February 4, 2026 • 34 mins
Part 2 of the discussion amongst the investigators answering questions from listeners. Learn more on KillerInTheCode.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Hi, this is Michael Connolly with part two of our
roundtable discussion. This is Killer in the Code Solving the Black,
Dahia and Zodiac cases. All right, we're gonna get back
to the questions. Do you think it's possible that other
unsolved cold cases in Chicago, Kansas, Atlanta, Arizona, et cetera,
(00:26):
could have been Margolis as well? And the list of
those cities are places we have traced Marvin Margolis or
Merrill or under his other names. Places he didn't stay
a long time other than Chicago, where he grew up.
But this was a guy who seemed to always be
moving until he came back to California. But anyway, obscuring
(00:49):
the question, I remember early on in a discussion I
had with you, Mitzie Roberts, that the killing of the
Black was so brutal, so calculated. He said, it would
be surprised if this person, if this was like a
single case, that the killer this was his only murder anyway,
(01:13):
So I don't know who wants to start with that,
but it's a very general question.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Well, just as an investigator, and when you're looking at
somebody that is killed, what we believe is repeatedly in
different locations within California as far north as the Bay Area,
Los Angeles. I feel Oceanside is very very likely his
(01:42):
I feel that the Riverside case of Sherry Joe Bates
is probably a very likely case based on the letter
that was received. So it would not surprise me that
anywhere he's gone. He started killing it roughly twenty one
in nineteen forty Heaven with Elizabeth Short, so he began
(02:03):
at a fairly young age, and then in the early
forties he was the Zodiac case. So anywhere in between
or even after wouldn't surprise me if he was in
locations that had murders, not necessarily the same mos, but
really any because he was evolving during this whole period
(02:25):
of time. If they couldn't connect other cases to him
wherever he lived.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
In the serial cases that serial killer cases that I've identified,
and if.
Speaker 4 (02:34):
You believe that Marvin Margolis.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Is the suspect here, which I do, and if you
believe he's the Zodiac, which I do, these type of
perpetrators don't stop usually, you know, they can't take a
break for different reasons and things like that. But for
somebody like him that's mobile and moving around what would
drive them to stop. If you believe that he is
(03:01):
a suspect in these cases, then it would be smart
to trace where he's lived, where he's been, and to
look into unsolved murders there. I don't know enough about
the famous unsolved with the key names, the Ellipstick murders
and the Torso murders.
Speaker 4 (03:20):
I don't know about enough about those to say look
into those.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
But if you have a killer that goes from place
to place to place to place, and you're convinced that
he's killed in one place, it's just smart detective work
to look into can he have killed, would he have
killed in another place? And to compare him against some
of your cold cases, and.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
That Mitchy and I did that on another case that
was at the end of my career with the guy
that is the most prolific serial killer in US history,
Sam Wittle. We traveled the country pretty much for the
last year my career, connecting him to other murders, and
I mean all over multiple states, five six, seven, eight
(04:06):
states we were in And it's just part of the
process of what you do. And obviously Meryl Margol was
like killing the first one that we know of Anyway,
Elizabeth Short was a very personal murder, and so I
can understand how that can happen without necessarily loving murder.
(04:30):
It was, you know, it was a payback. He was jolted, humiliated,
and he wanted to the same to her. But once
you get into the other killings where there's no direct
personal motive, random people and lover's lanes, a cab driver
in San Francisco, a cab driver in Oceanside, that shows
(04:50):
that he enjoyed killing, and so he's not going to
stop enjoying killing when he's living in Kansas or Chicago
or Georgia. It's going to go on if you felt
like the opportunity. The only thing I would say is
that at some point age factors does factor in.
Speaker 5 (05:07):
And I can't say what age, but.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Age does factor in and does cause people to eventually stop.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Next question is you say some members of the family
have cooperated with you and turned over the sketch as
well as two boxes of property and documents. Is there
any evidence connecting to the murders found in those belongings,
such as weapons or trophies.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Well, of course the sketch, I mean, which Michael and
I took that sketch that was sent to us and
had it analyzed by an expert that was not familiar
with this case or what we've been doing, and verified
that hidden the hidden word zodiac in the shading or
(05:57):
at least some of the letters that he did see
show up.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
And so yes, in that sense that was there.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
I'm not sure about the I think some of the
handwriting exhibits and a lot of stuff is just corroborating evidence.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
It's not like DNA on knives or anything like that.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
It's eyeglass prescriptions and knowing that the zodiac wore eyeglasses
and handwriting exemplars that have been compared to the letters
and have matched things like that.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Since we were talking about the things that family turned
over to us, let's stay on that for a minute.
With the last episode, chapter six, we talked about Marvin
Margolis's report card from USC and we put it on
the website, and readers have pointed out that that report
(06:53):
card shows a different spelling for his net last name.
It's and middle name. It's the work cards from Marvin
Henry Margolie's not Marvin Skipton Margolis. And the question is,
how do you know you don't have the grades for
(07:13):
someone else. And I'll start us off by just saying
that report card that we put on the website came
from Marvin Merrell's property turned over to us by his family.
So it's a I think it's a clear or you guys,
if you're the investigators taken from there. To me, it's
(07:36):
a clear indication that he was engaged in manipulating his identity.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
I have that report card in the boxes that I
have with me that we're turning back over to the
family tomorrow, And yeah, what are the chances that there's
some differences from a person that's gone through his life
changing name and it's a close name. What's the chance
is it's going to be did he pick up the
(08:04):
wrong report card, you know, and just happened to be
very close to his I doubt it's it's just another
indication that he's using, for whatever reason, one more alias,
and it's really a pretty close name obviously.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
And I just like when you get like that that's
given from the family like that, there's no there's no
better source to give us something like that than it
came from the person who's report card it is. I mean,
I would trust that even more than the academic institution
only because they have no way to verify the report
(08:42):
card they're giving us is the same individual who were investigating.
But even more than that, I even when you're going
back through the grand jury investigation, they got his name wrong.
They're in testimony and spelled it wrong. And is that
because that's the information they had that he gave them.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
Is the way he spelled it or they just spelled
it wrong.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
So that's just a common theme throughout this investigation that
there are different names being used, different spellings, different middle names,
and it's part of his signature, part of the way
he plays the game.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
What's interesting in the reader listener pointed out was if
you look at this thing, it appears that he may
have taken classes in the year of fifty two to
fifty three if we read this correctly, and that question
says it was there a chance he came back to
(09:39):
la because we know we can put him in Chicago.
He was actually prosecuted for a crime during this period.
But he's also we've also established that he moves around
and his family doesn't know where he is a lot.
What do we take from that little notation? It looks
like two classes taken between fifty two and fifty four.
(10:01):
Could he have come back to try to finish his
pharmaceutical degree.
Speaker 6 (10:06):
Well, we know that his eldest daughter was born in
Chicago in nineteen fifty two. If I look at my records,
have to verify that. I think it's nineteen fifty two,
early February.
Speaker 7 (10:19):
I believe that. Being said, however, we do know that
there's window there.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
We can't account for him up until the end of
fifty three where he's arrested for a cong game for
doing contracts that are blank and filling in additional information.
Speaker 7 (10:30):
That numbers right.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
So that's in Chicago.
Speaker 6 (10:33):
Dad's in Chicago. So we got a buffer there of
about a year and a half that we can't account for.
So I'm not saying that he did. What I'm saying, though,
is there's an open opportunity there unless we find something
else that we can use to place him somewhere other
than the USC.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
Okay, we seem to be talking about his family and
how a few of them have cooperated with us, mostly
through well, actually all three of you have talked to
family members. I have talked to family members. Is there
anyone in the family who is saying they agree with us,
or they're saying this explains a lot, or there are
(11:10):
people that are saying, there's no way this was that
our father was that this killer the serial killer.
Speaker 7 (11:20):
I've experienced both firsthand.
Speaker 6 (11:22):
I've got people like the son that says, all, this
can't be my father in no way. However, he is
shifted from one side to the other since I've had
the opportunity to speak with him. And then we have
other members that we've I've spoken to directly three that
have stated that they've found this very likely or possible
that he is who we believe he is.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
The family members that I've spoke to, I've only spoken
to two. There's more of a curiosity and a and
a willingness to cooperate, cooperate because they believe that it's
an in case and that any surviving family members deserve answers,
(12:06):
whether that be that Marvin is the guy or is not.
And they also want to participate because we've told them that.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
This could give you answers either way. We're not, you know,
we don't.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
We're definitely not trying to fabricate a case on anybody.
The evidence is going to point where they evidence points
and it could point to this is the wrong guy,
and then that is something that they'd want to know too.
Speaker 4 (12:33):
And so I haven't really gotten an opinion one way
or the other.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
We've gotten some information about Margolis's background, about his temper,
about the way he treated the family. That the fact
that they're willing to give items to us that could
be of evidence of evidentiary value at least says to
(13:00):
me that they're open to the possibility that this that
he that he could be capable of doing something like this.
Because I know if somebody came to me and said,
you think your father's a murderer and we want you
to give us any information that you may have, I'd
be like, there's no way, you know, I don't have anything.
I don't have anything because there's no way that this
(13:22):
my father could have been this, or or if my
father had stuff and I always had a suspicion in
my mind that he could be capable, then I would
give that.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
So the fact that they gave.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
Us items to be verified leads me to believe that
it's a possibility in their mind.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Okay, yeah, that it wouldn't be shocking. Yeah, if if
it the evidence revealed that this is true, it would
not be shocking based on his behavior.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
So that leads to one of the questions that we've
gotten several of out of the proximity question, how are
we putting him in proximity to the Zodiac killings? What
is the let's see where? What is the evidence that
he lived or had a place in the Bay area
(14:15):
during the Zodiac murder spree? Is the exact question.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
We do know there was documentation, Alex found it, and
I've driven by the house that he had showed he
lived at in the late sixties, early seventies and then
again in the late seventies and early eighties, same location.
We know he worked at Intel. Back then, they didn't
(14:41):
have this let's work from home kind of situation and
telecommuting and all this kind of stuff. You showed up
in the office unless you were a travel kind of person.
And the other thing, it's fifty five years later. You're
not going to be able to put somebody in a
specific place unless there's something very unique that happened, like
(15:05):
an arrest or something like that. On a day by day,
week by week, even a month by month basis, we don't.
We do know he has connections to the Bay Area.
And then the other one again, Mike, you just found
his son went to school up there. Now did he
live with his son at that point or did he
visit his son? Maybe, but we know that he had
(15:26):
a reason to be up in the area during that
period of time. And another thing is there wouldn't be
concern about the lack of middle put.
Speaker 5 (15:35):
Him in the area.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
If this was a DNA hit or a fingerprint match,
it wouldn't matter where he lived anywhere in the world.
You're going to say, Okay, you're gonna do You're going
to check the DNA and sometimes believe it or not.
But from a detective standpoint and from a prosecutor standpoint,
and from a legal standpoint, circumstantial evidence, depending on how
(15:58):
substantial it is, can be just as identifying as DNA
or a fingerprint. And people might look at that and
shake their head and they don't understand it. But this
world has gotten so dependent on court using DNA and science.
Sometimes you revert back to circumstantial evidence. It's very legal.
(16:20):
There's convictions based on nothing but circumstantial evidence all the time.
And so the fact that we couldn't put him in
the Bay Area on a regular basis. Isn't that concerning
to me? The other evidence that we have is overwhelming,
and I keep saying overwhelming. It's overwhelming. And I was
at an event the other day, unfortunately it was a
(16:42):
celebration of life, and there were many das there that
had been listening to this podcast that are blown away
by how.
Speaker 5 (16:51):
Convincing the evidence is.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
And I know Mitzi and I and my work partner
Dave Trismont, we wouldn't have entertained moving into this unless
we totally believed it. We're not going to get involved
in something that was a hair brain scheme, and we've cooperated.
We give media interviews, and I should say there was
one particular writer who said that I went to Michael
(17:15):
Conley with a far fetched theory. This guy must not
know anything about crime if he considered this a far
fetched theory, because prosecutors and people in investigated positions, Mitzi,
me and Dave tresmontin say it's overwhelming evidence. So the
far fetched stuff, I don't know if he just had
a bone to pick with this, or wanted to be
(17:37):
personally abrasive and throw a lot of landmines toward us,
or what, But the fact that he said it's a
far fetched game is ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
That's what's so irritating about that is that people expect
us as investigators to throw away the entire theory or
the entire game case against Margolis because we can't prove
he was in San Jose. He can't be the Zodiac
because we can't prove he lived in San Jose. So
(18:11):
everything else that we have proven, the cryptology and you know,
all the other things that we have, we're just supposed
to put that aside because one or two things we
don't have definitive answers, or we can't prove that he
was positive, you know, that his alibi, that he didn't
have an alibi, So we're just supposed to throw away
(18:33):
all the other evidence. And that is just not what
detectives do.
Speaker 4 (18:38):
So it's quite irritating on some levels when that happens.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
And even completed cases and myths will tell me the
same thing or tell you the same thing. You're never
going to get an answer to every question you want.
Even when there's admissions or confessions or convictions, there are
always unknown things because in a confession, oftentimes suspects will
(19:04):
admit things because they know it's overwhelming evidence. But they
always will mitigate some aspects or leave out parts, or
not remember certain parts because to admit certain things make
it tough because it's very very bad behavior. They mitigate
(19:25):
it to be seen in the best light possible that
they think they can get away with. And so there
are going to be things in we're not going to
have answers to. But overall it's a very very strong case.
Speaker 7 (19:38):
Let me add one more piece, guys. So if we
fast forward.
Speaker 6 (19:41):
From sixty nine to seventy to seventy eight, when the
son who said he never resided in San Jose, and
we know I knew Michael's independent researcher discovered that the
Sun was in high school in San Jose actually at
that time, so at the time that they moved there,
and this is documented.
Speaker 7 (19:59):
For anybody to see online if you know how to research.
Speaker 6 (20:01):
At the exact moment that Martin Margos can be placed
in San Jose in nineteen seventy eight. Zodiac reappears and
emails in April Letter April twenty fourth, ninety seventy eight.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
So somebody mentioned hair brained and so this next question
was first directed to me but handed off to Mitzi
after I make but it says, Connelly, you once endorsed
the theory that George Hodell was the Black Dalia Avenger.
(20:31):
What made you change your mind? And why should we
believe you? Now? What that listener is referencing is that
I blurbed, which is I endorsed a book called Black
Dalua Avenger that fingered George Hodell as the killer of
Elizabeth Short and he is on the top suspect's list.
By the way, the book was written by Hodell's son,
(20:54):
Steve Hodell, who was formerly an LAPD homicide investigator, which
was one of the reasons I felt compelled to read
it and then endorse it. And I read that book
knowing very little about the case, and I found it convincing.
And you know, what's the harm in saying I agree?
I think I even said case closed or something like that.
(21:16):
I can't remember exactly what I said in endorsing that book,
but I did live to regret this, and I've made
my maya copa in the very first episode I think
of this podcast. And because the newly formed cold Cation
it investigated the claims in that book and their report
(21:37):
was that that is a flawed investigation, and that it's
a good theory, but there's no evidence that Hodell was
the killer. And I think Rick and Mitzi you may
have had part in that investigation or aware of it,
or have reports. So if one of you wants to
bail me out here, please do. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
I think it's very easy and is exactly what's different
in what we're doing here is that Hoodell's theory is
a great theory, and it's supported by some of the
facts in the case. In that George Hodell there was
wiretaps into him.
Speaker 4 (22:15):
He you know, he was a doctor.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
There's things that make you look at him as a
suspect and buy into him as a suspect.
Speaker 4 (22:23):
That it's a good theory in the case.
Speaker 3 (22:26):
But there were a lot of good theories, and so
I can see how somebody on the outsides can can
read that book and buy into it. I mean, there's
still many many people that believe. You know, I get
that question a lot.
Speaker 4 (22:42):
Oh that's all. Isn't it wasn't it? That wasn't it
that detective's father, wasn't it that doctor? But as Michael.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
Mentioned, because the theory did look so good, that's what
investigators do we then go in and fact check it
for evidentiary value. And a lot of the stuff that
Steve Odell wrote in that first book just was not accurate.
It was not true. It was actually disproven. So that
is hindsight. That is information that Michael didn't have and
(23:13):
that the listeners and the readers didn't have at the
time that we were able to disprove. And I think
that flip side is why when it came to this
investigation we were so I was so skeptical because I
think I even mentioned to Michael, I don't want to
be the person that gets stuck in something like that
that has to turn around five years from now and say, yeah,
(23:36):
I got that wrong.
Speaker 4 (23:37):
And so is why we are doing that. We are
being upfront.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
With the listeners and with the people with the when
we're interviewed on these stories. Is if we have a
case where the evidence doesn't fit or we're unsure of
the evidence, we have double checked it.
Speaker 4 (23:55):
We have triple checked.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
It by independent experts and came up with the same
information that Alex has, which makes it makes it more
viable as evidence in the case.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Yeah, in my perspective on the Hodel that was ordered
by an assistant Chief of police that the cold case
unit looked through Hodell's claims in his book and make
a determination if it is it legitimate, is it not legitimate,
or in between somewhere. My part of that was to
(24:30):
look at an array of other women in the LA
area during the late forties and early fifties that Steve
claimed Steve Hodell claimed.
Speaker 5 (24:43):
His father also murdered.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
And as I went through those cases in the archives,
and I learned that many of them were already solved
or had been solved. Steve probably didn't have access to
a lot of those because they were internal investig natives
as investigations, but several of them, there were a couple
(25:06):
where there were convictions of other people, some confessions on
some of them compelling confessions, and there was a plea
in some of them. So just the fact that he's
naming cases that we know weren't his father's hurts the
carrelibility of the overall investigation. And I worked with Steve Hodell.
(25:27):
I was a young homicide detective in Hollywood in the
early eighties and Steve.
Speaker 5 (25:32):
Hodell was there.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
He was a good detective, And that's the interesting aspect
of that Steve knows what evidence is, and it would
be hard. I can guarantee you it would be hard
for him to discount Alex Baber's investigation because he knows evidence.
Whether he'd be willing to admit that, probably not, because
(25:54):
he's so invested with his many books and his reputation
and so on and so forth, that it would be
hard for him to in my thinking, to say, yes,
this is a good investigation. But inwardly I think he
probably knows it's a very a very strong case. Yeah,
(26:17):
as he knows evidence.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
I just want to add on that. I tend to
agree with you on that, Rick, because years ago I
was sort of ordered to do an interview and it
was related to Steve Hodell's claims.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
I believe it was a radio interview.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
It may have been KNX or something, and I gave
a statement on the case, and that something to the
fact that Steve had a good theory. Well, when our
theory came out, And that's the difference I think with
us is we're willing to look at other theories when
our case came out.
Speaker 4 (26:54):
Now it's no longer theory. I believe it is factual.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
Steve went back and and brought up that old interview
and said, well, you know, what is it, Mitsi's here
during you know, twenty twelve or twenty fourteen, whatever.
Speaker 4 (27:08):
It was, she said that she believed my theory.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
Well, that was really misleading because he gave part of
that interview.
Speaker 4 (27:16):
He gave the part where I said it was a
good theory. What I actually said was that it was
a very good theory and it could actually be factual.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
The problem with the theory is there's no evidence to
back it up, and so it couldn't be proven. And
that was the problem I was having at the time,
was there were several very good theories, but they weren't
They couldn't be proven by the evidence, and so then
it's just what theory do you choose, if any.
Speaker 4 (27:45):
And so the fact that he is.
Speaker 3 (27:47):
Now bringing that up and trying to use my portions
of my statement to bolster his case should tell you
a lot about his motives and not really wanting to
objectively look at these cases and solve a.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
Crime, but push forward his narrative.
Speaker 6 (28:09):
Still, We've actually had my findings verified independently by experts
in their fields across the board that have done this
at no cost, with no skin in the game, with
the exception of our most recent handwriting analysis, which we
went above and beyond because we already had one, but
(28:30):
we wanted another independent party, so we did endorse paying
them for their opinion just to have a second opinion,
But that was not influenced by monetary gain by any means.
It's a very respected and sought after expert in this field.
But every other piece that I have presented to youth
detectives as well as Michael, and as far as law
(28:53):
enforcement goes, I have not had one single representative of
any jurisdiction tell me that my suspect is not viable
or that the evidence I have presented is bogus or
they can eliminate it.
Speaker 7 (29:06):
Not one, not a single detective.
Speaker 6 (29:10):
And that includes all the North majurisdictions I met with,
including the FBI as well as though I haven't spoke
with LAPD personally, they know of me and they know
they've been interacting with both Rick and MISSI obviously, but
not one individual has said.
Speaker 7 (29:26):
That this doesn't this isn't fit, it doesn't align.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
That kind of brings us to the last question, and
it's very related, and it was did you realize that
you would be stepping into a hornet's nest of criticism
when you came out with a suspect in both cases
that was not one of the more established suspects that
amateur experts on the cases favor. Let me start this
(29:51):
off because a lot of this amount of invective has
been aimed at me, So I'm going to say yes
and no. We were well away that there were many
so called experts out there, most of them self anointed,
and that they would have invested their time and belief
in other suspects and theories. But the facts are facts
(30:12):
and we cannot avoid them. We also add two professional
homicide investigators, including one who had the Black Value case
for many years. But it is a very interesting cultural
phenomenon where you have so many people invested in unwilling
to hear or consider anything else, which is completely and
(30:33):
MITCHI I want to hear you talk about this part.
It's really anesthetical to what real detectives do. They have
a saying in LAPD homicide, it goes where it goes,
but the people out there are really unwilling to do that.
Not everybody, but there's a lot of people potshotting us
and exaggerating things and getting a lot of stuff wrong.
(30:54):
People who blindly say we're wrong. But I'm not even
going to listen to what they have to say. You
know what we have to say. So it's kind of ridiculous,
But really, how can you say you're an expert in
anything if you do not know everything about it, including
the consideration of opposite opinions and facts.
Speaker 3 (31:12):
Yeah, I absolutely knew that I was going to face
this because I had the case for fifteen years, and
I've been on the other side, and I've been a
nasayer and I have been amongst the naysayers.
Speaker 4 (31:26):
But the thing is.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
Is that in detective work, if you do the right
thing for the right reasons, like you said, it leads
where it leads.
Speaker 4 (31:34):
So I didn't really care what they said because.
Speaker 3 (31:37):
I believe in backs backed by the evidence, and I
think we have that in this case, and so it
goes where it goes.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
And every time.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
We've been weary about some of the facts in this case,
we've checked it and sometimes triple checked it, and been very.
Speaker 4 (31:54):
Transparent on things that have gone our.
Speaker 3 (31:59):
Way and things that perhaps didn't go our way, but
backed it up with reasonable explanations of why that occurred,
which is different from the naysayers that I'm seeing and
that I'm with you Michael in that it's it's extremely
irritating and disconcerting that these so called Internet type investigators
(32:26):
have come up with their own theories and lack the
ability to step aside for a minute from their theory
and even look into evidence.
Speaker 4 (32:36):
Or facts that may hold something that may be true.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
And that's something we've always done, is I've always looked
at other.
Speaker 4 (32:46):
Theories, looked into other theories given my input.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
I know Larry Harnish has had a theory that I
thought when I looked into it, there were a lot
of facets of his theory that I thought that were
very compelling, but again could not be backed by any
concrete evidence.
Speaker 4 (33:06):
But that's exactly the reason.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
Why I decided and in retirement, met with Alex is
because this is a fascinating case. I'm an investigator by heart,
you can't take it away from me, and who wouldn't
want to hear something that.
Speaker 4 (33:27):
At the least will be an interesting story.
Speaker 3 (33:30):
So the fact that I was willing to even listen
to Alex is what is so irritating about those naysayers
is they won't even and some of them have publicly
said I won't listen to the podcast.
Speaker 4 (33:43):
I won't because of this or because of that.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
Well, that is not You're not an investigator. You don't
want to find the answers. You want to further your.
Speaker 4 (33:54):
Theory in the case.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
And that's the difference between me and you, and so
let the naysayers come. I don't care because I believe
in in facts backed by evidence, and until I come
up with something in this case that says differently, I
think we're on the right path and.
Speaker 4 (34:16):
I'm dedicated to continue forward.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
You've been listening to Killer in the Code Solving the
Black Dahlia and Zodiac cases. We'll be back with chapter
nine soon. This episode was produced by me Michael Connelly
and edited by Terall Lee Langford. Be sure to subscribe
to the podcast so you'll be alerted when new episodes
are available. Thank you for listening.
Hi, this is Michael Connolly with part two of our
roundtable discussion. This is Killer in the Code Solving the Black,
Dahia and Zodiac cases. All right, we're gonna get back
to the questions. Do you think it's possible that other
unsolved cold cases in Chicago, Kansas, Atlanta, Arizona, et cetera,
(00:26):
could have been Margolis as well? And the list of
those cities are places we have traced Marvin Margolis or
Merrill or under his other names. Places he didn't stay
a long time other than Chicago, where he grew up.
But this was a guy who seemed to always be
moving until he came back to California. But anyway, obscuring
(00:49):
the question, I remember early on in a discussion I
had with you, Mitzie Roberts, that the killing of the
Black was so brutal, so calculated. He said, it would
be surprised if this person, if this was like a
single case, that the killer this was his only murder anyway,
(01:13):
So I don't know who wants to start with that,
but it's a very general question.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Well, just as an investigator, and when you're looking at
somebody that is killed, what we believe is repeatedly in
different locations within California as far north as the Bay Area,
Los Angeles. I feel Oceanside is very very likely his
(01:42):
I feel that the Riverside case of Sherry Joe Bates
is probably a very likely case based on the letter
that was received. So it would not surprise me that
anywhere he's gone. He started killing it roughly twenty one
in nineteen forty Heaven with Elizabeth Short, so he began
(02:03):
at a fairly young age, and then in the early
forties he was the Zodiac case. So anywhere in between
or even after wouldn't surprise me if he was in
locations that had murders, not necessarily the same mos, but
really any because he was evolving during this whole period
(02:25):
of time. If they couldn't connect other cases to him
wherever he lived.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
In the serial cases that serial killer cases that I've identified,
and if.
Speaker 4 (02:34):
You believe that Marvin Margolis.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
Is the suspect here, which I do, and if you
believe he's the Zodiac, which I do, these type of
perpetrators don't stop usually, you know, they can't take a
break for different reasons and things like that. But for
somebody like him that's mobile and moving around what would
drive them to stop. If you believe that he is
(03:01):
a suspect in these cases, then it would be smart
to trace where he's lived, where he's been, and to
look into unsolved murders there. I don't know enough about
the famous unsolved with the key names, the Ellipstick murders
and the Torso murders.
Speaker 4 (03:20):
I don't know about enough about those to say look
into those.
Speaker 3 (03:23):
But if you have a killer that goes from place
to place to place to place, and you're convinced that
he's killed in one place, it's just smart detective work
to look into can he have killed, would he have
killed in another place? And to compare him against some
of your cold cases, and.
Speaker 2 (03:44):
That Mitchy and I did that on another case that
was at the end of my career with the guy
that is the most prolific serial killer in US history,
Sam Wittle. We traveled the country pretty much for the
last year my career, connecting him to other murders, and
I mean all over multiple states, five six, seven, eight
(04:06):
states we were in And it's just part of the
process of what you do. And obviously Meryl Margol was
like killing the first one that we know of Anyway,
Elizabeth Short was a very personal murder, and so I
can understand how that can happen without necessarily loving murder.
(04:30):
It was, you know, it was a payback. He was jolted, humiliated,
and he wanted to the same to her. But once
you get into the other killings where there's no direct
personal motive, random people and lover's lanes, a cab driver
in San Francisco, a cab driver in Oceanside, that shows
(04:50):
that he enjoyed killing, and so he's not going to
stop enjoying killing when he's living in Kansas or Chicago
or Georgia. It's going to go on if you felt
like the opportunity. The only thing I would say is
that at some point age factors does factor in.
Speaker 5 (05:07):
And I can't say what age, but.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Age does factor in and does cause people to eventually stop.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
Next question is you say some members of the family
have cooperated with you and turned over the sketch as
well as two boxes of property and documents. Is there
any evidence connecting to the murders found in those belongings,
such as weapons or trophies.
Speaker 3 (05:36):
Well, of course the sketch, I mean, which Michael and
I took that sketch that was sent to us and
had it analyzed by an expert that was not familiar
with this case or what we've been doing, and verified
that hidden the hidden word zodiac in the shading or
(05:57):
at least some of the letters that he did see
show up.
Speaker 4 (06:00):
And so yes, in that sense that was there.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
I'm not sure about the I think some of the
handwriting exhibits and a lot of stuff is just corroborating evidence.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
It's not like DNA on knives or anything like that.
Speaker 3 (06:12):
It's eyeglass prescriptions and knowing that the zodiac wore eyeglasses
and handwriting exemplars that have been compared to the letters
and have matched things like that.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
Since we were talking about the things that family turned
over to us, let's stay on that for a minute.
With the last episode, chapter six, we talked about Marvin
Margolis's report card from USC and we put it on
the website, and readers have pointed out that that report
(06:53):
card shows a different spelling for his net last name.
It's and middle name. It's the work cards from Marvin
Henry Margolie's not Marvin Skipton Margolis. And the question is,
how do you know you don't have the grades for
(07:13):
someone else. And I'll start us off by just saying
that report card that we put on the website came
from Marvin Merrell's property turned over to us by his family.
So it's a I think it's a clear or you guys,
if you're the investigators taken from there. To me, it's
(07:36):
a clear indication that he was engaged in manipulating his identity.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
I have that report card in the boxes that I
have with me that we're turning back over to the
family tomorrow, And yeah, what are the chances that there's
some differences from a person that's gone through his life
changing name and it's a close name. What's the chance
is it's going to be did he pick up the
(08:04):
wrong report card, you know, and just happened to be
very close to his I doubt it's it's just another
indication that he's using, for whatever reason, one more alias,
and it's really a pretty close name obviously.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
And I just like when you get like that that's
given from the family like that, there's no there's no
better source to give us something like that than it
came from the person who's report card it is. I mean,
I would trust that even more than the academic institution
only because they have no way to verify the report
(08:42):
card they're giving us is the same individual who were investigating.
But even more than that, I even when you're going
back through the grand jury investigation, they got his name wrong.
They're in testimony and spelled it wrong. And is that
because that's the information they had that he gave them.
Speaker 4 (09:01):
Is the way he spelled it or they just spelled
it wrong.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
So that's just a common theme throughout this investigation that
there are different names being used, different spellings, different middle names,
and it's part of his signature, part of the way
he plays the game.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
What's interesting in the reader listener pointed out was if
you look at this thing, it appears that he may
have taken classes in the year of fifty two to
fifty three if we read this correctly, and that question
says it was there a chance he came back to
(09:39):
la because we know we can put him in Chicago.
He was actually prosecuted for a crime during this period.
But he's also we've also established that he moves around
and his family doesn't know where he is a lot.
What do we take from that little notation? It looks
like two classes taken between fifty two and fifty four.
(10:01):
Could he have come back to try to finish his
pharmaceutical degree.
Speaker 6 (10:06):
Well, we know that his eldest daughter was born in
Chicago in nineteen fifty two. If I look at my records,
have to verify that. I think it's nineteen fifty two,
early February.
Speaker 7 (10:19):
I believe that. Being said, however, we do know that
there's window there.
Speaker 6 (10:22):
We can't account for him up until the end of
fifty three where he's arrested for a cong game for
doing contracts that are blank and filling in additional information.
Speaker 7 (10:30):
That numbers right.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
So that's in Chicago.
Speaker 6 (10:33):
Dad's in Chicago. So we got a buffer there of
about a year and a half that we can't account for.
So I'm not saying that he did. What I'm saying, though,
is there's an open opportunity there unless we find something
else that we can use to place him somewhere other
than the USC.
Speaker 1 (10:49):
Okay, we seem to be talking about his family and
how a few of them have cooperated with us, mostly
through well, actually all three of you have talked to
family members. I have talked to family members. Is there
anyone in the family who is saying they agree with us,
or they're saying this explains a lot, or there are
(11:10):
people that are saying, there's no way this was that
our father was that this killer the serial killer.
Speaker 7 (11:20):
I've experienced both firsthand.
Speaker 6 (11:22):
I've got people like the son that says, all, this
can't be my father in no way. However, he is
shifted from one side to the other since I've had
the opportunity to speak with him. And then we have
other members that we've I've spoken to directly three that
have stated that they've found this very likely or possible
that he is who we believe he is.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
The family members that I've spoke to, I've only spoken
to two. There's more of a curiosity and a and
a willingness to cooperate, cooperate because they believe that it's
an in case and that any surviving family members deserve answers,
(12:06):
whether that be that Marvin is the guy or is not.
And they also want to participate because we've told them that.
Speaker 4 (12:16):
This could give you answers either way. We're not, you know,
we don't.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
We're definitely not trying to fabricate a case on anybody.
The evidence is going to point where they evidence points
and it could point to this is the wrong guy,
and then that is something that they'd want to know too.
Speaker 4 (12:33):
And so I haven't really gotten an opinion one way
or the other.
Speaker 3 (12:38):
We've gotten some information about Margolis's background, about his temper,
about the way he treated the family. That the fact
that they're willing to give items to us that could
be of evidence of evidentiary value at least says to
(13:00):
me that they're open to the possibility that this that
he that he could be capable of doing something like this.
Because I know if somebody came to me and said,
you think your father's a murderer and we want you
to give us any information that you may have, I'd
be like, there's no way, you know, I don't have anything.
I don't have anything because there's no way that this
(13:22):
my father could have been this, or or if my
father had stuff and I always had a suspicion in
my mind that he could be capable, then I would
give that.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
So the fact that they gave.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
Us items to be verified leads me to believe that
it's a possibility in their mind.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Okay, yeah, that it wouldn't be shocking. Yeah, if if
it the evidence revealed that this is true, it would
not be shocking based on his behavior.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
So that leads to one of the questions that we've
gotten several of out of the proximity question, how are
we putting him in proximity to the Zodiac killings? What
is the let's see where? What is the evidence that
he lived or had a place in the Bay area
(14:15):
during the Zodiac murder spree? Is the exact question.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
We do know there was documentation, Alex found it, and
I've driven by the house that he had showed he
lived at in the late sixties, early seventies and then
again in the late seventies and early eighties, same location.
We know he worked at Intel. Back then, they didn't
(14:41):
have this let's work from home kind of situation and
telecommuting and all this kind of stuff. You showed up
in the office unless you were a travel kind of person.
And the other thing, it's fifty five years later. You're
not going to be able to put somebody in a
specific place unless there's something very unique that happened, like
(15:05):
an arrest or something like that. On a day by day,
week by week, even a month by month basis, we don't.
We do know he has connections to the Bay Area.
And then the other one again, Mike, you just found
his son went to school up there. Now did he
live with his son at that point or did he
visit his son? Maybe, but we know that he had
(15:26):
a reason to be up in the area during that
period of time. And another thing is there wouldn't be
concern about the lack of middle put.
Speaker 5 (15:35):
Him in the area.
Speaker 2 (15:36):
If this was a DNA hit or a fingerprint match,
it wouldn't matter where he lived anywhere in the world.
You're going to say, Okay, you're gonna do You're going
to check the DNA and sometimes believe it or not.
But from a detective standpoint and from a prosecutor standpoint,
and from a legal standpoint, circumstantial evidence, depending on how
(15:58):
substantial it is, can be just as identifying as DNA
or a fingerprint. And people might look at that and
shake their head and they don't understand it. But this
world has gotten so dependent on court using DNA and science.
Sometimes you revert back to circumstantial evidence. It's very legal.
(16:20):
There's convictions based on nothing but circumstantial evidence all the time.
And so the fact that we couldn't put him in
the Bay Area on a regular basis. Isn't that concerning
to me? The other evidence that we have is overwhelming,
and I keep saying overwhelming. It's overwhelming. And I was
at an event the other day, unfortunately it was a
(16:42):
celebration of life, and there were many das there that
had been listening to this podcast that are blown away
by how.
Speaker 5 (16:51):
Convincing the evidence is.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
And I know Mitzi and I and my work partner
Dave Trismont, we wouldn't have entertained moving into this unless
we totally believed it. We're not going to get involved
in something that was a hair brain scheme, and we've cooperated.
We give media interviews, and I should say there was
one particular writer who said that I went to Michael
(17:15):
Conley with a far fetched theory. This guy must not
know anything about crime if he considered this a far
fetched theory, because prosecutors and people in investigated positions, Mitzi,
me and Dave tresmontin say it's overwhelming evidence. So the
far fetched stuff, I don't know if he just had
a bone to pick with this, or wanted to be
(17:37):
personally abrasive and throw a lot of landmines toward us,
or what, But the fact that he said it's a
far fetched game is ridiculous.
Speaker 3 (17:48):
That's what's so irritating about that is that people expect
us as investigators to throw away the entire theory or
the entire game case against Margolis because we can't prove
he was in San Jose. He can't be the Zodiac
because we can't prove he lived in San Jose. So
(18:11):
everything else that we have proven, the cryptology and you know,
all the other things that we have, we're just supposed
to put that aside because one or two things we
don't have definitive answers, or we can't prove that he
was positive, you know, that his alibi, that he didn't
have an alibi, So we're just supposed to throw away
(18:33):
all the other evidence. And that is just not what
detectives do.
Speaker 4 (18:38):
So it's quite irritating on some levels when that happens.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
And even completed cases and myths will tell me the
same thing or tell you the same thing. You're never
going to get an answer to every question you want.
Even when there's admissions or confessions or convictions, there are
always unknown things because in a confession, oftentimes suspects will
(19:04):
admit things because they know it's overwhelming evidence. But they
always will mitigate some aspects or leave out parts, or
not remember certain parts because to admit certain things make
it tough because it's very very bad behavior. They mitigate
(19:25):
it to be seen in the best light possible that
they think they can get away with. And so there
are going to be things in we're not going to
have answers to. But overall it's a very very strong case.
Speaker 7 (19:38):
Let me add one more piece, guys. So if we
fast forward.
Speaker 6 (19:41):
From sixty nine to seventy to seventy eight, when the
son who said he never resided in San Jose, and
we know I knew Michael's independent researcher discovered that the
Sun was in high school in San Jose actually at
that time, so at the time that they moved there,
and this is documented.
Speaker 7 (19:59):
For anybody to see online if you know how to research.
Speaker 6 (20:01):
At the exact moment that Martin Margos can be placed
in San Jose in nineteen seventy eight. Zodiac reappears and
emails in April Letter April twenty fourth, ninety seventy eight.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
So somebody mentioned hair brained and so this next question
was first directed to me but handed off to Mitzi
after I make but it says, Connelly, you once endorsed
the theory that George Hodell was the Black Dalia Avenger.
(20:31):
What made you change your mind? And why should we
believe you? Now? What that listener is referencing is that
I blurbed, which is I endorsed a book called Black
Dalua Avenger that fingered George Hodell as the killer of
Elizabeth Short and he is on the top suspect's list.
By the way, the book was written by Hodell's son,
(20:54):
Steve Hodell, who was formerly an LAPD homicide investigator, which
was one of the reasons I felt compelled to read
it and then endorse it. And I read that book
knowing very little about the case, and I found it convincing.
And you know, what's the harm in saying I agree?
I think I even said case closed or something like that.
(21:16):
I can't remember exactly what I said in endorsing that book,
but I did live to regret this, and I've made
my maya copa in the very first episode I think
of this podcast. And because the newly formed cold Cation
it investigated the claims in that book and their report
(21:37):
was that that is a flawed investigation, and that it's
a good theory, but there's no evidence that Hodell was
the killer. And I think Rick and Mitzi you may
have had part in that investigation or aware of it,
or have reports. So if one of you wants to
bail me out here, please do. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (21:58):
I think it's very easy and is exactly what's different
in what we're doing here is that Hoodell's theory is
a great theory, and it's supported by some of the
facts in the case. In that George Hodell there was
wiretaps into him.
Speaker 4 (22:15):
He you know, he was a doctor.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
There's things that make you look at him as a
suspect and buy into him as a suspect.
Speaker 4 (22:23):
That it's a good theory in the case.
Speaker 3 (22:26):
But there were a lot of good theories, and so
I can see how somebody on the outsides can can
read that book and buy into it. I mean, there's
still many many people that believe. You know, I get
that question a lot.
Speaker 4 (22:42):
Oh that's all. Isn't it wasn't it? That wasn't it
that detective's father, wasn't it that doctor? But as Michael.
Speaker 3 (22:49):
Mentioned, because the theory did look so good, that's what
investigators do we then go in and fact check it
for evidentiary value. And a lot of the stuff that
Steve Odell wrote in that first book just was not accurate.
It was not true. It was actually disproven. So that
is hindsight. That is information that Michael didn't have and
(23:13):
that the listeners and the readers didn't have at the
time that we were able to disprove. And I think
that flip side is why when it came to this
investigation we were so I was so skeptical because I
think I even mentioned to Michael, I don't want to
be the person that gets stuck in something like that
that has to turn around five years from now and say, yeah,
(23:36):
I got that wrong.
Speaker 4 (23:37):
And so is why we are doing that. We are
being upfront.
Speaker 3 (23:42):
With the listeners and with the people with the when
we're interviewed on these stories. Is if we have a
case where the evidence doesn't fit or we're unsure of
the evidence, we have double checked it.
Speaker 4 (23:55):
We have triple checked.
Speaker 3 (23:56):
It by independent experts and came up with the same
information that Alex has, which makes it makes it more
viable as evidence in the case.
Speaker 2 (24:08):
Yeah, in my perspective on the Hodel that was ordered
by an assistant Chief of police that the cold case
unit looked through Hodell's claims in his book and make
a determination if it is it legitimate, is it not legitimate,
or in between somewhere. My part of that was to
(24:30):
look at an array of other women in the LA
area during the late forties and early fifties that Steve
claimed Steve Hodell claimed.
Speaker 5 (24:43):
His father also murdered.
Speaker 2 (24:46):
And as I went through those cases in the archives,
and I learned that many of them were already solved
or had been solved. Steve probably didn't have access to
a lot of those because they were internal investig natives
as investigations, but several of them, there were a couple
(25:06):
where there were convictions of other people, some confessions on
some of them compelling confessions, and there was a plea
in some of them. So just the fact that he's
naming cases that we know weren't his father's hurts the
carrelibility of the overall investigation. And I worked with Steve Hodell.
(25:27):
I was a young homicide detective in Hollywood in the
early eighties and Steve.
Speaker 5 (25:32):
Hodell was there.
Speaker 2 (25:33):
He was a good detective, And that's the interesting aspect
of that Steve knows what evidence is, and it would
be hard. I can guarantee you it would be hard
for him to discount Alex Baber's investigation because he knows evidence.
Whether he'd be willing to admit that, probably not, because
(25:54):
he's so invested with his many books and his reputation
and so on and so forth, that it would be
hard for him to in my thinking, to say, yes,
this is a good investigation. But inwardly I think he
probably knows it's a very a very strong case. Yeah,
(26:17):
as he knows evidence.
Speaker 3 (26:19):
I just want to add on that. I tend to
agree with you on that, Rick, because years ago I
was sort of ordered to do an interview and it
was related to Steve Hodell's claims.
Speaker 4 (26:35):
I believe it was a radio interview.
Speaker 3 (26:37):
It may have been KNX or something, and I gave
a statement on the case, and that something to the
fact that Steve had a good theory. Well, when our
theory came out, And that's the difference I think with
us is we're willing to look at other theories when
our case came out.
Speaker 4 (26:54):
Now it's no longer theory. I believe it is factual.
Speaker 3 (26:57):
Steve went back and and brought up that old interview
and said, well, you know, what is it, Mitsi's here
during you know, twenty twelve or twenty fourteen, whatever.
Speaker 4 (27:08):
It was, she said that she believed my theory.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
Well, that was really misleading because he gave part of
that interview.
Speaker 4 (27:16):
He gave the part where I said it was a
good theory. What I actually said was that it was
a very good theory and it could actually be factual.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
The problem with the theory is there's no evidence to
back it up, and so it couldn't be proven. And
that was the problem I was having at the time,
was there were several very good theories, but they weren't
They couldn't be proven by the evidence, and so then
it's just what theory do you choose, if any.
Speaker 4 (27:45):
And so the fact that he is.
Speaker 3 (27:47):
Now bringing that up and trying to use my portions
of my statement to bolster his case should tell you
a lot about his motives and not really wanting to
objectively look at these cases and solve a.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
Crime, but push forward his narrative.
Speaker 6 (28:09):
Still, We've actually had my findings verified independently by experts
in their fields across the board that have done this
at no cost, with no skin in the game, with
the exception of our most recent handwriting analysis, which we
went above and beyond because we already had one, but
(28:30):
we wanted another independent party, so we did endorse paying
them for their opinion just to have a second opinion,
But that was not influenced by monetary gain by any means.
It's a very respected and sought after expert in this field.
But every other piece that I have presented to youth
detectives as well as Michael, and as far as law
(28:53):
enforcement goes, I have not had one single representative of
any jurisdiction tell me that my suspect is not viable
or that the evidence I have presented is bogus or
they can eliminate it.
Speaker 7 (29:06):
Not one, not a single detective.
Speaker 6 (29:10):
And that includes all the North majurisdictions I met with,
including the FBI as well as though I haven't spoke
with LAPD personally, they know of me and they know
they've been interacting with both Rick and MISSI obviously, but
not one individual has said.
Speaker 7 (29:26):
That this doesn't this isn't fit, it doesn't align.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
That kind of brings us to the last question, and
it's very related, and it was did you realize that
you would be stepping into a hornet's nest of criticism
when you came out with a suspect in both cases
that was not one of the more established suspects that
amateur experts on the cases favor. Let me start this
(29:51):
off because a lot of this amount of invective has
been aimed at me, So I'm going to say yes
and no. We were well away that there were many
so called experts out there, most of them self anointed,
and that they would have invested their time and belief
in other suspects and theories. But the facts are facts
(30:12):
and we cannot avoid them. We also add two professional
homicide investigators, including one who had the Black Value case
for many years. But it is a very interesting cultural
phenomenon where you have so many people invested in unwilling
to hear or consider anything else, which is completely and
(30:33):
MITCHI I want to hear you talk about this part.
It's really anesthetical to what real detectives do. They have
a saying in LAPD homicide, it goes where it goes,
but the people out there are really unwilling to do that.
Not everybody, but there's a lot of people potshotting us
and exaggerating things and getting a lot of stuff wrong.
(30:54):
People who blindly say we're wrong. But I'm not even
going to listen to what they have to say. You
know what we have to say. So it's kind of ridiculous,
But really, how can you say you're an expert in
anything if you do not know everything about it, including
the consideration of opposite opinions and facts.
Speaker 3 (31:12):
Yeah, I absolutely knew that I was going to face
this because I had the case for fifteen years, and
I've been on the other side, and I've been a
nasayer and I have been amongst the naysayers.
Speaker 4 (31:26):
But the thing is.
Speaker 3 (31:27):
Is that in detective work, if you do the right
thing for the right reasons, like you said, it leads
where it leads.
Speaker 4 (31:34):
So I didn't really care what they said because.
Speaker 3 (31:37):
I believe in backs backed by the evidence, and I
think we have that in this case, and so it
goes where it goes.
Speaker 4 (31:45):
And every time.
Speaker 3 (31:47):
We've been weary about some of the facts in this case,
we've checked it and sometimes triple checked it, and been very.
Speaker 4 (31:54):
Transparent on things that have gone our.
Speaker 3 (31:59):
Way and things that perhaps didn't go our way, but
backed it up with reasonable explanations of why that occurred,
which is different from the naysayers that I'm seeing and
that I'm with you Michael in that it's it's extremely
irritating and disconcerting that these so called Internet type investigators
(32:26):
have come up with their own theories and lack the
ability to step aside for a minute from their theory
and even look into evidence.
Speaker 4 (32:36):
Or facts that may hold something that may be true.
Speaker 3 (32:41):
And that's something we've always done, is I've always looked
at other.
Speaker 4 (32:46):
Theories, looked into other theories given my input.
Speaker 3 (32:50):
I know Larry Harnish has had a theory that I
thought when I looked into it, there were a lot
of facets of his theory that I thought that were
very compelling, but again could not be backed by any
concrete evidence.
Speaker 4 (33:06):
But that's exactly the reason.
Speaker 3 (33:09):
Why I decided and in retirement, met with Alex is
because this is a fascinating case. I'm an investigator by heart,
you can't take it away from me, and who wouldn't
want to hear something that.
Speaker 4 (33:27):
At the least will be an interesting story.
Speaker 3 (33:30):
So the fact that I was willing to even listen
to Alex is what is so irritating about those naysayers
is they won't even and some of them have publicly
said I won't listen to the podcast.
Speaker 4 (33:43):
I won't because of this or because of that.
Speaker 3 (33:45):
Well, that is not You're not an investigator. You don't
want to find the answers. You want to further your.
Speaker 4 (33:54):
Theory in the case.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
And that's the difference between me and you, and so
let the naysayers come. I don't care because I believe
in in facts backed by evidence, and until I come
up with something in this case that says differently, I
think we're on the right path and.
Speaker 4 (34:16):
I'm dedicated to continue forward.
Speaker 1 (34:20):
You've been listening to Killer in the Code Solving the
Black Dahlia and Zodiac cases. We'll be back with chapter
nine soon. This episode was produced by me Michael Connelly
and edited by Terall Lee Langford. Be sure to subscribe
to the podcast so you'll be alerted when new episodes
are available. Thank you for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.