where it got extremely interesting is in an
article by The Mercury News saying can ex prosecutor let
go facing double murder charges. In nineteen eighty seven, Miguel
Angel I'm not going to try that last name, failed
(11:18):
to convince a jury that he acted at the order
of drug dealers who had threatened to kill him and
his family. He was sentenced to death. But today defense
attorneys say that they have evidence that his claim was
true and that the prosecution team in the case covered
it up. Though the prosecutor has denied wrongdoing, the attorney's
evidence has so impressed the state Supreme Court that has
(11:39):
ordered an unusual inquiry into the case, which will soon
require the prosecutor to testify under oath about her conduct.
That prosecutor is no longer trying cases. She is Joyce Allegro,
a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge, so coming from
the same area and the same background, basically as Kondrin.
Allegro is one of several prosecutors turn judges who engaged
(12:01):
in questionable behavior while trying cases. A Mercury News examination
shows now those individuals Allegro, Linda Condron, and Paul Bernal
are provoking questions again, but the stakes are higher. No
longer are they advocates sparring to make points in the courtroom,
but arbitrators who can set the tone for an entire trial.
All three are at a relatively early phase in their
(12:32):
too earlies in the legal community. I think basically the
message that gets sent is that you can break the
rules to achieve results, and if you learn that lesson
as a lawyer, it may very well carry over to
the judicial role, said Michael Kresser, executor, director of the
sixth District of Pilot program, which reviews prosecutors and judges
conduct at trial as it researches appeals. Now, this is
(12:55):
specifically in regards to something that Linda Condron did. Yet
another judge who has created conscient divers both as prosecutor
and juriss this Condren in her time as a prosecutor.
Perhaps the most stark example involved Condren's handily and false
testimony presented in Andreil Fagin's nineteen ninety eight murder case.
The issue arose during an early hearing when a police
(13:15):
investigator denied arranging the jailhouse meeting between Fagan and another suspect.
The circumstances of the meeting were crucial because Fagan confessed afterward.
In fact, the investigator had arranged the meeting, and he
contacted Condron and after his testimony to say that he
had misspoken, but she did not tell the judge or
the defense. According to the court transcripts, the investigator went
(13:37):
to Condron a second time, but she still did not
clear up the issue. When the truth emerged in court
months later, Judge Nazario Gonzalez scolded the prosecutor. It is
important that the prosecution really really follows the rules. There
is no need to hide the Balkans. So basically in
(13:58):
ten ninety eight and we and we know that Peter
Wilson was arrested in ninety six, but he's falling into
this pattern in which Linda Condron is withholding pertinent information
in regards to murder convictions and likely to secure those
convictions because she's trying to bat for those points to
make judge wow.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Right, It's amazing how how many prosecutors become judges. Most
of they happens all the time, obviously in Santa Claric Ellie,
and it's nobody even about it. They just approve them.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
That's crazy. And we have her here, I mean literally,
I think that there should be some type of a
penalty to a prosecutor that would do something like this.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Well, yes, there should be a judicial state bar investigation.
That's misconduct, absolutely yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
And she's showing, she's showing that that's the way she's
learned that she can win in court cases. And now
she's a judge who who is demanding that all evidence
and facts be It's almost as if she's taking this
hard stance to eat, literally erase who she was as
a prosecutor because she wasn't following the rules, and now
(15:15):
she's demanding that other attorneys are yeah, well well, It
goes on to say, what's that we'll see?
Speaker 2 (15:25):
I mean, as convenient for her to say that now
makes her look good, but who knows what she's actually
gonna do exactly.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
It goes on to say Condren won election to the
bench a year later, some attorneys, so she will she
won that said ninety eight. I'm trying to put the
because she was not a judge in this case in
two thousand. So would a prosecutor continue to prosecute a
(15:54):
case if it went to court after they become a judge.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
She would have to recuse herself. She couldn't be the
judge it couldn't be the prosecut either. His nation is
the judge. And I think you said earlier that even
before the election took effect, that because she got elected,
Gray Davilas appointed her. So she got on early before
she was supposed by election, so she then appointed prior
(16:23):
to the election taken effect.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
So then I'm going to have to figure out how
that's working, because it's they're making it sound as though
she became a judge in two thousand and We know
that mister Wilson's trials were two thousand and two thousand
and five, but he has repeatedly stated in his information
to me that Linda Kandrin was the district attorney on
this case, maybe.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Prior to her being a judge, but she couldn't have
done a dual role. What's you're a judge or a judge.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
Well, so then that that just begs the question. I mean,
I'm going to clear that up, but I'm pretty sure
that he stated his trials were too thousand and two
thousand and five, and that Linda Condron was the DM
both cases. But based on this information, it's indicating that
she became a judge in two thousand, So maybe I
just need to firm up those concepts es blah blah blah.
(17:16):
Some attorneys who have appeared in her courtroom complain about
a volatile demeanor that they fear conveys bias to the jury,
but those complaints come from both Ann said recently that
he will absolutely never appear in her courtroom again. After
Condron at one point placed her hand in front of
Compari's face to stop him from talking. When the defendant
(17:39):
in the he this was acquitted, kim Perry recalled Condron
abruptly left the courtroom, sending what the defense attorney considered
an unmistaken, unmistakable signal of her displeasure with the verdict.
That's not discompassionate as far as i'm.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
What's that. That's a childish behavior by a judge. That's
not cool.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
It's completely unprofessional. Yeah, and Condron did not respond to
request for an interview in this article. Go figure now
on Sergeant Yure. Sergeant Michael Yor was an investigator in
the death of palaw Alto resident Josephine Galbraith. Although Gallbrave
died in nineteen eighty five, her former husband Nelson was
(18:27):
arrested for her murder sixteen months later. He was acquitted
in nineteen ninety eight, and then initiated a lawsuit that
rebounded through the court system even after his two thousand
and two death, until it was settled last Tuesday with
a four hundred thousand dollars payment and an apology from
Santa Clara County in a two thousand and five day
long deposition. Your appears as though he didn't prepare to testify,
(18:49):
offering answering. I don't know, but he is also stated
during the deposition he considered the family's lawsuit ludacris. So
this is basically a situation where he wrongly arrested and
had a man and it took him sixteen months to
clear his name for murder he didn't commit because his
(19:12):
wife had act actually committed suicide. So this will show
you even mister yours, you know, gung ho about trying
to close a case on the wrong suspect and what
he made do to do that. I would like to
see some background on this one as well.
Speaker 4 (19:28):
Can I say now a little bit about mister r
Can I just say something about mister yr And this
is where I got frustrated and sent you that text message.
I did a bunch of reading through I believe it
was the Mercury News, and then I suddenly hit the paywall. Okay,
mister Yore had a subordinate partner that was last named
(19:55):
Mohammad that he in other cases had a sign duties
or other things and cases he was involved with to
his partner, and I tried to find that name again.
I tried to find the article, spend about an hour
trying to find it. But I think that this is
also something that you might want to try to ask
(20:17):
your client, you know, who was the other person that
was there that allegedly arrested him at the same time,
et cetera, et cetera. Because that was just blowing my mind.
I saw somebody that was a partner that and it
is common that police, you know, higher ups do assign
things to the people below them for the cases that
(20:40):
they are on. So anyways, that was my interjection.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
But wouldn't that be more or less investigative work or paperwork,
I mean, the notion or the idea that this is
going to be who we see the deal on. You
would have to get that subordinate partner to be on
board with railroading somebody.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
That's why I was trying to find the rest and
then suddenly I think as I hit the paywall, I
could no longer access that, so, you know, got yeah,
So that's why I'll send you the text message because
that's interesting. There's somebody else's possibly involved.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
Well well, I mean, obviously it's going to take more
than just this officer and the DA to you know,
get wict it. If he's truly innocent, you have you
have the person who claims to have searched the backpack.
When I went back and I reread the notes from
Officer Brooks, I believe it was in regards to the
search and seizure of the backpack after they obtained the
(21:42):
warrant on April first. There was absolutely no mention specifically
of the alibi note or the receipt any of the
alibi evidence. So they did say papers and receipts, but
they didn't actively notate what those items were, so there
is basic This would also, I think lead back to
(22:03):
mister yor having illegally searched and taken this information from
the backpack the day before, so now it is not
available for it to be logged and recorded by Officer
Brooks on the first on April first, when the search
warrant actually came into play.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
Yeah, that sucks, and they didn't get in trouble for it.
First they should have withheld any evidence unless it was
just exploratory because it was illegal search.
Speaker 3 (22:30):
Right they Yeah, they shouldn't have taken anything out of
that backpack on three point thirty one. But we do
have it in mister your's handwriting that he did. He
copied it, it went into the police file and then
becomes missing at a later time. So doing some research
and trying to get some handwriting on some of the
other players, like the officer or even Linda Clark, which
that is her name now, Linda Condron is now Linda Clark,
(22:52):
to see whether or not the initial lying of the
removal of those pages can be ablished us to the
person who did it. More information on Peter Wilson. So
I found several different articles and again, just like we
know the news, they never produce things correctly. They just
want to get a story out there and they don't
care if it's right or not. I was able to establish,
(23:14):
and I'm hoping that this is going to be confirmed
by him, that he was likely thirty one years old
at the time that this murder occurred in nineteen ninety six,
and I found this article which was the Palo Alto
online dot com, which is the Morgue News, and this
was this was actually done April fifth, nineteen ninety six.
So this is on a Friday, and this is the
(23:36):
Friday following the actual murder of miss Kim. So it
says murder suspector reigned, neighbors shocked, recall victim as pleasant
and quiet. That's a complete lie. If you look at
the investigator's notes and both sides, both the district attorney's
investigator and the private investigator for mister Wilson, they both
described Miss Kim as a very volatile person that she
(23:58):
would lose her mind. Yeah, she lose her mind, and
brash and not pleasant at all. Her neighbor does not
describe her that way. Her neighbor described her as a
person who was not happy with somebody was doing some
work for her in her yard. She wasn't happy with
what they were doing. She began yelling and screaming at them,
(24:19):
and when they tried to hurry up and get in
the truck and pull off, she jumped onto the side
of the truck held on screaming obscenities at them like
she was not pleasurable and nice in my mind, and
of course she owned the cleaners. She's of Asian descent.
These people are typically known to be very brash. They're
gonna be polite to their customers who come in, but
(24:41):
don't mess with them and don't try to cross them
because they will have their way with you. So it says.
A thirty one year old Palo Alto man suspected of
killing his landlady was a rained Wednesday on a charge
of murder with special circumstances, which means he could face
the death penalty if he is convicted. Police arrested me
Peter Wilson Sunday morning after being called to the home.
(25:04):
So now we've got that answer. He was literally arrested
that morning when the cops came to his home.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
Did they arrest the next of the time and just
let him go or they just didn't arrest him, or
did he.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
That's those are questions I'm waiting on, is whether or
not they treated mister Coleman the same way, Whether or not,
you know, how a did Coleman play into this entire
thing other than having made that that call to nine
one line. So police arrested Peter Wilson Sunday morning after
being called to the home at eleven sixty Fulton Street
at three forty five with the report of an accidental death.
(25:45):
Police arrived and found Hawk ju Jene Kim, fifty nine,
dead from apparent head injuries. They interviewed two tenants who
rented home rooms in the neat Spanish style home, and
arrested Wilson, releasing the other tenant. So there's your answer,
or well, at least if we're to believe the news again,
Wilson is being held in the main jail in San
(26:07):
Jose without bail in his scheduled to enter a plea
on April eleventh. So now what did I see? So
he was already being arraigned on Wednesday, Nolan, So on
April fifth, which is a Friday, two days previous April third,
so literally three days after he after he found the body,
he was being arraigned for murder. Wow, that seems awfully fast,
(26:30):
awfully quick. Yes, and in his real name? Are we
getting We're going to get to that, Yes, yeah, Wilson is.
Wilson is being held in the main jail in San
Jose without bail in his schedule to enter a plea
on April eleventh. Police detective Tammy Gage said there was
(26:51):
evidence at the house that made police believe Kim's death
was a homicide, but she would not elaborate. Police say
Wilson is unemployed and was formerly known as ininen Low
and that's e I N A N l o U
based on this article, but had legally changed his name.
Kim owned the Elite Cleaners on University Avenue, near the
(27:12):
Varsity Theater, but had sold the business. As of Wednesday afternoon,
bright yellow police tape still surrounded the entire perimeter of
the home on the corner of Kingsley Avenue in Fulton
and Palo Alto. Outside patio lights remained on, and yellow
roses bloomed along a sidewall. Neighbors say Kim apparently lived alone,
working long hours from seven am to seven pm every day.
(27:34):
You don't see her and she doesn't talk, so how
is she pleasurable?
Speaker 4 (27:41):
In staid one neighbor, I just wanted to say I
liked working with people like her, because that's the people
I work with.
Speaker 3 (27:52):
So anyways, it says I'm shocked myself. She was a
pleasant lady. I don't know why they killed her. Kim
had lived in the home for two years, Na said,
and had a son in Coopertino and a daughter somewhere else.
She was quiet. I used to see her doing her
gardening and washing her car, said Marcia Bauman, who lives
(28:13):
across the street from Kim's home. It's horrible the idea
that anything would ever happen to someone here. It was
pretty eerie. This is the first murder in Palo Alto
since November of nineteen ninety four, so that kind of
goes back now into it was Mark Buffington I was
talking to. He's former law enforcement and he refers to
(28:34):
these fu fu areas where they can't allow crimes to
go unsolved because there's so much money and elite people
that will, I guess, give them grief, cause them issues
and problems if they don't immediately solve crimes to make
their area look like it's perfect. Does that make any
(28:56):
sense to you?
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Yeah, Yeah. They don't want property values to go down,
they don't want white flight. They want they wanted to
be seen as Christine and calm and safe.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
Yeah, and that's pretty much what Market expressed that they
considered Palo Alto to be one of those fu FU areas, just.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
A little side on Paulo Alto murders. So they finally
solved the murder of Arlest Perry that was killed in
the in the church at at Stanford University. That was
part of the whole Son of Sam situation. It was
in the documentary episode Yeah and the Santa Clair Cops.
It was the security guard that worked at the church,
(29:41):
but he had just recently got the job, so this
was years later. It was a cold case. It was
like thirty thirty years later, and the cops go to
his apartment armed and they're backing on the door. We're
here to Cervil war blah blah blah, and he ended
up shooting himself. But then the diegos on TV and says,
(30:03):
we saw the Arles Perry murder at the Stanford church.
Speaker 3 (30:08):
So that isn't that interesting because security guard is the
role obviously that Jack Terrence played with many of his jobs,
both at Hewlett Packard also at Arizona State University. We
haven't made it to that yet, Nolan, but he was
(30:30):
there in ninety three and that was the time that
they started cataloging anthrax.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Interesting.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
Yeah, it's going to be a very interesting episode once
we get there. But yeah, so you shoot yourself, Why
so you don't bring suspicion towards anything else or anyone
else that might be a part of that group.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Yeah, that way they couldn't interrogate him because the theory
is that he was part of a cult affiliated with
the process Church of Final Judgment. And that's instead of
Sam the twenty two disciples in Huntermyer, Park and Yonkers,
they were affiliated with the Processed Church too, and so
(31:13):
was there's familiar with the Dakota there was also affiliated
with the Processed Church.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
I am not familiar with the Processed Church. Obviously we're
not talking like Scientology and Manson, right.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
Well, you know what, Manson was affiliated with the Processed
Church too, and he was affiliated with Scientology and the
process Church sprung out of Scientology. It was two former
scientologists that got married and they they were into the
Scientology thing, but they wanted to go further with it,
and so they started their own sect, so we say,
(31:48):
and it was called the Processed Church of the Final
Judgment who ultimate goal was to bring it bring about
the end of the Earth or end of human kind anyway.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
Wow, and they were going to one by one running
around shooting people.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Huh yeas Church and the Netflix.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
Documentary, how are they supposed to get their big mac
if they do away with everybody?
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Yeah, but it's also that book by Mortary called The
Ultimate Evil. It's a lot of it's in there too.
But that's what this is. The whole Netflix documentary is
basically on Morey Terry and the book and so Sam
Murders and the cult.
Speaker 3 (32:32):
I thought this was a different documentary. I'm gonna need
to get that name from you then, because I didn't
realize that the one that I watched certainly did not
allude to They basically talked about the journalist that was
trying to uncover the cold facet of it, and and
that it was not just you know, uh Burkewitz operating
in his own on his own, that there were other
(32:53):
people involved. So is that the one you're talking about.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Yeah, there's episodes, though there's like four or five episodes.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that I watched that one. I
might I might not have made it to the last one.
And maybe that's where they expressed the the security officer.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Yeah, that's the very last one at the end because
that happened way years later. Yeah and no less. Yeah,
the capital there to arrest him for the murder of
Artist Perry and he shot himself, killed himself. Wow. Yeah,
it was a cold case. It was at least thirty
years later.
Speaker 3 (33:31):
Yeah, because that's the eighties. I mean we right, Son
of Sam was No, that was the seventies.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
That was in the seventies and late seventies Perry was killed.
So I think it was like forty years later that
they finally figured out who it was. And Maury Terry
in the documentary that was his primary suspect and artist
Pero murder, but nobody listened to him.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
Oh wow, now in the book, yeah, go ahead. Is
the Smiley Face murders the same as the Son of
Sam No murders? Are those two different killing sprees, do
you know, Harriet? I think they are different.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
Yeah, yeah, different.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
We're gonna have to look that up because.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
There was probably a group much like Zodiac. There were
young male females was killed. Yeah, there were eight attacks.
Thirteen people were shot. I think seven died, and uh,
there's allegations that they were filming some of the murders
as well. The smiley face murders occur.
Speaker 3 (34:40):
The I guess the nuance or them was that they
would draw yellow or spray painted yellow smiley face near
one of the bodies of the person that was killed.
So that's why they were named the smiley face murders.
But I know that in the Tim Miller communication we
have the laughing mas which me could represent smiley face
(35:05):
type behaviors.
Speaker 4 (35:08):
Remember what the laughing face. That's a Greek tragedy company tragedy.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
I used to know the name. But anyways, Yeah, so
there was the one that was trying to right and
I'm trying to I don't know, I have to go
back and look them up again. I was just trying
to match the the It's basically the Tim Miller letter
reads kind of like I'm responsible for the I forty
(35:37):
five uh phantom murders the zodiac like it's Andy had
these the like she had said, the smiling and tragic
face masks that I haven't established what his meaning or
what set of crimes that goes to. So that's why
(35:59):
I was asking. All right, So back here on the
research now. An article written in two thousand says Peter
Wilson is forty five years old, so in four years
he gained fourteen because the last article said he was
thirty thirty one in nineteen ninety six, right, so in
(36:21):
two thousand he would only have been thirty five and they, yeah,
wrote forty five. So I'm constantly getting back and forth information.
Life sentence for murder San Jose, a forty five year
old Palo Alto man convicted in the nineteen ninety six
lane of his landlady, will be sentenced to life in
prison without the possibility of parole on April twenty first,
So that was written on two thousand, so that was
(36:43):
basically maybe his first So maybe I thought he said
he had a retrial in two thousand and five, So
maybe he had one early in ninety six and then
a second one in two thousand. I'm going to follow
that up and firm that up. That would make more
sense if Condron became a judge in two thousand, that
she was no longer a district attorney, or that she
(37:05):
was able to prosecute those cases during ninety six to
two thousand. Was hung jury.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Before she became a judge, we don't know, Yeah, but when.
Speaker 3 (37:17):
Was the sentencing date in April April twenty first.
Speaker 2 (37:22):
Mmm, okay, well that means the trial must have been
in January February, I would think.
Speaker 4 (37:29):
Right, Well, the first one was a hung jury, but
apparently he stayed in prison during that time, and then
the second one. The first one, the first trial was
a hung jury, but I believe he stayed in prison
all that time, and then they got the other trial.
Speaker 3 (37:47):
Well, that would make sense in.
Speaker 2 (37:50):
Two thousand, so and that would have been the first trial. Right,
What was our trial prior to you think trial?
Speaker 3 (37:57):
Yeah, it was prior to two thousand, because it's he
was a rank. He was arraigned on April third, nineteen
ninety six, so that trial had to have probably, okay, right,
that trial would have had to have occurred.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
The prosecutor the first trial, but not probably not the second.
Speaker 3 (38:19):
And the second. No, she was. He lists her as
the district attorney for both his both trials. Yes, so
I'm thinking this is just shortly before she actively takes
the seat as a judge in two thousand. All right.
So Peter Wilson, right, who changed his name from him
Ain and Loeu, was found guilty Thursday of first degree
(38:41):
murder and the fatal bludgeoning of Hawk Jew Kim out
of Fulton Street Home. County prosecutors said Wilson had killed
Kim fifty nine for financial gain. Wilson had forced her
to sign a contract in which he promised to give
her three hundred thousand in lieu of payne monthly rent
for a room in her house. According to the deputy
District Attorney Linda Handran, this is it is yeah and
(39:06):
this has written March March twenty fifth of two thousand.
So now let's talk about this motive. How again, asian
self employed business owner independent owns her own home living
in the the in Fufu area of Palo Alto, is
going to allow somebody to move in rent free?
Speaker 2 (39:30):
Now I go.
Speaker 3 (39:31):
I reflect back on the information given by mister Wilson
who states that he had rental receipts in his in
his binder of his paperwork, and the district Attorney Linda
Kondrin tried to convince or basically must have convinced the
jury that he forced miss Kim to sit down and
write these three rental receipts before killing her.
Speaker 2 (39:53):
That's all I would love to say. That is the
just pay rent said, That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
None of it makes any sense. Three hundred thousand dollars
in lieu of pay monthly rent. I mean, what could
rent have been back in nineteen ninety six two hundred
bucks a room for a month. Yeah, it doesn't make
any sense. So now.
Speaker 4 (40:21):
At that point, well, if I can I just say
something real quick. I read and then I hit the paywall.
Speaker 3 (40:29):
But I could have sworn.
Speaker 4 (40:30):
So hopefully this will get more people to look into
this unique case, that the three hundred thousand dollars would
have been the low end value of that house. That
should something have happened to her because of what is
allegedly signed, et cetera, et cetera. He was to get
the house, but you know, not a beneficiary.
Speaker 3 (40:53):
Beneficiary. I don't see any information that it needs for
it will. Yeah, he has no entitlement to this, to
this property whatsoever. She has two children, she has nieces,
she has family members, she has people that would have naturally,
if she did not have a will in place, would
naturally have inherited that property.
Speaker 2 (41:12):
He would never and they probably did get the property when.
Speaker 3 (41:16):
She was killed exactly, so this, yes, doesn't make any sense.
And he literally had receipts from her for having paid
his rent. So now it all sounds like hogwash. Not
only are they now producing bad facts or uh what
(41:37):
would you call that. I'm going to find the right
word for that, reducing evidence bad evidence?
Speaker 2 (41:44):
Yeah yeah.
Speaker 3 (41:47):
Yeah, and then with holding exculpatory evidence.
Speaker 2 (41:51):
Yes, that's just this condoxt. So this car is a
piece of.
Speaker 3 (41:56):
Work, and and somehow it's as the prosecution established that
Wilson never paid her and never had the funds available
to him, Condron said, now go back to he had
four hundred dollars in his backpack that was taken and
never returned to him. He believes that, sergeant, you're actually
(42:17):
responded with it. He has a security lock box at
a bank, which that takes money to have one. I mean,
they don't give you these things for free, right, not
even back in nineteen ninety six. I would assume that
would be a service you'd have to pay for.
Speaker 2 (42:36):
I don't have safety.
Speaker 3 (42:44):
And if he had never paid, if he had never
paid rent, I don't I don't see her stopping short
of tossing him and his belongings out right, I mean,
where's the where's the where's the poll for keeping a
renter in your home that isn't paying his rent, and
he actively had that one room that had its own
back door access so he could come and go as
(43:05):
he pleases. That would have probably been the more expensive
room versus the one upstairs that you have to travel
all the way through the house to get down and
out right, none of this is making any sense, so
it says this was the second time Wilson had been
tried for the murder of Kim so Yes in two
thousand and second time for Okay, this was the second
time Wilson had been tried for the murder of Kim,
(43:27):
who used to own elite cleaners on Palo Alto's University Avenue.
The first trial in nineteen ninety eight ended in a
hung jury. That's where Harriet probably read that. Yeah, the
Palo Alto Daily Post. I thought this was an interesting
article because it's talking about murders in Palo Alto over
the past three decades, and of course actually listed this
(43:49):
particular murder, which this is written in twenty twenty four.
So it boggles me why anybody would want to dredge
up the murders from Palo Alto. But why I was
more shocked about. So if you guys go to Palo
Alto Daily Post and look up this article for August second,
twenty twenty four, and the headline is murders in Palo
Alto over the past three decades, take a look at
(44:11):
the murders and the sentences some of these individuals received.
One of the cases that I read, the woman had
stabbed I believe either her sister or brother a family
member basically forty one times in order to steal money
from him that they thought he had, and she received
five years. No, no, no, let me take that back.
(44:33):
She only was in prison for five years. It was
considered time served. Wow, forty one times stab So it's
interesting to see who they ammed up for, how long
they hemmed them up, and what their actual sentence sentenceings were,
because there's no rhyme or reason to the murder. I mean,
(44:54):
they're all murders basically, so no matter if you poison them,
or you stabbed them, or you shot them, or you
w everybody had everybody seemed to get something different. But
here we had mister Wilson facing life without the possibility
of parole and possibly the death sentence. So this is
written by David Price, Daily Post editor. Possible Russian mob hit,
(45:18):
the robbery of an innocent man out for a walk,
a family fight over money, a dispute with the building manager,
a bullet seemingly shot into a crowd at random. Those
are some of the facts behind murders in Palo Alto
over the last three decades. And here's a look back
at those cases, so you can go and read that yourself.
But the excerpt that I pulled out for Peter Wilson
shows March thirty first, nineteen ninety six, Peter E. Wilson
(45:41):
forty four now he's forty four, also known as hammeld
Einen Low, was arrested and later convicted of murdering his
landlady hawk Jujen Kim fifty nine. Kim was found dead
of massive head wounds on the basement stairs of her home.
Now she wasn't found on the basement stairs. I think
we've all as stablished. She was on the basement floor
(46:01):
with a four x twelve placed over her body Wilson.
Wilson received a life sentence in prison without the opportunity
for parole. Of all of the murder convictions that I
looked at on this particular article, it seemed to me
that Key, for some reason received the strongest sentence out
of any of the other people convicted of murder. Some
(46:24):
of them have actually been let out, like the person
who you know, they gave him time served after only
five years. You stabbed your family member forty one times
and they released you five years later. Hi, oh no,
what's going on? Well?
Speaker 2 (46:39):
True?
Speaker 3 (46:41):
I know now that leads us into the YouTube comments,
and this is actually coming from someone called miss Vanerak.
I had indicated that I would cover these particular comments
on the podcast. I don't think that trying to hash
them out via comment sections on a YouTube video has
(47:01):
any probative value whatsoever, because so much is lost in context.
I offered her to email me and send me some
of her solves. She's also working on solves, and I
wanted to obviously cover some of those with you, Harriet
as well, But I have not received a message back
from her, So I guess I'll wait and see and
we'll just cover what it is that she's stated so
(47:21):
far and see what everyone thinks. So basically, in one comment,
it says, isn't all the Livelong Day? Part of the
lyrics of the creepy stocky song called the Eyes of
Texas rhymes which you can never get away. Yes, so,
and anyway, I think that we have discussed this, Harriet,
(47:42):
that the all the Livelong Day, That is the working
on the Railroad? Right, what is that? I guess the
name is the name of that.
Speaker 2 (47:51):
It's the same exs and I've been working on the
railroad or two different songs.
Speaker 3 (47:56):
Yeah, but there's lyrics set to the same music of
the old folk tune.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
Right.
Speaker 3 (48:03):
Well, okay, Well, and we have discussed many times a
lot of the references that the Zodiac made in his
letters and a lot of the statements that he would make,
like all all the Live Long Day. Now I want
to say that that was all the Livelong Day? Was
that on the Tim Miller letter? Yes, yes, on all
(48:25):
the Livelong Day. Yeah, And these are all Texas references,
and Jack being from Texas was making him another shoe
in for something like that. Well, we're down to the
last minute, so I'm going to hold off on trying
to climb into these others. These others get a little
bit longer, but they but she is going to continue
to talk about Cipher's solves and other things. That I
want to, you know, go over with you, Harriet. Is
(48:46):
there anything anybody would like to add?
Speaker 2 (48:49):
Yeah, both yours. There's like a million dollars or something
up in the mid up in Montera, Idaho or something.
There's a book about it, and there's ciphers and there's poems,
and my friend that owns old Tavern is trying to
solve it and he wants our help. So we'll talk
(49:10):
more about that another time.
Speaker 3 (49:13):
I think I know what we're talking about. Wasn't it
some philanthropist, rich guy like hit it and set up
a bunch of different clues and criterias in order to
find it.
Speaker 2 (49:23):
Actually, that's exactly it. And my friend has been working
on that for a bit, but he's hit a wall
and I he knows what I do and what you
guys do, so he asked to me to ask you
guys if be interested helping out, and if we find it,
he'd share the wealth. Definitely.
Speaker 3 (49:42):
I think that National Treasure is one of my all
time favorite movies and I would be totally down. What
do you think, Harriet? Oh, let's go okay.
Speaker 2 (49:51):
I'll talk to me this week and I'll get as
much impood as I can and I'll pass it on,
all right.
Speaker 3 (49:58):
All right, you guys, everybody, take care of wonderful weekend
and we will see you next all right, take care everybody.
Thank you,
This program is designed to provide general information with regards
to the subject matters covered. This information is given with
the understanding that neither the hosts, guests, sponsors, or station
are engaged in rendering any specific and personal medical, financial,
legal counseling, professional service, or any advice.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
You should seek the services.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
Of competent professionals before applying or trying any suggested ideas.
Speaker 3 (00:52):
Good morning, True seekers and true crime junkies. Welcome back
to another episode of Hit the Roadjack Finding the Zodiac.
I would love to introduce to the show today, first
time live in many months. Harriet Souchet, Good morning everybody.
Am I reading already. It's good to see you. It's
(01:16):
good to have you back live. The girls, Welcome to
the show. Nolan del Campo, Good morning everybody. Good morning Nolan.
I think that I cut you off and we started
the show right at the point where I said that
Trump is at heart been a Democrat pretty much all
(01:37):
of his life, so heavy supporters of the Clintons, And
you said, what, Nolan, has we flipped over?
Speaker 2 (01:44):
He's not really Republican, He's a fascist.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
Uh pick whatever side benefits or is he a slid
in agenda by the Democrats.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
No, what do you mean.
Speaker 3 (01:56):
No, he's been he's been a Democrat all of his
life until running for presidency, maybe.
Speaker 2 (02:05):
Nominally, but he's almost kind of like a dictator.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
Well, but the thing is is he only gets the
agendas across that they allow him to get across. I mean,
we're seriously stupid if we think there isn't somebody there
controlling what it is that he can and can't do.
As Lotus, Well.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
He's taking a lot of liberty to show to say.
Speaker 3 (02:33):
You think about it. When he wanted to release when
he wanted to release the JFK files, When he wanted
to release the JFK files back in his first term,
he had people come to him and said, no, you're
not going to do that. That's control, that's power. Those
are the people with the plays. So yeah, he's going
to get certain amount of things he wants across, but
there are definitely things I'm sure that he's not going
(02:53):
to be able to touch because he's not going to
be allowed to so his his agendas, and we see
him speak about of these issues that he's going to
have or make happen, only to find out that he doesn't.
It started to dawn on me. Is this the reason
why people believe politicians are liars? They promise us the world,
we vote them into office, then they can't achieve what
it is that they promised us, and that is because
(03:15):
somebody else is not allowing them to do it. So
were they really liars or were they just stifled on
what their agenda was a little both.
Speaker 4 (03:26):
I honestly think that they waited for certain people from
that era to pass on before they released a lot
of those files, because.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
There were people that were still I.
Speaker 4 (03:42):
Went to the JFK conferences and a lot of those
people ten years ago are no longer here. There were
people that said I was there, you know, on what
they now call the Grassy Knoll, and they said what
they saw. But those people are gone now, and there's
I think the people that were saying that Lee Oswald
(04:04):
was standing in the doorway next to Billy Shelley because
they knew somebody who knew that Billy Shelley. Those people
are gone too. So you know, it's like they waited
for them to go so they can release these files
so there won't be somebody who might hold things up,
you know, and the possibilities of releasing them because we're
(04:26):
still supposed to be We're still supposed to believe that.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
I'll get it. No, of course, I think that the
agenda they serve us up, whatever it is that they
tell us their narrative, is what we're supposed to believe
and follow. And unfortunately, I, myself and you as well,
I think we're divergent.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
You know.
Speaker 3 (04:47):
I mean, I'm not going to accept for face value
what the news tells me anymore. I haven't since twenty twelve.
All right, So let's climb back into this. I have
some research that I did in the Peter Wilson case,
and I have come upon information I thought that was
truly interesting to share. I did pose more questions to
mister Wilson in prison, and I'm waiting his responses to those.
(05:11):
So we'll have probably one more section where I follow
up or at least cover some of the questions that
have been asked through either the podcast, Nolan, yourself, Harriet.
With this new research that you've done, I went online
myself and I tried to find some of the players.
One of them was the district Attorney Lynda Condron. Of course,
(05:33):
this would be the handwriting I'd like to get my
hands on to determine whether or not she removed those
two pages from the police file which were the alibi
evidence of Peter Wilson. And the reason why I think
that that's probably a good starting point is going to
be found in some of these articles that I found.
Of course, most everything was fluff pieces on the individuals,
(05:54):
the officer and the DA. However, you can always find dirt, right,
So in a couple links, I was able to find
something on each of them that kind of makes me
question their capabilities in railroading mister Wilson. So this is
out of the Daily Journal. This was written on April
eighth of twenty eleven. It says Judge Linda Urcondron admits
(06:17):
she can be tough on lawyers, but they say she's fair.
And it was written by Craig Anderson. It says San
Jose as a prosecutor, Santa Clara County Judge Linda R.
Condren was known as a hard charging advocate when she
won a judicial seat eleven years ago. So mind you,
she won the seat in two thousand and we're talking
about the initial trial of Peter Wilson that was done
(06:40):
in two thousand. See so it was only natural to
wonder how she would adapt to her new role as
an impartial jurist. In fact, Condron says she wondered about
that herself. Keenly aware that many former prosecutors are regarded
with suspicion by the defense bar, she says she worried. Oh,
(07:01):
I guess I didn't continue on with her worries. But
let's now we get to some more of the dirt
parts of it. So on almlaw dot com, I've found
judicial profile for Linda Condron. It says a career prosecutor,
Condron ran for election to an open seat in two thousand.
After she won, Governor Davis appointed her to the bench
(07:21):
so she could take her seat early earlier this year.
She was assigned a backlogged domestic violence calendar, where she's
expected to handle cases from arraignment through trial and seeing
she and the two other judges have cut down the
number of cases waiting for trial from eighty to twenty.
And she says, and if a prosecutor can't produce a
(07:43):
witness but doesn't have good cause for a continuous Lopez,
she will make the DA dismiss the case. So Lopez
is I believe an attorney who is speaking in regards
to Linda Condron. I thought that that particular statement right
there was interesting to note because in the Peter Wilson
in case, we know that William Coleman, the other roommate,
(08:03):
which is the suspect in my client's mind, mister Wilson's mind,
he believes that mister Coleman is the one that actually
committed the murder. He left the country, he was no
longer available to the district attorney as a witness, and
Linda Condrin stated in or stipulated to the court that
they were unable to locate him and if they were
(08:25):
not capable during this trial to find him, that they
would read his testimony into the court. Now, Nolan, I
can't imagine what that testimony could contain that would be
so important, obviously, U unless mister Coleman was fingering mister Wilson,
and that might answer one of those questions, right.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Was it a testimony and a deposition and growth.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
I have no idea. Again, I have did those transcripts
from mister Coleman or from mister Wilson to see if
he could provide with what mister Coleman's testimony was but
he was being called as a witness for the DA.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Yeah, that's generally allowable in a freelom, but her trial,
you want the witnesses their lives, so the jury could
see their faces and see if they're fidgety, and you
know their demeanor and their behavior and whatnot.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
Well, and that's what made this statement by this attorney
so interesting. If a prosecutor can't produce a witness but
doesn't have good cause for continuance, Condren makes the district
attorney dismiss the case.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
But she didn't do it as a prosecutor.
Speaker 3 (09:34):
Though heck, no, she didn't. And so it gets better, huh,
says Condren. Said she doesn't try to hide her displeasure
if an attorney isn't ready or intentionally miss represents facts
in court. Oh, somebody's on a soapbox. But the judge said,
she doesn't let frustration or emotion color her decision making.
(09:54):
Early on, I made a decision for exactly the wrong reasons,
Condron explained, And out of custody, I defendant violated a
court order, didn't show up for a hearing, and was
found sitting in a car in the court's parking lot
with a bottle of tequila. It had been a stressful day. Yeah,
I thought that was comical. It had been a stressful day,
(10:15):
Condron said, And when the bailiff brought the defendant into
her courtroom, she remanded him into custody. Condron said she
doesn't regret the decision, just how she reached it. None
of it was cold, clear, calculated decision making, Condron said.
She said she agonized all night and went in at
four am the next morning to make sure the defendant
was on that day's calendar. After that experience, Condron said,
(10:37):
she vowed, I'd never ever in my life do this again.
I highly doubt that she could make any you know,
promises to herself, especially when she was vying for a
seat as a judge back when she was a district attorney, says.
These days, Condron says she strives to be dispassionate. If
her temper flare, she'll step off the bench for a
(10:58):
few minutes and have a sip of water. Sometimes, she added,
she'll run, pointing to a treadmill in the corner of
her office. Where it got extremely interesting is in an
article by The Mercury News saying can ex prosecutor let
go facing double murder charges. In nineteen eighty seven, Miguel
Angel I'm not going to try that last name, failed
(11:18):
to convince a jury that he acted at the order
of drug dealers who had threatened to kill him and
his family. He was sentenced to death. But today defense
attorneys say that they have evidence that his claim was
true and that the prosecution team in the case covered
it up. Though the prosecutor has denied wrongdoing, the attorney's
evidence has so impressed the state Supreme Court that has
(11:39):
ordered an unusual inquiry into the case, which will soon
require the prosecutor to testify under oath about her conduct.
That prosecutor is no longer trying cases. She is Joyce Allegro,
a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge, so coming from
the same area and the same background, basically as Kondrin.
Allegro is one of several prosecutors turn judges who engaged
(12:01):
in questionable behavior while trying cases. A Mercury News examination
shows now those individuals Allegro, Linda Condron, and Paul Bernal
are provoking questions again, but the stakes are higher. No
longer are they advocates sparring to make points in the courtroom,
but arbitrators who can set the tone for an entire trial.
All three are at a relatively early phase in their
(12:32):
too earlies in the legal community. I think basically the
message that gets sent is that you can break the
rules to achieve results, and if you learn that lesson
as a lawyer, it may very well carry over to
the judicial role, said Michael Kresser, executor, director of the
sixth District of Pilot program, which reviews prosecutors and judges
conduct at trial as it researches appeals. Now, this is
(12:55):
specifically in regards to something that Linda Condron did. Yet
another judge who has created conscient divers both as prosecutor
and juriss this Condren in her time as a prosecutor.
Perhaps the most stark example involved Condren's handily and false
testimony presented in Andreil Fagin's nineteen ninety eight murder case.
The issue arose during an early hearing when a police
(13:15):
investigator denied arranging the jailhouse meeting between Fagan and another suspect.
The circumstances of the meeting were crucial because Fagan confessed afterward.
In fact, the investigator had arranged the meeting, and he
contacted Condron and after his testimony to say that he
had misspoken, but she did not tell the judge or
the defense. According to the court transcripts, the investigator went
(13:37):
to Condron a second time, but she still did not
clear up the issue. When the truth emerged in court
months later, Judge Nazario Gonzalez scolded the prosecutor. It is
important that the prosecution really really follows the rules. There
is no need to hide the Balkans. So basically in
(13:58):
ten ninety eight and we and we know that Peter
Wilson was arrested in ninety six, but he's falling into
this pattern in which Linda Condron is withholding pertinent information
in regards to murder convictions and likely to secure those
convictions because she's trying to bat for those points to
make judge wow.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Right, It's amazing how how many prosecutors become judges. Most
of they happens all the time, obviously in Santa Claric Ellie,
and it's nobody even about it. They just approve them.
Speaker 3 (14:35):
That's crazy. And we have her here, I mean literally,
I think that there should be some type of a
penalty to a prosecutor that would do something like this.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Well, yes, there should be a judicial state bar investigation.
That's misconduct, absolutely yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
And she's showing, she's showing that that's the way she's
learned that she can win in court cases. And now
she's a judge who who is demanding that all evidence
and facts be It's almost as if she's taking this
hard stance to eat, literally erase who she was as
a prosecutor because she wasn't following the rules, and now
(15:15):
she's demanding that other attorneys are yeah, well well, It
goes on to say, what's that we'll see?
Speaker 2 (15:25):
I mean, as convenient for her to say that now
makes her look good, but who knows what she's actually
gonna do exactly.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
It goes on to say Condren won election to the
bench a year later, some attorneys, so she will she
won that said ninety eight. I'm trying to put the
because she was not a judge in this case in
two thousand. So would a prosecutor continue to prosecute a
(15:54):
case if it went to court after they become a judge.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
She would have to recuse herself. She couldn't be the
judge it couldn't be the prosecut either. His nation is
the judge. And I think you said earlier that even
before the election took effect, that because she got elected,
Gray Davilas appointed her. So she got on early before
she was supposed by election, so she then appointed prior
(16:23):
to the election taken effect.
Speaker 3 (16:25):
So then I'm going to have to figure out how
that's working, because it's they're making it sound as though
she became a judge in two thousand and We know
that mister Wilson's trials were two thousand and two thousand
and five, but he has repeatedly stated in his information
to me that Linda Kandrin was the district attorney on
this case, maybe.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Prior to her being a judge, but she couldn't have
done a dual role. What's you're a judge or a judge.
Speaker 3 (16:53):
Well, so then that that just begs the question. I mean,
I'm going to clear that up, but I'm pretty sure
that he stated his trials were too thousand and two
thousand and five, and that Linda Condron was the DM
both cases. But based on this information, it's indicating that
she became a judge in two thousand, So maybe I
just need to firm up those concepts es blah blah blah.
(17:16):
Some attorneys who have appeared in her courtroom complain about
a volatile demeanor that they fear conveys bias to the jury,
but those complaints come from both Ann said recently that
he will absolutely never appear in her courtroom again. After
Condron at one point placed her hand in front of
Compari's face to stop him from talking. When the defendant
(17:39):
in the he this was acquitted, kim Perry recalled Condron
abruptly left the courtroom, sending what the defense attorney considered
an unmistaken, unmistakable signal of her displeasure with the verdict.
That's not discompassionate as far as i'm.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
What's that. That's a childish behavior by a judge. That's
not cool.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
It's completely unprofessional. Yeah, and Condron did not respond to
request for an interview in this article. Go figure now
on Sergeant Yure. Sergeant Michael Yor was an investigator in
the death of palaw Alto resident Josephine Galbraith. Although Gallbrave
died in nineteen eighty five, her former husband Nelson was
(18:27):
arrested for her murder sixteen months later. He was acquitted
in nineteen ninety eight, and then initiated a lawsuit that
rebounded through the court system even after his two thousand
and two death, until it was settled last Tuesday with
a four hundred thousand dollars payment and an apology from
Santa Clara County in a two thousand and five day
long deposition. Your appears as though he didn't prepare to testify,
(18:49):
offering answering. I don't know, but he is also stated
during the deposition he considered the family's lawsuit ludacris. So
this is basically a situation where he wrongly arrested and
had a man and it took him sixteen months to
clear his name for murder he didn't commit because his
(19:12):
wife had act actually committed suicide. So this will show
you even mister yours, you know, gung ho about trying
to close a case on the wrong suspect and what
he made do to do that. I would like to
see some background on this one as well.
Speaker 4 (19:28):
Can I say now a little bit about mister r
Can I just say something about mister yr And this
is where I got frustrated and sent you that text message.
I did a bunch of reading through I believe it
was the Mercury News, and then I suddenly hit the paywall. Okay,
mister Yore had a subordinate partner that was last named
(19:55):
Mohammad that he in other cases had a sign duties
or other things and cases he was involved with to
his partner, and I tried to find that name again.
I tried to find the article, spend about an hour
trying to find it. But I think that this is
also something that you might want to try to ask
(20:17):
your client, you know, who was the other person that
was there that allegedly arrested him at the same time,
et cetera, et cetera. Because that was just blowing my mind.
I saw somebody that was a partner that and it
is common that police, you know, higher ups do assign
things to the people below them for the cases that
(20:40):
they are on. So anyways, that was my interjection.
Speaker 3 (20:45):
But wouldn't that be more or less investigative work or paperwork,
I mean, the notion or the idea that this is
going to be who we see the deal on. You
would have to get that subordinate partner to be on
board with railroading somebody.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
That's why I was trying to find the rest and
then suddenly I think as I hit the paywall, I
could no longer access that, so, you know, got yeah,
So that's why I'll send you the text message because
that's interesting. There's somebody else's possibly involved.
Speaker 3 (21:20):
Well well, I mean, obviously it's going to take more
than just this officer and the DA to you know,
get wict it. If he's truly innocent, you have you
have the person who claims to have searched the backpack.
When I went back and I reread the notes from
Officer Brooks, I believe it was in regards to the
search and seizure of the backpack after they obtained the
(21:42):
warrant on April first. There was absolutely no mention specifically
of the alibi note or the receipt any of the
alibi evidence. So they did say papers and receipts, but
they didn't actively notate what those items were, so there
is basic This would also, I think lead back to
(22:03):
mister yor having illegally searched and taken this information from
the backpack the day before, so now it is not
available for it to be logged and recorded by Officer
Brooks on the first on April first, when the search
warrant actually came into play.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
Yeah, that sucks, and they didn't get in trouble for it.
First they should have withheld any evidence unless it was
just exploratory because it was illegal search.
Speaker 3 (22:30):
Right they Yeah, they shouldn't have taken anything out of
that backpack on three point thirty one. But we do
have it in mister your's handwriting that he did. He
copied it, it went into the police file and then
becomes missing at a later time. So doing some research
and trying to get some handwriting on some of the
other players, like the officer or even Linda Clark, which
that is her name now, Linda Condron is now Linda Clark,
(22:52):
to see whether or not the initial lying of the
removal of those pages can be ablished us to the
person who did it. More information on Peter Wilson. So
I found several different articles and again, just like we
know the news, they never produce things correctly. They just
want to get a story out there and they don't
care if it's right or not. I was able to establish,
(23:14):
and I'm hoping that this is going to be confirmed
by him, that he was likely thirty one years old
at the time that this murder occurred in nineteen ninety six,
and I found this article which was the Palo Alto
online dot com, which is the Morgue News, and this
was this was actually done April fifth, nineteen ninety six.
So this is on a Friday, and this is the
(23:36):
Friday following the actual murder of miss Kim. So it
says murder suspector reigned, neighbors shocked, recall victim as pleasant
and quiet. That's a complete lie. If you look at
the investigator's notes and both sides, both the district attorney's
investigator and the private investigator for mister Wilson, they both
described Miss Kim as a very volatile person that she
(23:58):
would lose her mind. Yeah, she lose her mind, and
brash and not pleasant at all. Her neighbor does not
describe her that way. Her neighbor described her as a
person who was not happy with somebody was doing some
work for her in her yard. She wasn't happy with
what they were doing. She began yelling and screaming at them,
(24:19):
and when they tried to hurry up and get in
the truck and pull off, she jumped onto the side
of the truck held on screaming obscenities at them like
she was not pleasurable and nice in my mind, and
of course she owned the cleaners. She's of Asian descent.
These people are typically known to be very brash. They're
gonna be polite to their customers who come in, but
(24:41):
don't mess with them and don't try to cross them
because they will have their way with you. So it says.
A thirty one year old Palo Alto man suspected of
killing his landlady was a rained Wednesday on a charge
of murder with special circumstances, which means he could face
the death penalty if he is convicted. Police arrested me
Peter Wilson Sunday morning after being called to the home.
(25:04):
So now we've got that answer. He was literally arrested
that morning when the cops came to his home.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
Did they arrest the next of the time and just
let him go or they just didn't arrest him, or
did he.
Speaker 3 (25:20):
That's those are questions I'm waiting on, is whether or
not they treated mister Coleman the same way, Whether or not,
you know, how a did Coleman play into this entire
thing other than having made that that call to nine
one line. So police arrested Peter Wilson Sunday morning after
being called to the home at eleven sixty Fulton Street
at three forty five with the report of an accidental death.
(25:45):
Police arrived and found Hawk ju Jene Kim, fifty nine,
dead from apparent head injuries. They interviewed two tenants who
rented home rooms in the neat Spanish style home, and
arrested Wilson, releasing the other tenant. So there's your answer,
or well, at least if we're to believe the news again,
Wilson is being held in the main jail in San
(26:07):
Jose without bail in his scheduled to enter a plea
on April eleventh. So now what did I see? So
he was already being arraigned on Wednesday, Nolan, So on
April fifth, which is a Friday, two days previous April third,
so literally three days after he after he found the body,
he was being arraigned for murder. Wow, that seems awfully fast,
(26:30):
awfully quick. Yes, and in his real name? Are we
getting We're going to get to that, Yes, yeah, Wilson is.
Wilson is being held in the main jail in San
Jose without bail in his schedule to enter a plea
on April eleventh. Police detective Tammy Gage said there was
(26:51):
evidence at the house that made police believe Kim's death
was a homicide, but she would not elaborate. Police say
Wilson is unemployed and was formerly known as ininen Low
and that's e I N A N l o U
based on this article, but had legally changed his name.
Kim owned the Elite Cleaners on University Avenue, near the
(27:12):
Varsity Theater, but had sold the business. As of Wednesday afternoon,
bright yellow police tape still surrounded the entire perimeter of
the home on the corner of Kingsley Avenue in Fulton
and Palo Alto. Outside patio lights remained on, and yellow
roses bloomed along a sidewall. Neighbors say Kim apparently lived alone,
working long hours from seven am to seven pm every day.
(27:34):
You don't see her and she doesn't talk, so how
is she pleasurable?
Speaker 4 (27:41):
In staid one neighbor, I just wanted to say I
liked working with people like her, because that's the people
I work with.
Speaker 3 (27:52):
So anyways, it says I'm shocked myself. She was a
pleasant lady. I don't know why they killed her. Kim
had lived in the home for two years, Na said,
and had a son in Coopertino and a daughter somewhere else.
She was quiet. I used to see her doing her
gardening and washing her car, said Marcia Bauman, who lives
(28:13):
across the street from Kim's home. It's horrible the idea
that anything would ever happen to someone here. It was
pretty eerie. This is the first murder in Palo Alto
since November of nineteen ninety four, so that kind of
goes back now into it was Mark Buffington I was
talking to. He's former law enforcement and he refers to
(28:34):
these fu fu areas where they can't allow crimes to
go unsolved because there's so much money and elite people
that will, I guess, give them grief, cause them issues
and problems if they don't immediately solve crimes to make
their area look like it's perfect. Does that make any
(28:56):
sense to you?
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Yeah, Yeah. They don't want property values to go down,
they don't want white flight. They want they wanted to
be seen as Christine and calm and safe.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
Yeah, and that's pretty much what Market expressed that they
considered Palo Alto to be one of those fu FU areas, just.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
A little side on Paulo Alto murders. So they finally
solved the murder of Arlest Perry that was killed in
the in the church at at Stanford University. That was
part of the whole Son of Sam situation. It was
in the documentary episode Yeah and the Santa Clair Cops.
It was the security guard that worked at the church,
(29:41):
but he had just recently got the job, so this
was years later. It was a cold case. It was
like thirty thirty years later, and the cops go to
his apartment armed and they're backing on the door. We're
here to Cervil war blah blah blah, and he ended
up shooting himself. But then the diegos on TV and says,
(30:03):
we saw the Arles Perry murder at the Stanford church.
Speaker 3 (30:08):
So that isn't that interesting because security guard is the
role obviously that Jack Terrence played with many of his jobs,
both at Hewlett Packard also at Arizona State University. We
haven't made it to that yet, Nolan, but he was
(30:30):
there in ninety three and that was the time that
they started cataloging anthrax.
Speaker 2 (30:38):
Interesting.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
Yeah, it's going to be a very interesting episode once
we get there. But yeah, so you shoot yourself, Why
so you don't bring suspicion towards anything else or anyone
else that might be a part of that group.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
Yeah, that way they couldn't interrogate him because the theory
is that he was part of a cult affiliated with
the process Church of Final Judgment. And that's instead of
Sam the twenty two disciples in Huntermyer, Park and Yonkers,
they were affiliated with the Processed Church too, and so
(31:13):
was there's familiar with the Dakota there was also affiliated
with the Processed Church.
Speaker 3 (31:22):
I am not familiar with the Processed Church. Obviously we're
not talking like Scientology and Manson, right.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
Well, you know what, Manson was affiliated with the Processed
Church too, and he was affiliated with Scientology and the
process Church sprung out of Scientology. It was two former
scientologists that got married and they they were into the
Scientology thing, but they wanted to go further with it,
and so they started their own sect, so we say,
(31:48):
and it was called the Processed Church of the Final
Judgment who ultimate goal was to bring it bring about
the end of the Earth or end of human kind anyway.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
Wow, and they were going to one by one running
around shooting people.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Huh yeas Church and the Netflix.
Speaker 3 (32:05):
Documentary, how are they supposed to get their big mac
if they do away with everybody?
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Yeah, but it's also that book by Mortary called The
Ultimate Evil. It's a lot of it's in there too.
But that's what this is. The whole Netflix documentary is
basically on Morey Terry and the book and so Sam
Murders and the cult.
Speaker 3 (32:32):
I thought this was a different documentary. I'm gonna need
to get that name from you then, because I didn't
realize that the one that I watched certainly did not
allude to They basically talked about the journalist that was
trying to uncover the cold facet of it, and and
that it was not just you know, uh Burkewitz operating
in his own on his own, that there were other
(32:53):
people involved. So is that the one you're talking about.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Yeah, there's episodes, though there's like four or five episodes.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that I watched that one. I
might I might not have made it to the last one.
And maybe that's where they expressed the the security officer.
Speaker 2 (33:10):
Yeah, that's the very last one at the end because
that happened way years later. Yeah and no less. Yeah,
the capital there to arrest him for the murder of
Artist Perry and he shot himself, killed himself. Wow. Yeah,
it was a cold case. It was at least thirty
years later.
Speaker 3 (33:31):
Yeah, because that's the eighties. I mean we right, Son
of Sam was No, that was the seventies.
Speaker 2 (33:37):
That was in the seventies and late seventies Perry was killed.
So I think it was like forty years later that
they finally figured out who it was. And Maury Terry
in the documentary that was his primary suspect and artist
Pero murder, but nobody listened to him.
Speaker 3 (33:54):
Oh wow, now in the book, yeah, go ahead. Is
the Smiley Face murders the same as the Son of
Sam No murders? Are those two different killing sprees, do
you know, Harriet? I think they are different.
Speaker 2 (34:13):
Yeah, yeah, different.
Speaker 3 (34:17):
We're gonna have to look that up because.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
There was probably a group much like Zodiac. There were
young male females was killed. Yeah, there were eight attacks.
Thirteen people were shot. I think seven died, and uh,
there's allegations that they were filming some of the murders
as well. The smiley face murders occur.
Speaker 3 (34:40):
The I guess the nuance or them was that they
would draw yellow or spray painted yellow smiley face near
one of the bodies of the person that was killed.
So that's why they were named the smiley face murders.
But I know that in the Tim Miller communication we
have the laughing mas which me could represent smiley face
(35:05):
type behaviors.
Speaker 4 (35:08):
Remember what the laughing face. That's a Greek tragedy company tragedy.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
I used to know the name. But anyways, Yeah, so
there was the one that was trying to right and
I'm trying to I don't know, I have to go
back and look them up again. I was just trying
to match the the It's basically the Tim Miller letter
reads kind of like I'm responsible for the I forty
(35:37):
five uh phantom murders the zodiac like it's Andy had
these the like she had said, the smiling and tragic
face masks that I haven't established what his meaning or
what set of crimes that goes to. So that's why
(35:59):
I was asking. All right, So back here on the
research now. An article written in two thousand says Peter
Wilson is forty five years old, so in four years
he gained fourteen because the last article said he was
thirty thirty one in nineteen ninety six, right, so in
(36:21):
two thousand he would only have been thirty five and they, yeah,
wrote forty five. So I'm constantly getting back and forth information.
Life sentence for murder San Jose, a forty five year
old Palo Alto man convicted in the nineteen ninety six
lane of his landlady, will be sentenced to life in
prison without the possibility of parole on April twenty first,
So that was written on two thousand, so that was
(36:43):
basically maybe his first So maybe I thought he said
he had a retrial in two thousand and five, So
maybe he had one early in ninety six and then
a second one in two thousand. I'm going to follow
that up and firm that up. That would make more
sense if Condron became a judge in two thousand, that
she was no longer a district attorney, or that she
(37:05):
was able to prosecute those cases during ninety six to
two thousand. Was hung jury.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Before she became a judge, we don't know, Yeah, but when.
Speaker 3 (37:17):
Was the sentencing date in April April twenty first.
Speaker 2 (37:22):
Mmm, okay, well that means the trial must have been
in January February, I would think.
Speaker 4 (37:29):
Right, Well, the first one was a hung jury, but
apparently he stayed in prison during that time, and then
the second one. The first one, the first trial was
a hung jury, but I believe he stayed in prison
all that time, and then they got the other trial.
Speaker 3 (37:47):
Well, that would make sense in.
Speaker 2 (37:50):
Two thousand, so and that would have been the first trial. Right,
What was our trial prior to you think trial?
Speaker 3 (37:57):
Yeah, it was prior to two thousand, because it's he
was a rank. He was arraigned on April third, nineteen
ninety six, so that trial had to have probably, okay, right,
that trial would have had to have occurred.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
The prosecutor the first trial, but not probably not the second.
Speaker 3 (38:19):
And the second. No, she was. He lists her as
the district attorney for both his both trials. Yes, so
I'm thinking this is just shortly before she actively takes
the seat as a judge in two thousand. All right.
So Peter Wilson, right, who changed his name from him
Ain and Loeu, was found guilty Thursday of first degree
(38:41):
murder and the fatal bludgeoning of Hawk Jew Kim out
of Fulton Street Home. County prosecutors said Wilson had killed
Kim fifty nine for financial gain. Wilson had forced her
to sign a contract in which he promised to give
her three hundred thousand in lieu of payne monthly rent
for a room in her house. According to the deputy
District Attorney Linda Handran, this is it is yeah and
(39:06):
this has written March March twenty fifth of two thousand.
So now let's talk about this motive. How again, asian
self employed business owner independent owns her own home living
in the the in Fufu area of Palo Alto, is
going to allow somebody to move in rent free?
Speaker 2 (39:30):
Now I go.
Speaker 3 (39:31):
I reflect back on the information given by mister Wilson
who states that he had rental receipts in his in
his binder of his paperwork, and the district Attorney Linda
Kondrin tried to convince or basically must have convinced the
jury that he forced miss Kim to sit down and
write these three rental receipts before killing her.
Speaker 2 (39:53):
That's all I would love to say. That is the
just pay rent said, That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 3 (40:04):
None of it makes any sense. Three hundred thousand dollars
in lieu of pay monthly rent. I mean, what could
rent have been back in nineteen ninety six two hundred
bucks a room for a month. Yeah, it doesn't make
any sense. So now.
Speaker 4 (40:21):
At that point, well, if I can I just say
something real quick. I read and then I hit the paywall.
Speaker 3 (40:29):
But I could have sworn.
Speaker 4 (40:30):
So hopefully this will get more people to look into
this unique case, that the three hundred thousand dollars would
have been the low end value of that house. That
should something have happened to her because of what is
allegedly signed, et cetera, et cetera. He was to get
the house, but you know, not a beneficiary.
Speaker 3 (40:53):
Beneficiary. I don't see any information that it needs for
it will. Yeah, he has no entitlement to this, to
this property whatsoever. She has two children, she has nieces,
she has family members, she has people that would have naturally,
if she did not have a will in place, would
naturally have inherited that property.
Speaker 2 (41:12):
He would never and they probably did get the property when.
Speaker 3 (41:16):
She was killed exactly, so this, yes, doesn't make any sense.
And he literally had receipts from her for having paid
his rent. So now it all sounds like hogwash. Not
only are they now producing bad facts or uh what
(41:37):
would you call that. I'm going to find the right
word for that, reducing evidence bad evidence?
Speaker 2 (41:44):
Yeah yeah.
Speaker 3 (41:47):
Yeah, and then with holding exculpatory evidence.
Speaker 2 (41:51):
Yes, that's just this condoxt. So this car is a
piece of.
Speaker 3 (41:56):
Work, and and somehow it's as the prosecution established that
Wilson never paid her and never had the funds available
to him, Condron said, now go back to he had
four hundred dollars in his backpack that was taken and
never returned to him. He believes that, sergeant, you're actually
(42:17):
responded with it. He has a security lock box at
a bank, which that takes money to have one. I mean,
they don't give you these things for free, right, not
even back in nineteen ninety six. I would assume that
would be a service you'd have to pay for.
Speaker 2 (42:36):
I don't have safety.
Speaker 3 (42:44):
And if he had never paid, if he had never
paid rent, I don't I don't see her stopping short
of tossing him and his belongings out right, I mean,
where's the where's the where's the poll for keeping a
renter in your home that isn't paying his rent, and
he actively had that one room that had its own
back door access so he could come and go as
(43:05):
he pleases. That would have probably been the more expensive
room versus the one upstairs that you have to travel
all the way through the house to get down and
out right, none of this is making any sense, so
it says this was the second time Wilson had been
tried for the murder of Kim so Yes in two
thousand and second time for Okay, this was the second
time Wilson had been tried for the murder of Kim,
(43:27):
who used to own elite cleaners on Palo Alto's University Avenue.
The first trial in nineteen ninety eight ended in a
hung jury. That's where Harriet probably read that. Yeah, the
Palo Alto Daily Post. I thought this was an interesting
article because it's talking about murders in Palo Alto over
the past three decades, and of course actually listed this
(43:49):
particular murder, which this is written in twenty twenty four.
So it boggles me why anybody would want to dredge
up the murders from Palo Alto. But why I was
more shocked about. So if you guys go to Palo
Alto Daily Post and look up this article for August second,
twenty twenty four, and the headline is murders in Palo
Alto over the past three decades, take a look at
(44:11):
the murders and the sentences some of these individuals received.
One of the cases that I read, the woman had
stabbed I believe either her sister or brother a family
member basically forty one times in order to steal money
from him that they thought he had, and she received
five years. No, no, no, let me take that back.
(44:33):
She only was in prison for five years. It was
considered time served. Wow, forty one times stab So it's
interesting to see who they ammed up for, how long
they hemmed them up, and what their actual sentence sentenceings were,
because there's no rhyme or reason to the murder. I mean,
(44:54):
they're all murders basically, so no matter if you poison them,
or you stabbed them, or you shot them, or you
w everybody had everybody seemed to get something different. But
here we had mister Wilson facing life without the possibility
of parole and possibly the death sentence. So this is
written by David Price, Daily Post editor. Possible Russian mob hit,
(45:18):
the robbery of an innocent man out for a walk,
a family fight over money, a dispute with the building manager,
a bullet seemingly shot into a crowd at random. Those
are some of the facts behind murders in Palo Alto
over the last three decades. And here's a look back
at those cases, so you can go and read that yourself.
But the excerpt that I pulled out for Peter Wilson
shows March thirty first, nineteen ninety six, Peter E. Wilson
(45:41):
forty four now he's forty four, also known as hammeld
Einen Low, was arrested and later convicted of murdering his
landlady hawk Jujen Kim fifty nine. Kim was found dead
of massive head wounds on the basement stairs of her home.
Now she wasn't found on the basement stairs. I think
we've all as stablished. She was on the basement floor
(46:01):
with a four x twelve placed over her body Wilson.
Wilson received a life sentence in prison without the opportunity
for parole. Of all of the murder convictions that I
looked at on this particular article, it seemed to me
that Key, for some reason received the strongest sentence out
of any of the other people convicted of murder. Some
(46:24):
of them have actually been let out, like the person
who you know, they gave him time served after only
five years. You stabbed your family member forty one times
and they released you five years later. Hi, oh no,
what's going on? Well?
Speaker 2 (46:39):
True?
Speaker 3 (46:41):
I know now that leads us into the YouTube comments,
and this is actually coming from someone called miss Vanerak.
I had indicated that I would cover these particular comments
on the podcast. I don't think that trying to hash
them out via comment sections on a YouTube video has
(47:01):
any probative value whatsoever, because so much is lost in context.
I offered her to email me and send me some
of her solves. She's also working on solves, and I
wanted to obviously cover some of those with you, Harriet
as well, But I have not received a message back
from her, So I guess I'll wait and see and
we'll just cover what it is that she's stated so
(47:21):
far and see what everyone thinks. So basically, in one comment,
it says, isn't all the Livelong Day? Part of the
lyrics of the creepy stocky song called the Eyes of
Texas rhymes which you can never get away. Yes, so,
and anyway, I think that we have discussed this, Harriet,
(47:42):
that the all the Livelong Day, That is the working
on the Railroad? Right, what is that? I guess the
name is the name of that.
Speaker 2 (47:51):
It's the same exs and I've been working on the
railroad or two different songs.
Speaker 3 (47:56):
Yeah, but there's lyrics set to the same music of
the old folk tune.
Speaker 2 (48:02):
Right.
Speaker 3 (48:03):
Well, okay, Well, and we have discussed many times a
lot of the references that the Zodiac made in his
letters and a lot of the statements that he would make,
like all all the Live Long Day. Now I want
to say that that was all the Livelong Day? Was
that on the Tim Miller letter? Yes, yes, on all
(48:25):
the Livelong Day. Yeah, And these are all Texas references,
and Jack being from Texas was making him another shoe
in for something like that. Well, we're down to the
last minute, so I'm going to hold off on trying
to climb into these others. These others get a little
bit longer, but they but she is going to continue
to talk about Cipher's solves and other things. That I
want to, you know, go over with you, Harriet. Is
(48:46):
there anything anybody would like to add?
Speaker 2 (48:49):
Yeah, both yours. There's like a million dollars or something
up in the mid up in Montera, Idaho or something.
There's a book about it, and there's ciphers and there's poems,
and my friend that owns old Tavern is trying to
solve it and he wants our help. So we'll talk
(49:10):
more about that another time.
Speaker 3 (49:13):
I think I know what we're talking about. Wasn't it
some philanthropist, rich guy like hit it and set up
a bunch of different clues and criterias in order to
find it.
Speaker 2 (49:23):
Actually, that's exactly it. And my friend has been working
on that for a bit, but he's hit a wall
and I he knows what I do and what you
guys do, so he asked to me to ask you
guys if be interested helping out, and if we find it,
he'd share the wealth. Definitely.
Speaker 3 (49:42):
I think that National Treasure is one of my all
time favorite movies and I would be totally down. What
do you think, Harriet? Oh, let's go okay.
Speaker 2 (49:51):
I'll talk to me this week and I'll get as
much impood as I can and I'll pass it on,
all right.
Speaker 3 (49:58):
All right, you guys, everybody, take care of wonderful weekend
and we will see you next all right, take care everybody.
Thank you,
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
The Herd with Colin Cowherd
The Herd with Colin Cowherd is a thought-provoking, opinionated, and topic-driven journey through the top sports stories of the day.