January 9, 2025 • 48 mins
If you have a tip, please call 1-800-CALL-FBI (1-800-225-5324)
Somewhere in the Pines is sponsored by Better Help and Hello Fresh
We are excited to bring you the second part of a conversation we had with 4 retired FBI profilers from the podcast, The Consult. They independently profiled the Samantha Koenig case and the William and Lorraine Curriers case before anyone knew that a serial killer was involved. They know the case well and have covered Israel Keyes on thier show. Their experience and expertise shines through as they begin to put to bed all of the mystic built around the case. We not only get their insight into the details surrounding his drawings and writings found in his cell, but they also discuss Israel in a more general sense and how Israel relates to other offenders.
Enjoy!
Special Guests:
The Consult team -
Julia Cowley
Robert Drew
Susan Kossler-Drew
Angela Sercer
Resources:
The FBI files
True Crime Bullsh**
Researchers:
Kim K.
Peggy S.
Music:
Dirt Jake Replicas - Part 2
Episode Artwork Credit:
Heather Horton Whedon
And as always, a very special Thank you to our Patreon producers:
Heather Horton Whedon
Nicole Guzman
Lynnlie Tuschoff
Colleen Sullivan
Attar Mann
Stephanie Maksimow
Katelyn James
Kathy Nation
Brian Hanna
Trista
Ally
Pink
Dale Akstin
Corey Deatly
and
Virginia Williams
This is a Studio BOTH/AND collaboration: www.somewhereinthepines.com / bothand.fyi For an ad-free experience: cz/studiobothand
For early ad-free episodes and more: www.Patreon.com/somewhereinthepines
Somewhere in the Pines is sponsored by Better Help and Hello Fresh
We are excited to bring you the second part of a conversation we had with 4 retired FBI profilers from the podcast, The Consult. They independently profiled the Samantha Koenig case and the William and Lorraine Curriers case before anyone knew that a serial killer was involved. They know the case well and have covered Israel Keyes on thier show. Their experience and expertise shines through as they begin to put to bed all of the mystic built around the case. We not only get their insight into the details surrounding his drawings and writings found in his cell, but they also discuss Israel in a more general sense and how Israel relates to other offenders.
Enjoy!
Special Guests:
The Consult team -
Julia Cowley
Robert Drew
Susan Kossler-Drew
Angela Sercer
Resources:
The FBI files
True Crime Bullsh**
Researchers:
Kim K.
Peggy S.
Music:
Dirt Jake Replicas - Part 2
Episode Artwork Credit:
Heather Horton Whedon
And as always, a very special Thank you to our Patreon producers:
Heather Horton Whedon
Nicole Guzman
Lynnlie Tuschoff
Colleen Sullivan
Attar Mann
Stephanie Maksimow
Katelyn James
Kathy Nation
Brian Hanna
Trista
Ally
Pink
Dale Akstin
Corey Deatly
and
Virginia Williams
This is a Studio BOTH/AND collaboration: www.somewhereinthepines.com / bothand.fyi For an ad-free experience: cz/studiobothand
For early ad-free episodes and more: www.Patreon.com/somewhereinthepines
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
This is a studio both and collaboration.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Somewhere in the Pines is a serial podcast containing adult content,
including descriptions of violence, sexual assault, and suicide. Listener discretion
is strongly advised.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
Thank you for joining us for part two of our
conversation with retired FBI profilers Julia Cowley, Bob Drew, Susan Costler, Drew,
and Angela Seurcer. I'm Dakota and I'm Joshua.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
Welcome to Somewhere in the Pines, Episode fourteen, The Profilers,
Part two. When we first spoke with you, Julia, you
have mentioned that you guys simultaneously were covering Samantha Koenig's
(01:10):
case and the Courier case and didn't realize that they
were connected. After you found out that they were connected.
Was there is there anything that stands out that you
could have made that connection with hindsight or is it
completely no?
Speaker 5 (01:26):
To link a case, you have to have you have
to have similarities. If you don't have any physical evidence
linking them, which there wasn't, then is there geographical proximity?
Speaker 6 (01:39):
No?
Speaker 5 (01:41):
So what are the is it? Is it highly probable
that this was a serial killer? It's never highly probable
that it's a serial killer. Is the person. Does a
person have no personal conflicts of vulnerabilities in their life
rules out everything, They are at one safe except for
(02:03):
the possibility of a serial killer. No, And serial killings
are so infrequent, they're so rare. No one would have
You couldn't have justified that viewpoint that this must be
a serial kill. I mean, imagine how easy life would
be for detectives if they just came in and every
murder they couldn't solve right away they went, oh, looks
(02:24):
like a serial killer. You know, No, let's get some lunch.
Speaker 7 (02:28):
The victimology was really different too, the one the victimology.
Speaker 5 (02:32):
Yes, that's what I mean. Nothing, nothing appeared to be
the same with them. The one thing you could say
is they were dealing with a sadist who was hunting.
But he had he certainly had selected very different victims
age wise, demographic wise, I mean geographically. And that's why
(03:00):
that that's why they're a real challenge, you know, as
opposed to to linking these cases and then figuring out
that it's the same person. You need a lot more
to go on because the first thing you look at
in a murder, you do you you start, you do
concentric circles. You start with the the person's primary life,
(03:26):
and then who are there who do they have close
social and physical proximity to what current conflicts or risks
of exposure do they of to violence do they have?
And then way way out in the furthest reaches, you say,
could it be a serial killer? But minus minus something
(03:52):
that was that's irrefutable as far as linking them, you
would never come to that.
Speaker 8 (03:57):
When you were working the Samantha Kona case where she
was listed as a missing person or endangered person.
Speaker 5 (04:03):
Is that correct?
Speaker 6 (04:04):
Yes, yeah, we were involved prior to his arrest, and
well we were involved early on in that case and
early on in the Courier's case as well. In fact,
a lot of the forensic evidence hadn't even come back
in the Courier's case when we had looked at that.
But there's nothing looking back that we could have connected
(04:30):
these two cases. Now now we see similarities, we see
the kidnapping, we see the use of a weapon. It's
easy to do that hindsight twenty twenty, but looking at
all the different cases around this country and maybe even
other countries where people are kidnapped or they disappear linking
(04:52):
him to those unless you have definitive evidence that he
was in the area. It would be very difficult to
do that even based on what we know. Part of
the problem is because we haven't actually ever found the couriers,
so we don't know exactly what actually happened to them.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
We have what he said to find them.
Speaker 6 (05:15):
They've tried hard, and we know what he said happened,
but we don't know for sure. Would there be something
if they were located that might be similar to Samantha
that we just don't know about because he didn't tell us.
Speaker 4 (05:32):
That's kind of what I was curious about, is we have,
you know, these murders at you know, the end of
his life that are pretty brazing, breaking and breaking and
entering and abducting people from their homes or from work,
and he talks about his previous crimes, say Washington State,
that are typically taking place in more trailheads woodland areas.
(05:53):
Would there be a way that you could kind of
reverse hindsight twenty twenty think about case in Washington that
would stand out that are that you would be able
to maybe connect because of what you know from his
later on in his career. Is there any way to
connect his evolution, assuming that he was telling the truth
(06:14):
in the beginning, it changed so much, so drastically. Is
there anything that you could look at to be able
to connect it to previous murders that were.
Speaker 5 (06:22):
So different minus minus of physical evidence link and he
had he had such a he had such a broad
selection of you know, victim types, et cetera, and and
or areas hunting grounds if you will, areas that he
(06:44):
would choose to to uh hunt in. It would be
very hard and even if even if it looked like him,
it could very well be someone else that that engages
in similar conduct, I think minus someone it's to get
(07:05):
to the point where you say it's likely or possible, yes,
but if but to say that it's irrefutable, no. And
we also know, all of us know that at any
given time there are a number of It is theorized
(07:28):
that there's a number of serial killers operating in the
US at any given time. I'm detected maybe because they're
they're they're victims are runaways or what what is a
bad term for it? His throwaways, people who kind of
are in the bottom rungs of society that prostitutes, particularly
(07:53):
street prostitutes, things like that there. So we know that
there are people who are are probably killing people in
serial fashion out there hiding in their cases, are not
being linked or whatever. So could you say if you
(08:14):
if you found someone who was doing something similar to him,
or are a case that kind of seemed like something
he might do. I think you would be hard pressed
to say it was him unless you had.
Speaker 7 (08:28):
Other things to cooborate. Yes, that you know that you
could pinpoint that he was there at a certain time
or within you know, the week of when this person.
And is the case of where somebody goes missing? Is
it the case where somebody goes missing and the body
is later recovered? You know, is there any proof at
(08:49):
all that he had any kind of contact with that
person prior to now?
Speaker 6 (08:53):
Their challenging thing about Keys is that some of his
crimes were more opportunistic according to his stories. Now, I'm
going off what he said because we really only have
three that are certain, so the others tended to be
(09:16):
Oh he ran into something. Now I think probably he
was always prepared for opportunities or looking for opportunities. But
that makes it more difficult than the ones like I
plan to find a house, go into this house, or
I plan to take someone from their place of employment
versus I bumped into somebody at you know, at a
(09:38):
state parks. That would be different and that crime might
look different. So that makes it again more challenging, because
he didn't operate the same way every single time.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
With something like the way that he would mislead investigators
by you using Samantha's debit card, using her phone to
make communication to family members. I think the couriers he
carried their phones with them to Vermont, maybe New Hampshire.
I can't remember exactly what it was, but that way
(10:15):
of misleading and trying to make it seem more like
this person was just going off somewhere. Is that something
that you think that he would identify very early on
and kind of carry on throughout his entire career for
lack of a better word, Or is that something that
do serial killers typically kind of have, are constantly evolving
(10:36):
and changing as they go, or is it just everybody
is so different that it's hard to even really I think.
Speaker 6 (10:40):
That's a possibility. I think you bring up a good point.
Is there behaviors surrounding the murder that we could identify
that would be similar in other cases, such as taking
someone's debit card and using their debit card, or taking
their phone, or other ways to mislead police or throw
off the investigation. All of that could be behavior that
we would look at to possibly link other crimes of
(11:04):
his together. Similar behaviors either pre offense or post defense.
Could That's a very good point. But yes, to answer
your question, I think that could be helpful in linking
them together. I mean, I think what we've seen from
him is that the murder itself isn't necessarily the most
(11:25):
important thing. It's maybe the ultimate goal, but the planning
of it, the thinking about it, the planting of these
cash is all of this stuff is very sustainable to
him in terms of his fantasy world, and so things
like that leading up to a crime might be helpful
(11:46):
in looking at and then the idea that he is
very opportunistic, so he'll it may be secondary, but he'll
try to benefit financially from a crime potentially, So yes,
I think some of those things could help in linking
other crimes to him.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
I still think it's a challenge though, what.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
You had just said about murder not necessarily being the
most important part, the most important act. So we're assuming
the fear and the sexual assault is probably his biggest goal.
There's a point where he sexually assaults claims to sexually
assault a girl in the Shoots at the Shoots River
(12:30):
in Mappin, and they asked him about this if he
had ever sexually assaulted somebody before, and he says, I
think the quote is depends on what your defin definition
is of a sexual assault. And they ask him, uh, well,
we've ever had sex with somebody against their will or
how they defined it, and he said, well, yeah, of course.
(12:52):
And this sexual assault happened when I think he was
seventeen or eighteen, and I was wondering that just that
he explained that this was very exciting for him and
that it was the first time he had done something
like that, and I was wondering if there's a chance
that he maybe killed somebody prior to that, and then
(13:14):
since he claimed to be necrophile, that he had sex
with their body, but that was before, so it wasn't
as satisfying because the person was not alive and you
weren't able to experience that fear in them. If that
could be what he means by that or I and
that the reason this one was so exciting is because
(13:35):
he had this person tied up allegedly and was going
to kill them, but didn't kill them. If you have
heard that comment before with him saying that, yes, he
has sexually assaulted people without or prior to that, is
there any reason why it would be considered different than
this interaction you had with the girl on the river.
Speaker 5 (13:52):
I think you have to keep in mind with him
that there is more than one fantasy that he's entertaining here.
He all of them are control based. Sexual assault is
the resting of control away from the victim and exerting
your own control over them. Murder is uh and it's
(14:17):
not just a practical thing. It is also a highly
erotic thing. And once someone like him murders someone, oftentimes
murder becomes the ultimate erotic act. Now, necrophilia is just
a step beyond. I mean, now you've you've you do
(14:41):
have ultimate control over this this victim, at least their body,
and you can do whatever you'd like. You you are
in ultimate control. But murder itself, the act of murder
is not separate from from the erotic fantasy. It is
(15:03):
the pinnacle of the combination of control and violent sexuality
that is compelling to them. And I don't I don't
I think something minus once you've murdered, once a sexual
murderer has murdered, then sexual assault would be would pale
(15:25):
in comparison as far as the excitement and the sense
of control and proof that you are superhuman and all
that stuff. And necrophilia is just again it's a control thing,
and it's it's combining violent morbid sexuality with taking the
(15:45):
ultimate control over a human body.
Speaker 6 (15:50):
Yeah, and I think I think Bob makes a good
point that you know, once you committed the murder, that's
the ultimate goal, but all these other behaviors leading up
to it are really important to him, and he really
enjoys this process. So just because I'm what I'm trying
(16:11):
to say, I'm not sure there are as many bodies out
there is maybe people think because I think he spent
a lot of time maybe on some other things that
were very satisfying and exciting to him, in maybe planning
or fantasizing. So but you know, like you once you
commit the ultimate murder, then that's probably going to be
(16:34):
your ultimate goal in the end. But all that other
stuff leading up to it is equally as important and
a part of the entire process for him.
Speaker 7 (16:44):
And there are I mean there's some that they haven't
definitively linked to him, but there are some, like there
was a trip to Texas to visit his his mother,
and some of the disappearances that have happened that correspond
very very closely to when he was there. I think
that's that's closer, you know. And I can also see
his mind working that way. And then he was a
busy guy. He was doing a lot of things, he
(17:04):
was traveling a lot to family whatever. But along with
planning the trip to see relatives, then he could start
the whole process as far as oh, I'm going to Texas, well,
what can I do in Texas? Well, let me start
planning that or being there one time and potentially caching
something with the idea that, well, I know, I'll be
back the next number of months to you know, see
(17:25):
my mother again, so you know, I'll put something here now,
and I've scoped out a couple of places, and even
in that gap or going to New York to visit
people there, he can squirrel something away and then think
about it whether or not he ever acts on it,
but he can certainly think about it and begin that
(17:46):
whole process of fantasy and preparing.
Speaker 5 (17:49):
And and just to clarify what I said, I don't
mean to imply that he would then be satisfied by
doing drive by shootings. I mean, it's got to be
sexual murder.
Speaker 8 (18:03):
It has to be.
Speaker 5 (18:04):
The culmination of his erotic fantasy.
Speaker 8 (18:11):
It's not.
Speaker 5 (18:14):
Murder like shooting someone in the street, et cetera. That's
not his thing, and that would be not satisfying for
him at all. But a sexual assault that doesn't include
murder would be a little less of a thrill after
he's done it once and realizes how thrilling it is for.
Speaker 4 (18:36):
Do you think there's a way to kind of reverse
engineer where he hit cashes based upon previous cash locations
and just the way he talks about the cashes, or
is there any process that you would use if you
were trying to go and find cashes. That's what I thought.
Speaker 7 (18:59):
Just think about the ones that were known and how
he placed them. I mean, I think you'd have to
And again, it would be kind of a guessing game
with him. If you have you ever done a comparative
analysis of the ones that you're aware of, as far
as exactly where they were located, how far they were
from a particular from the location of where the people
(19:21):
were abducted from, if they're in a remote area, how
close they were to the to a roadway, where all
of them in parks, where all of them potentially were
in like a rocky area, or were they buried so deep,
or you know, do a very detailed comparison of each
(19:44):
of the knowns, and then but then, I mean, beyond that,
then if you had a specific area or a specific
case that you were looking at. I'm just trying to
think of when we've done comparative analysis, is like victims.
Beyond that, then, say you were focused on a particular
(20:06):
disappearance at a particular time. You know, then are any
of that Can any of those things that you found
comparative among your knowns, can they be applied to the
area where that you're now looking at? Am I yeah,
I know it's clear in my head. I'm not going
to make sure.
Speaker 9 (20:24):
It's you know, you find from your analysis, Joshua and Dakota,
what did you find from your analysis?
Speaker 4 (20:33):
So what we've realized we were able to connect a
military cashing manual that has a lot of his similar
landmarks that he brings up during one one interview where
he leads the FBI to the Blake Falls Reservoir cash
and there are things that he says that so they're
basically just letting him guide them to the cash and
he brings up things like power line right away is
(20:56):
a culvert that runs parallel with the driveway in the boat.
Ram talks about the boat ramp and that the driveway
that the parking area is dirt but the road is
paved road. Little things like that. We noticed that the
caches are also very close to water, very close to
(21:17):
a parking area, so he could have access to them
very quickly. And they're not really hidden, like from what
we've found so far, they're not really buried. They're just
hidden or camouflaged for quick access as well, because it
seems like everything is going to take place over one
night or potentially over one short period time, so you
can have access to it, go take the victim, do
(21:39):
what he wants, and then move on from there out
of the area quickly. We've noticed a couple of little things,
but mainly it's really just trying to focus on the
word that he uses, that he brings up out of nowhere,
things that he remembers about the areas before or that
he's telling investigators. That's mainly been our main goal is
just focusing on that kind of stuff, more.
Speaker 7 (22:00):
On the specifics as opposed to the general Like you said,
quick access is it is it always a paved roadway,
you know, if it's always close to water, close to
a parking lot, you know, And then maybe for each
location he provides them with particular details, but that might
(22:23):
be I mean, you know it, does he have a
preference as far as for in general of where he
likes to put these things.
Speaker 4 (22:31):
We mainly for us, we would just think that it's
basically well, we've been able to take the couriers and
he described a potential murder on Eagle River where he
put like a what we're calling like a disposal cash
where it's just the shovel and the drainal that's separate
from any of the murder and abduction stuff. And we've
been able to just basically do as you said, connect
(22:53):
the locations where it's the where the cash is buried,
where the abduction is going to take place, where it's
going to take place, and then where the victim would
be disposed of, and then also how he would mislead
investigators by parking the vehicle up by the nature center
and then with the courriers, it was parking it across
the road, I think in a back parking lot stuff
like that. So it all seems to take place in
(23:15):
a very small area. So we've been kind of focusing
on trying to find smaller areas like that where he
could go in as a disguise is like a fisherman
or something where it wouldn't be pretty much out of
the ordinary to be carrying around a bucket if you're
a fisherman, and trying to like identify places that kind
of have that quick access and have access to a
(23:35):
ben and homes or you know, we talked about cemeteries
and the small maintenance sheds and the cemeteries, and that's
really what we've been focused on. And we've we've searched
quite a few areas in the Pacific Northwest, but it's
a vast area, so it's really trying to Endakota obviously
jump in if you if you hear me making mistakes
(23:56):
or if there's other stuff that I haven't mentioned that
we've been focused on.
Speaker 8 (24:01):
Yeah, it's just I think that it goes down to
the smallest detail where he's talking about even you know,
the things that he remembers that stood out to him,
like even the sharp turns, rock formations, tree lines. It
gets down to really detailed stuff. But I think the
biggest the biggest things are the stuff that you've already listed, Josh,
(24:23):
that you know, the power line, right of way, the
boat ramps close to water, and we think that he
uses the utility of that is to use it as
a disguise of a fisherman or you have a reason
to be there. He said that he always would try
to be on public lands so that you know, he
would have not have to explain his presence there. You know,
(24:45):
if you're on private property and you get observed, you're
going to have to come up with an excuse of
why you're there. So it's just a long list of
characteristics of the locations that we try to always keep
in mind.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
And with the couriers. He also for that three day
span he took out a license for fishing. The seventh, eighth,
and ninth, I believe of June, you know, We're going
to try to get access to any sort of fishing
license that he had out of state with Washington, I'm
sure yet, you know, we talked to especially as a
whole about this, and he probably had it for the
entire years. There's no way to really tie that into
any sort of date. So that's another avenue that we're
(25:23):
going to try to pursue to see if there's an
information that we can gather from that.
Speaker 6 (25:27):
That's really smart because that's what we go back to
the pre offense and post defense behavior that you're looking for.
Those areas where maybe he did buy a fishing license
for a period of time, I think that permit hunting license,
I mean, anything like that. Any records like that would indicate, Okay,
(25:50):
he is going to be in this area for this
specific amount of time. Are there any missing people from
this area? But I think that is really smart, and
that's that's the way you link these potential cases together,
or any maybe some unknown cases linking those for.
Speaker 5 (26:11):
That matter, has been any thought of the fact that
he may have submerged some of these cases and like
on this close to a bank or close to a
uh you know, uh water side.
Speaker 8 (26:31):
Yeah, we have we have considered that. I think that
the main thing for us is that these are one
hundred percent items of convenience. They're not He's not cashing
because he enjoys cashing. He wants to access these things
extremely quickly, easily and go about his business. And so
I think that that's why they're noted. I think, yeah,
(26:54):
that's why they're not even buried. He refers to them
as being buried, but no cash so far has actually
been buried because it takes time to dig a hole
and then go dig this thing up. You're gonna spend
hours digging this thing up and all that work when
he could just camouflage them. So even though he refers
to them as buried, there's been no proof of anything
ever being buried. So to submerge a cash, I mean,
(27:18):
I don't know. I mean, first of all, you need,
you know, watertight container, and to retrieve it you'd have
to have it buoyed to something. And I just think
that he's doing this as simply as possible. And I mean,
but that has been on our radar.
Speaker 5 (27:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
But also you know that in the Cash and Manual
there is a section that's talk that talks about bearing
cashes in water and finding them in water. And one
theory that we're kind of curious about is if he
potentially used that to dispose of victims. If we can,
if we're able to find we know Samtha Konie was placed,
so we can try to see we haven't done this yet,
(27:58):
to see if maybe there's something that is similar in
the way that cash was buried to where she was placed.
And he mentioned a couple of times with the Courier case.
He said that the cash was five hundred yards from
his hotel, and then when he goes to show them
where Samantha Koheningk's body was placed, same thing. It's five
hundred yards off of the boat ramp straight out, is
(28:18):
what he tells them. And this is you know, he
could walk on the ice then, so we're thinking there's
some sort of pace that he uses, because five hundred
yards from that spot is nowhere close to where she
is actually buried or was actually placed. I think it's
just his own perception. So trying to find all those
little details that could maybe lead to some sort of connection.
Speaker 6 (28:38):
And even if you have that information, finding something like that,
even in that which seems like a relatively short distance.
It's like a needle in a haystack. We've been on digs.
I know Susan will remember this because it was her case.
But we had or Susan had an informant that was
(29:00):
saying this is this was related to a public corruption case.
But he just happened to have information where he was
told to go bury some fetuses that were in jars
and they had been from illegal abortions for many years prior,
and the informant said, I buried him here in this corner.
It was a fenced in area. I think it had
(29:24):
been he'd buried them within two or three years from
when we went out there, and I was part of
the evidence response team, and it took us hours and
hours in a very small area. Specific they're right there.
I buried them right there, and we're digging and digging
and taking We kept moving out and out and out,
(29:45):
and finally we found them. As soon as we were
about ready to wrap up, we bring in the back home.
It takes a big chunk of dirt and sure enough,
there they are. But it's not really easy to find something,
even when you have specific information. When you're trying to
dig something up or locate something that's been hidden out
in the woods. Oh yeah, it's five hundred yards out
(30:07):
this way, well exactly where you could. You could just
be a foot off and miss it.
Speaker 9 (30:13):
It's really difficult, Julia, even when you're searching in a home,
unless you have specific information. If you're looking for let's
say drugs, you're not necessarily going to find it unless
you have an idea of where it is from a
source or from a witness that gives you, you know,
a particular area to look. There have been plenty of
(30:36):
times when we've less left searches in a small house
and haven't been able to without any information like that,
and haven't been able to find what we're looking for
just by going through the house.
Speaker 6 (30:48):
Yeah, and you're relying on his memory, you're relying on
him being truthful, which we know we can't do that.
So try trying to find these things. You might have
just walked right by one and I just didn't look
or didn't go that extra step.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
I mean, it's really difficult.
Speaker 8 (31:14):
Yeah. Ted Halla basically echoed that same sentiment, which was
he worked on a case with a bank robber who
cashed and he had huge cases that specialized in holl
I said, you could live in these cases they were
so large and even with the help of the offender,
they still weren't able to recover some of these cases
(31:36):
that they were being directed almost directly to the cash.
And so I think that we know what we're up against,
and that's why we're trying to just pay attention to
every detail that we can.
Speaker 7 (31:51):
And to kind of circle back around to that. I
think it's important to look at the minute details, like
he directed Okay, so many steps here, so many steps
there are left, turn right, turn whatever. But also pull
yourselves if you've got an exact location of where he
where you know he has been before, where there is
a cash found, try to back up a little bit
(32:12):
and look at it for more of a practical thing
of it, and look at what's the practically because and Dakoty,
you already recognize one of these things. It looked like
something that he could he could remember and he could
easily access. Okay, so maybe that can eliminate some places
that would be more difficult to reach, et cetera. It's
something where he can park his car somewhere, get out,
(32:33):
go down, and within a matter of minutes or whatever,
be able to locate the thing, grab it, get back
in his car, and go from a purely practical standpoint
of not too general, but not get too much in
the weeds with the exact details of it, but look
at it more and like why is this? Why is
this spot? And is that same thing if you go
(32:53):
to any when you're looking back at the spots you've
already been to that are known, why this spot? And
is there anything here that I'm observing just kind of
from a backed up viewpoint, that's the same with the
other ones. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Yeah?
Speaker 7 (33:09):
And so is it sort of almost like from the
viewpoint of driving through an area, whether it's in Vermont
and Orga And what was it that appealed to him?
Is he's just driving by before he even cashes, he
something draws his attention to that, And is it the
same in each one or similar?
Speaker 4 (33:31):
And that's that's kind of one way we've definitely been
trying to look at it. And even with the Blake
follows Cash when he describes that, I think they could
have mentioned this just a minute ago that you know,
he describes coming in and there was a sharp right
turn and that sharp right turn does have a sign
it's that forty five returned, and we're thinking, you know,
he's he's accessing this with his phone off, so either
(33:52):
he has a map with him or it's all by memory.
He's able to see these small landmarks to find to
gain access. So he talks about a hard right term
and then the quick left, and then just less than
a tenth of a mile from the cash there is
a sign for a county line marker, and we found
(34:13):
that it's the same thing in Essex, right next by
the courrier's home, right along that road, right along the
Wenuski Trail, there's also a sign of a county line
going basically.
Speaker 5 (34:24):
Right through there.
Speaker 4 (34:25):
So we didn't know if like him describing that hard
right turn is like something he looks for, because there's
also a hard right turn going down the Wanuoski River.
But and then that could potentially connect with Cara Cole,
since that is a directional term that they talk about,
is a hard right turn or hard forty five degree turn.
So just trying to find all those little like I said,
(34:48):
you can easily get lost in the weeds because there's
so many different things that it could be that stands
out to him. But really trying to focus on things
that he mentioned has definitely been our main focus. Then
getting the areas and trying to like step back and
look at what stands out right.
Speaker 7 (35:03):
And if he's you know, if he's trying to keep
himself from being digitally marked anywhere, then trying to look for,
say a state sign or a local sign that he
figures is going to be there over an indefinite period
of time. Using those types of things as locations to
remember is a very practical type of thing, so that
(35:26):
he wouldn't you know, if he doesn't, I'm not aware
of and I know we have too many cases in
my head to remember that he didn't record anything as
far as where he had put is. They haven't discovered
anything as far as notes or anything that point to
any of these caches, so in you know, but if
(35:48):
he's got a good memory, he can remember approximately the
locations and then once he gets in the area, you
know he was close to a county line, So now
all he has to do is found that kind of
find the county line sign and then he can you know,
that prompts his memory enough to remember to know where
he put the cash.
Speaker 4 (36:06):
So, yeah, Josh, So we were able to connect the
FBI to one potential new cash in Louisiana and that's
what the map is that we sent as well. And
so this was a tip that was posted online about
three years ago, and we basically what we've been doing
is just fact checking every time we meet with Special
(36:27):
Agent Holland just try to make any tip from the
case file that talks about a cash so we can
try to investigate anyone that could really be his. And
he was very intrigued right away by this because they
had this map from his computer that had about fifteen
to thirty pinpoints a grid marked all around Louisiana and
(36:48):
the cash that was described was in the exact spot
is one of the markers on the map. So they've
they've since gone down and contacted law enforcement there and
spoke with a tipster to try to get more information
on it. But that's the only map that they have
that has a grid on it. And what's interesting is
(37:08):
of the fifteen to thirty markers pinpoints on the map,
ninety percent of them were the number two and then
there were I think four to five other pinpoints that
had larger numbers that were like thirty five, forty seven,
forty two that were in different areas, So we don't
know if that's a rating system. And this is something
that I think is a new discovery that they've been
(37:31):
able to find through upgrades and forensic software, So we
don't know if they know exactly what that is yet.
And we weren't able to get an actual photo of
the map. We were only basically DCODA and I looked
at it for maybe thirty seconds and identified a few
numbers and where they are. But the map that we
(37:51):
made is just like a visual representation of It's not accurate,
but that's that's the first piece of evidence that we've
seen where he actually has pinpoints laid out in a
plan in place, but no other writings that we've found
that would indicate where a cash.
Speaker 6 (38:06):
Was, What is the tip on the cash, What was
that tip that came in and was it somebody found something.
Speaker 8 (38:17):
Or basically an eyewitness said that they interacted with him
down just outside New Orleans and that they could remember
kind of the time frame they interacted with him, and
that they didn't know who he was at the time,
but then they saw him on the news as being
arrested for Samantha Cone's abduction, and that when they went
(38:43):
back to the location they were able to they located
a bucket with items inside. They reported it to law enforcement.
Law enforcement came and collected the cash, and so we're
hoping that that they still have it and lock up
still have it in evidence, and that the FBI is
going to be able to recover it.
Speaker 6 (39:05):
And law enforcement didn't let the FBI know, were they
not aware?
Speaker 8 (39:10):
Yeah, the witness said that they called to follow up
with law enforcement and told them about Israel Keys and
that they think that that is connected and that was
who the person was. And the quote that we've been
told that from law enforcement was that they don't have
time to chase ghosts.
Speaker 4 (39:28):
And they also had a connecting receipt on February third,
he was at a Walmart that was within a few
miles of that same area Israel was, so, you know,
he didn't tell us what was on the receipt, but
they do have a receipt from that Walmart at the
same time, Frank, because this was all within a week
to thirty days of when Israel was arrested, and he
(39:49):
was in Louisiana around that time, going on a cruise.
Speaker 6 (39:53):
So well, I think that's a good tip. It's a
good lead, something to follow up on. And certainly if
you can place them in that area and somebody found
one of these caches and there, I mean, it seems
like something very valuable to follow up on. Now what
(40:14):
those numbers mean, I don't know that. Clearly they mean
something to him, and he's using his computer to document
things or mark things and cross referencing those two maybe
other things that might be on his computer might give
an indication to what those numbers mean to him.
Speaker 1 (40:37):
You know, if I.
Speaker 6 (40:39):
Would give all the data, and I think as technology advances,
maybe they can pull even more off his computer that
they maybe couldn't pull off in you know, back when
he was first apprehended. But going back and just giving
someone all the data and trying to cross reference, maybe
what those different mean is their additional data that they've
(41:02):
recovered that they can try to figure out specifically, where
are those marks? So do they correspond to the map
in some way? Is there something there? How are they related?
All of that needs to be done in a full analysis.
I'm sure it's being done, but doub's what I would
be calling on some expert look at all this data
(41:24):
and cross reference and let's try to figure out what
these things mean. And there are people in the FBI
that are very smart and can do.
Speaker 1 (41:30):
Stuff like that.
Speaker 6 (41:32):
We've worked with them, so we know. But that's what
I would do. Clearly, he's doing this on his own.
This is not something that is for the benefit of
law enforcement or for anybody else. He's on his computer.
I'm going to guess he's not that technically savvy because
(41:53):
of the way he was caught. He's not that when
it comes to what lawn horseman is capable of doing.
In some ways, he's very he was very naive, and
so I don't think he's putting things on his computer
that necessarily trying to mislead. This was probably something that
he was documenting for his own information to refer back to.
(42:19):
So that's maybe where a lot of these answers could lie.
You know, what, what do these numbers mean? Is this
an area where we should go back to and find
out is there anyone that's missing from this area close
by within the parameters of what you've seen in the
other cases.
Speaker 1 (42:39):
Sounds like a very worthy tip.
Speaker 7 (42:43):
Right, I mean, is it a cash is it a
particular location of a building or business or who was
living there at the time. You know, you'd have to
look at all of it and and and and is
it all somehow related or are they you.
Speaker 5 (42:59):
Know, they could also be disposal sites.
Speaker 6 (43:02):
Could be that those numbers mean something to him. So
and that's where I think he's less likely to obscure things.
And when he's on his computer and he's at home
planning things and looking things up. I just don't think
he was ever anticipating I'm going to throw everybody off
(43:23):
by making these crazy maps that make no sense. You know,
I could see him doing that. It was something he
knew for a fact was going to be discovered, like
the writings in his cell. So exploiting all of the
information on his computer and cross referencing that I think
would be very informative.
Speaker 4 (43:45):
And especially a Jianhaala told us that they've found seventy
plus maps on his computer and they're all zoomed in
extremely close, so they don't know what state they're in
or what area they're in. But they're currently doing exactly
what you said. They're trying to plow those spit spots
on a map and then out to those different duris
jurisdictions and see if missing persons or cash already a
doe has found, or anything like that.
Speaker 6 (44:07):
And we know he did that in the Courier case.
And I think when when you are going back and
trying to recreate things, don't go don't rely and I
know you're not doing this, but don't rely on what
he says. Rely on what he's done already. I would
(44:27):
not take anything, any of the directions he's given anything
at face value. Look at compare it to what he
already did in the past, and we can prove and corroborate.
Speaker 8 (44:41):
We pay attention to the things he says because it's
just a part of the information that we have available
to us. I think I think the most important things
that we take from what he says are the smaller
stuff that I don't think that he would have realized
that are a bit of a giveaway, you know, like
when he's leading investigators to the Blake Falls cash, like
(45:03):
those little directions that he's giving to get them to
where they're going. I don't I don't know if he
knew that a lot of that stuff does line up
with the caching manual. And like the techniques you would
use for cashing. And of course we don't put one
hundred percent stock in everything he says, but I think
(45:24):
that there are some the smaller things hold maybe more
value than we might think.
Speaker 6 (45:30):
Well, now, if he said something and it's been corroborating,
you found it, then certainly you can rely on that.
But I just wouldn't rely on anything else that hasn't
been corroborated. But how he explains something, how he tells something,
certainly that gives you insight. You have to pay attention
to what he said, how he says it, when he
(45:50):
says it. I think that's all really important. You really
do have to pay attention to what he says. Just
don't take it face value, which again I know you don't.
I don't think anyone does or should.
Speaker 3 (46:09):
Next time on Somewhere in the Pines, we conclude the
Cara Call series with part three of this conversation as
we prepare to continue the search of the lakes, rivers
and forests of Washington State.
Speaker 10 (46:42):
Thanks for listening to this episode of Somewhere in the Pines.
Remember to subscribe and tell a friend. If you want
to support the show, please join us on Patreon at
Patreon dot com, forward Slash Somewhere in the Pines, and
if you're looking for further information on the investigation, you
can find at ww dot Somewhere in the Pines dot com.
(47:03):
As always, we'd like to give a very special thank
you to our Patreon supporters, Heather Horton, Whedon, Nicole Gooseman,
Colleen Sullivan, outh Mann, Caitlin James, Stephanie Maximo, Brian Hannah,
Kathy Nation, Alie Pink, Trista Dale, Axton, Corey Geatley, and
Virginia Williams.
Speaker 5 (47:54):
Once a sexual murderer has murdered, then sexual as salt
would be would pale in comparison as far as the
excitement and the sense of control and proof that you
are superhuman and all that stuff. And necrophilia is just again,
it's a control thing, and it's it's combining violent, morbid
(48:18):
sexuality with taking the ultimate control over a human body.
Speaker 4 (48:27):
It's crazy. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 6 (48:31):
Unfortunately, yeah, say does it?
Speaker 5 (48:40):
Someone is outside right now putting a tracker on your
cop
This is a studio both and collaboration.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Somewhere in the Pines is a serial podcast containing adult content,
including descriptions of violence, sexual assault, and suicide. Listener discretion
is strongly advised.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
Thank you for joining us for part two of our
conversation with retired FBI profilers Julia Cowley, Bob Drew, Susan Costler, Drew,
and Angela Seurcer. I'm Dakota and I'm Joshua.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
Welcome to Somewhere in the Pines, Episode fourteen, The Profilers,
Part two. When we first spoke with you, Julia, you
have mentioned that you guys simultaneously were covering Samantha Koenig's
(01:10):
case and the Courier case and didn't realize that they
were connected. After you found out that they were connected.
Was there is there anything that stands out that you
could have made that connection with hindsight or is it
completely no?
Speaker 5 (01:26):
To link a case, you have to have you have
to have similarities. If you don't have any physical evidence
linking them, which there wasn't, then is there geographical proximity?
Speaker 6 (01:39):
No?
Speaker 5 (01:41):
So what are the is it? Is it highly probable
that this was a serial killer? It's never highly probable
that it's a serial killer. Is the person. Does a
person have no personal conflicts of vulnerabilities in their life
rules out everything, They are at one safe except for
(02:03):
the possibility of a serial killer. No, And serial killings
are so infrequent, they're so rare. No one would have
You couldn't have justified that viewpoint that this must be
a serial kill. I mean, imagine how easy life would
be for detectives if they just came in and every
murder they couldn't solve right away they went, oh, looks
(02:24):
like a serial killer. You know, No, let's get some lunch.
Speaker 7 (02:28):
The victimology was really different too, the one the victimology.
Speaker 5 (02:32):
Yes, that's what I mean. Nothing, nothing appeared to be
the same with them. The one thing you could say
is they were dealing with a sadist who was hunting.
But he had he certainly had selected very different victims
age wise, demographic wise, I mean geographically. And that's why
(03:00):
that that's why they're a real challenge, you know, as
opposed to to linking these cases and then figuring out
that it's the same person. You need a lot more
to go on because the first thing you look at
in a murder, you do you you start, you do
concentric circles. You start with the the person's primary life,
(03:26):
and then who are there who do they have close
social and physical proximity to what current conflicts or risks
of exposure do they of to violence do they have?
And then way way out in the furthest reaches, you say,
could it be a serial killer? But minus minus something
(03:52):
that was that's irrefutable as far as linking them, you
would never come to that.
Speaker 8 (03:57):
When you were working the Samantha Kona case where she
was listed as a missing person or endangered person.
Speaker 5 (04:03):
Is that correct?
Speaker 6 (04:04):
Yes, yeah, we were involved prior to his arrest, and
well we were involved early on in that case and
early on in the Courier's case as well. In fact,
a lot of the forensic evidence hadn't even come back
in the Courier's case when we had looked at that.
But there's nothing looking back that we could have connected
(04:30):
these two cases. Now now we see similarities, we see
the kidnapping, we see the use of a weapon. It's
easy to do that hindsight twenty twenty, but looking at
all the different cases around this country and maybe even
other countries where people are kidnapped or they disappear linking
(04:52):
him to those unless you have definitive evidence that he
was in the area. It would be very difficult to
do that even based on what we know. Part of
the problem is because we haven't actually ever found the couriers,
so we don't know exactly what actually happened to them.
Speaker 1 (05:13):
We have what he said to find them.
Speaker 6 (05:15):
They've tried hard, and we know what he said happened,
but we don't know for sure. Would there be something
if they were located that might be similar to Samantha
that we just don't know about because he didn't tell us.
Speaker 4 (05:32):
That's kind of what I was curious about, is we have,
you know, these murders at you know, the end of
his life that are pretty brazing, breaking and breaking and
entering and abducting people from their homes or from work,
and he talks about his previous crimes, say Washington State,
that are typically taking place in more trailheads woodland areas.
(05:53):
Would there be a way that you could kind of
reverse hindsight twenty twenty think about case in Washington that
would stand out that are that you would be able
to maybe connect because of what you know from his
later on in his career. Is there any way to
connect his evolution, assuming that he was telling the truth
(06:14):
in the beginning, it changed so much, so drastically. Is
there anything that you could look at to be able
to connect it to previous murders that were.
Speaker 5 (06:22):
So different minus minus of physical evidence link and he
had he had such a he had such a broad
selection of you know, victim types, et cetera, and and
or areas hunting grounds if you will, areas that he
(06:44):
would choose to to uh hunt in. It would be
very hard and even if even if it looked like him,
it could very well be someone else that that engages
in similar conduct, I think minus someone it's to get
(07:05):
to the point where you say it's likely or possible, yes,
but if but to say that it's irrefutable, no. And
we also know, all of us know that at any
given time there are a number of It is theorized
(07:28):
that there's a number of serial killers operating in the
US at any given time. I'm detected maybe because they're
they're they're victims are runaways or what what is a
bad term for it? His throwaways, people who kind of
are in the bottom rungs of society that prostitutes, particularly
(07:53):
street prostitutes, things like that there. So we know that
there are people who are are probably killing people in
serial fashion out there hiding in their cases, are not
being linked or whatever. So could you say if you
(08:14):
if you found someone who was doing something similar to him,
or are a case that kind of seemed like something
he might do. I think you would be hard pressed
to say it was him unless you had.
Speaker 7 (08:28):
Other things to cooborate. Yes, that you know that you
could pinpoint that he was there at a certain time
or within you know, the week of when this person.
And is the case of where somebody goes missing? Is
it the case where somebody goes missing and the body
is later recovered? You know, is there any proof at
(08:49):
all that he had any kind of contact with that
person prior to now?
Speaker 6 (08:53):
Their challenging thing about Keys is that some of his
crimes were more opportunistic according to his stories. Now, I'm
going off what he said because we really only have
three that are certain, so the others tended to be
(09:16):
Oh he ran into something. Now I think probably he
was always prepared for opportunities or looking for opportunities. But
that makes it more difficult than the ones like I
plan to find a house, go into this house, or
I plan to take someone from their place of employment
versus I bumped into somebody at you know, at a
(09:38):
state parks. That would be different and that crime might
look different. So that makes it again more challenging, because
he didn't operate the same way every single time.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
With something like the way that he would mislead investigators
by you using Samantha's debit card, using her phone to
make communication to family members. I think the couriers he
carried their phones with them to Vermont, maybe New Hampshire.
I can't remember exactly what it was, but that way
(10:15):
of misleading and trying to make it seem more like
this person was just going off somewhere. Is that something
that you think that he would identify very early on
and kind of carry on throughout his entire career for
lack of a better word, Or is that something that
do serial killers typically kind of have, are constantly evolving
(10:36):
and changing as they go, or is it just everybody
is so different that it's hard to even really I think.
Speaker 6 (10:40):
That's a possibility. I think you bring up a good point.
Is there behaviors surrounding the murder that we could identify
that would be similar in other cases, such as taking
someone's debit card and using their debit card, or taking
their phone, or other ways to mislead police or throw
off the investigation. All of that could be behavior that
we would look at to possibly link other crimes of
(11:04):
his together. Similar behaviors either pre offense or post defense.
Could That's a very good point. But yes, to answer
your question, I think that could be helpful in linking
them together. I mean, I think what we've seen from
him is that the murder itself isn't necessarily the most
(11:25):
important thing. It's maybe the ultimate goal, but the planning
of it, the thinking about it, the planting of these
cash is all of this stuff is very sustainable to
him in terms of his fantasy world, and so things
like that leading up to a crime might be helpful
(11:46):
in looking at and then the idea that he is
very opportunistic, so he'll it may be secondary, but he'll
try to benefit financially from a crime potentially, So yes,
I think some of those things could help in linking
other crimes to him.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
I still think it's a challenge though, what.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
You had just said about murder not necessarily being the
most important part, the most important act. So we're assuming
the fear and the sexual assault is probably his biggest goal.
There's a point where he sexually assaults claims to sexually
assault a girl in the Shoots at the Shoots River
(12:30):
in Mappin, and they asked him about this if he
had ever sexually assaulted somebody before, and he says, I
think the quote is depends on what your defin definition
is of a sexual assault. And they ask him, uh, well,
we've ever had sex with somebody against their will or
how they defined it, and he said, well, yeah, of course.
(12:52):
And this sexual assault happened when I think he was
seventeen or eighteen, and I was wondering that just that
he explained that this was very exciting for him and
that it was the first time he had done something
like that, and I was wondering if there's a chance
that he maybe killed somebody prior to that, and then
(13:14):
since he claimed to be necrophile, that he had sex
with their body, but that was before, so it wasn't
as satisfying because the person was not alive and you
weren't able to experience that fear in them. If that
could be what he means by that or I and
that the reason this one was so exciting is because
(13:35):
he had this person tied up allegedly and was going
to kill them, but didn't kill them. If you have
heard that comment before with him saying that, yes, he
has sexually assaulted people without or prior to that, is
there any reason why it would be considered different than
this interaction you had with the girl on the river.
Speaker 5 (13:52):
I think you have to keep in mind with him
that there is more than one fantasy that he's entertaining here.
He all of them are control based. Sexual assault is
the resting of control away from the victim and exerting
your own control over them. Murder is uh and it's
(14:17):
not just a practical thing. It is also a highly
erotic thing. And once someone like him murders someone, oftentimes
murder becomes the ultimate erotic act. Now, necrophilia is just
a step beyond. I mean, now you've you've you do
(14:41):
have ultimate control over this this victim, at least their body,
and you can do whatever you'd like. You you are
in ultimate control. But murder itself, the act of murder
is not separate from from the erotic fantasy. It is
(15:03):
the pinnacle of the combination of control and violent sexuality
that is compelling to them. And I don't I don't
I think something minus once you've murdered, once a sexual
murderer has murdered, then sexual assault would be would pale
(15:25):
in comparison as far as the excitement and the sense
of control and proof that you are superhuman and all
that stuff. And necrophilia is just again it's a control thing,
and it's it's combining violent morbid sexuality with taking the
(15:45):
ultimate control over a human body.
Speaker 6 (15:50):
Yeah, and I think I think Bob makes a good
point that you know, once you committed the murder, that's
the ultimate goal, but all these other behaviors leading up
to it are really important to him, and he really
enjoys this process. So just because I'm what I'm trying
(16:11):
to say, I'm not sure there are as many bodies out
there is maybe people think because I think he spent
a lot of time maybe on some other things that
were very satisfying and exciting to him, in maybe planning
or fantasizing. So but you know, like you once you
commit the ultimate murder, then that's probably going to be
(16:34):
your ultimate goal in the end. But all that other
stuff leading up to it is equally as important and
a part of the entire process for him.
Speaker 7 (16:44):
And there are I mean there's some that they haven't
definitively linked to him, but there are some, like there
was a trip to Texas to visit his his mother,
and some of the disappearances that have happened that correspond
very very closely to when he was there. I think
that's that's closer, you know. And I can also see
his mind working that way. And then he was a
busy guy. He was doing a lot of things, he
(17:04):
was traveling a lot to family whatever. But along with
planning the trip to see relatives, then he could start
the whole process as far as oh, I'm going to Texas, well,
what can I do in Texas? Well, let me start
planning that or being there one time and potentially caching
something with the idea that, well, I know, I'll be
back the next number of months to you know, see
(17:25):
my mother again, so you know, I'll put something here now,
and I've scoped out a couple of places, and even
in that gap or going to New York to visit
people there, he can squirrel something away and then think
about it whether or not he ever acts on it,
but he can certainly think about it and begin that
(17:46):
whole process of fantasy and preparing.
Speaker 5 (17:49):
And and just to clarify what I said, I don't
mean to imply that he would then be satisfied by
doing drive by shootings. I mean, it's got to be
sexual murder.
Speaker 8 (18:03):
It has to be.
Speaker 5 (18:04):
The culmination of his erotic fantasy.
Speaker 8 (18:11):
It's not.
Speaker 5 (18:14):
Murder like shooting someone in the street, et cetera. That's
not his thing, and that would be not satisfying for
him at all. But a sexual assault that doesn't include
murder would be a little less of a thrill after
he's done it once and realizes how thrilling it is for.
Speaker 4 (18:36):
Do you think there's a way to kind of reverse
engineer where he hit cashes based upon previous cash locations
and just the way he talks about the cashes, or
is there any process that you would use if you
were trying to go and find cashes. That's what I thought.
Speaker 7 (18:59):
Just think about the ones that were known and how
he placed them. I mean, I think you'd have to
And again, it would be kind of a guessing game
with him. If you have you ever done a comparative
analysis of the ones that you're aware of, as far
as exactly where they were located, how far they were
from a particular from the location of where the people
(19:21):
were abducted from, if they're in a remote area, how
close they were to the to a roadway, where all
of them in parks, where all of them potentially were
in like a rocky area, or were they buried so deep,
or you know, do a very detailed comparison of each
(19:44):
of the knowns, and then but then, I mean, beyond that,
then if you had a specific area or a specific
case that you were looking at. I'm just trying to
think of when we've done comparative analysis, is like victims.
Beyond that, then, say you were focused on a particular
(20:06):
disappearance at a particular time. You know, then are any
of that Can any of those things that you found
comparative among your knowns, can they be applied to the
area where that you're now looking at? Am I yeah,
I know it's clear in my head. I'm not going
to make sure.
Speaker 9 (20:24):
It's you know, you find from your analysis, Joshua and Dakota,
what did you find from your analysis?
Speaker 4 (20:33):
So what we've realized we were able to connect a
military cashing manual that has a lot of his similar
landmarks that he brings up during one one interview where
he leads the FBI to the Blake Falls Reservoir cash
and there are things that he says that so they're
basically just letting him guide them to the cash and
he brings up things like power line right away is
(20:56):
a culvert that runs parallel with the driveway in the boat.
Ram talks about the boat ramp and that the driveway
that the parking area is dirt but the road is
paved road. Little things like that. We noticed that the
caches are also very close to water, very close to
(21:17):
a parking area, so he could have access to them
very quickly. And they're not really hidden, like from what
we've found so far, they're not really buried. They're just
hidden or camouflaged for quick access as well, because it
seems like everything is going to take place over one
night or potentially over one short period time, so you
can have access to it, go take the victim, do
(21:39):
what he wants, and then move on from there out
of the area quickly. We've noticed a couple of little things,
but mainly it's really just trying to focus on the
word that he uses, that he brings up out of nowhere,
things that he remembers about the areas before or that
he's telling investigators. That's mainly been our main goal is
just focusing on that kind of stuff, more.
Speaker 7 (22:00):
On the specifics as opposed to the general Like you said,
quick access is it is it always a paved roadway,
you know, if it's always close to water, close to
a parking lot, you know, And then maybe for each
location he provides them with particular details, but that might
(22:23):
be I mean, you know it, does he have a
preference as far as for in general of where he
likes to put these things.
Speaker 4 (22:31):
We mainly for us, we would just think that it's
basically well, we've been able to take the couriers and
he described a potential murder on Eagle River where he
put like a what we're calling like a disposal cash
where it's just the shovel and the drainal that's separate
from any of the murder and abduction stuff. And we've
been able to just basically do as you said, connect
(22:53):
the locations where it's the where the cash is buried,
where the abduction is going to take place, where it's
going to take place, and then where the victim would
be disposed of, and then also how he would mislead
investigators by parking the vehicle up by the nature center
and then with the courriers, it was parking it across
the road, I think in a back parking lot stuff
like that. So it all seems to take place in
(23:15):
a very small area. So we've been kind of focusing
on trying to find smaller areas like that where he
could go in as a disguise is like a fisherman
or something where it wouldn't be pretty much out of
the ordinary to be carrying around a bucket if you're
a fisherman, and trying to like identify places that kind
of have that quick access and have access to a
(23:35):
ben and homes or you know, we talked about cemeteries
and the small maintenance sheds and the cemeteries, and that's
really what we've been focused on. And we've we've searched
quite a few areas in the Pacific Northwest, but it's
a vast area, so it's really trying to Endakota obviously
jump in if you if you hear me making mistakes
(23:56):
or if there's other stuff that I haven't mentioned that
we've been focused on.
Speaker 8 (24:01):
Yeah, it's just I think that it goes down to
the smallest detail where he's talking about even you know,
the things that he remembers that stood out to him,
like even the sharp turns, rock formations, tree lines. It
gets down to really detailed stuff. But I think the
biggest the biggest things are the stuff that you've already listed, Josh,
(24:23):
that you know, the power line, right of way, the
boat ramps close to water, and we think that he
uses the utility of that is to use it as
a disguise of a fisherman or you have a reason
to be there. He said that he always would try
to be on public lands so that you know, he
would have not have to explain his presence there. You know,
(24:45):
if you're on private property and you get observed, you're
going to have to come up with an excuse of
why you're there. So it's just a long list of
characteristics of the locations that we try to always keep
in mind.
Speaker 4 (25:00):
And with the couriers. He also for that three day
span he took out a license for fishing. The seventh, eighth,
and ninth, I believe of June, you know, We're going
to try to get access to any sort of fishing
license that he had out of state with Washington, I'm
sure yet, you know, we talked to especially as a
whole about this, and he probably had it for the
entire years. There's no way to really tie that into
any sort of date. So that's another avenue that we're
(25:23):
going to try to pursue to see if there's an
information that we can gather from that.
Speaker 6 (25:27):
That's really smart because that's what we go back to
the pre offense and post defense behavior that you're looking for.
Those areas where maybe he did buy a fishing license
for a period of time, I think that permit hunting license,
I mean, anything like that. Any records like that would indicate, Okay,
(25:50):
he is going to be in this area for this
specific amount of time. Are there any missing people from
this area? But I think that is really smart, and
that's that's the way you link these potential cases together,
or any maybe some unknown cases linking those for.
Speaker 5 (26:11):
That matter, has been any thought of the fact that
he may have submerged some of these cases and like
on this close to a bank or close to a
uh you know, uh water side.
Speaker 8 (26:31):
Yeah, we have we have considered that. I think that
the main thing for us is that these are one
hundred percent items of convenience. They're not He's not cashing
because he enjoys cashing. He wants to access these things
extremely quickly, easily and go about his business. And so
I think that that's why they're noted. I think, yeah,
(26:54):
that's why they're not even buried. He refers to them
as being buried, but no cash so far has actually
been buried because it takes time to dig a hole
and then go dig this thing up. You're gonna spend
hours digging this thing up and all that work when
he could just camouflage them. So even though he refers
to them as buried, there's been no proof of anything
ever being buried. So to submerge a cash, I mean,
(27:18):
I don't know. I mean, first of all, you need,
you know, watertight container, and to retrieve it you'd have
to have it buoyed to something. And I just think
that he's doing this as simply as possible. And I mean,
but that has been on our radar.
Speaker 5 (27:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (27:37):
But also you know that in the Cash and Manual
there is a section that's talk that talks about bearing
cashes in water and finding them in water. And one
theory that we're kind of curious about is if he
potentially used that to dispose of victims. If we can,
if we're able to find we know Samtha Konie was placed,
so we can try to see we haven't done this yet,
(27:58):
to see if maybe there's something that is similar in
the way that cash was buried to where she was placed.
And he mentioned a couple of times with the Courier case.
He said that the cash was five hundred yards from
his hotel, and then when he goes to show them
where Samantha Koheningk's body was placed, same thing. It's five
hundred yards off of the boat ramp straight out, is
(28:18):
what he tells them. And this is you know, he
could walk on the ice then, so we're thinking there's
some sort of pace that he uses, because five hundred
yards from that spot is nowhere close to where she
is actually buried or was actually placed. I think it's
just his own perception. So trying to find all those
little details that could maybe lead to some sort of connection.
Speaker 6 (28:38):
And even if you have that information, finding something like that,
even in that which seems like a relatively short distance.
It's like a needle in a haystack. We've been on digs.
I know Susan will remember this because it was her case.
But we had or Susan had an informant that was
(29:00):
saying this is this was related to a public corruption case.
But he just happened to have information where he was
told to go bury some fetuses that were in jars
and they had been from illegal abortions for many years prior,
and the informant said, I buried him here in this corner.
It was a fenced in area. I think it had
(29:24):
been he'd buried them within two or three years from
when we went out there, and I was part of
the evidence response team, and it took us hours and
hours in a very small area. Specific they're right there.
I buried them right there, and we're digging and digging
and taking We kept moving out and out and out,
(29:45):
and finally we found them. As soon as we were
about ready to wrap up, we bring in the back home.
It takes a big chunk of dirt and sure enough,
there they are. But it's not really easy to find something,
even when you have specific information. When you're trying to
dig something up or locate something that's been hidden out
in the woods. Oh yeah, it's five hundred yards out
(30:07):
this way, well exactly where you could. You could just
be a foot off and miss it.
Speaker 9 (30:13):
It's really difficult, Julia, even when you're searching in a home,
unless you have specific information. If you're looking for let's
say drugs, you're not necessarily going to find it unless
you have an idea of where it is from a
source or from a witness that gives you, you know,
a particular area to look. There have been plenty of
(30:36):
times when we've less left searches in a small house
and haven't been able to without any information like that,
and haven't been able to find what we're looking for
just by going through the house.
Speaker 6 (30:48):
Yeah, and you're relying on his memory, you're relying on
him being truthful, which we know we can't do that.
So try trying to find these things. You might have
just walked right by one and I just didn't look
or didn't go that extra step.
Speaker 1 (31:10):
I mean, it's really difficult.
Speaker 8 (31:14):
Yeah. Ted Halla basically echoed that same sentiment, which was
he worked on a case with a bank robber who
cashed and he had huge cases that specialized in holl
I said, you could live in these cases they were
so large and even with the help of the offender,
they still weren't able to recover some of these cases
(31:36):
that they were being directed almost directly to the cash.
And so I think that we know what we're up against,
and that's why we're trying to just pay attention to
every detail that we can.
Speaker 7 (31:51):
And to kind of circle back around to that. I
think it's important to look at the minute details, like
he directed Okay, so many steps here, so many steps
there are left, turn right, turn whatever. But also pull
yourselves if you've got an exact location of where he
where you know he has been before, where there is
a cash found, try to back up a little bit
(32:12):
and look at it for more of a practical thing
of it, and look at what's the practically because and Dakoty,
you already recognize one of these things. It looked like
something that he could he could remember and he could
easily access. Okay, so maybe that can eliminate some places
that would be more difficult to reach, et cetera. It's
something where he can park his car somewhere, get out,
(32:33):
go down, and within a matter of minutes or whatever,
be able to locate the thing, grab it, get back
in his car, and go from a purely practical standpoint
of not too general, but not get too much in
the weeds with the exact details of it, but look
at it more and like why is this? Why is
this spot? And is that same thing if you go
(32:53):
to any when you're looking back at the spots you've
already been to that are known, why this spot? And
is there anything here that I'm observing just kind of
from a backed up viewpoint, that's the same with the
other ones. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Speaker 1 (33:09):
Yeah?
Speaker 7 (33:09):
And so is it sort of almost like from the
viewpoint of driving through an area, whether it's in Vermont
and Orga And what was it that appealed to him?
Is he's just driving by before he even cashes, he
something draws his attention to that, And is it the
same in each one or similar?
Speaker 4 (33:31):
And that's that's kind of one way we've definitely been
trying to look at it. And even with the Blake
follows Cash when he describes that, I think they could
have mentioned this just a minute ago that you know,
he describes coming in and there was a sharp right
turn and that sharp right turn does have a sign
it's that forty five returned, and we're thinking, you know,
he's he's accessing this with his phone off, so either
(33:52):
he has a map with him or it's all by memory.
He's able to see these small landmarks to find to
gain access. So he talks about a hard right term
and then the quick left, and then just less than
a tenth of a mile from the cash there is
a sign for a county line marker, and we found
(34:13):
that it's the same thing in Essex, right next by
the courrier's home, right along that road, right along the
Wenuski Trail, there's also a sign of a county line
going basically.
Speaker 5 (34:24):
Right through there.
Speaker 4 (34:25):
So we didn't know if like him describing that hard
right turn is like something he looks for, because there's
also a hard right turn going down the Wanuoski River.
But and then that could potentially connect with Cara Cole,
since that is a directional term that they talk about,
is a hard right turn or hard forty five degree turn.
So just trying to find all those little like I said,
(34:48):
you can easily get lost in the weeds because there's
so many different things that it could be that stands
out to him. But really trying to focus on things
that he mentioned has definitely been our main focus. Then
getting the areas and trying to like step back and
look at what stands out right.
Speaker 7 (35:03):
And if he's you know, if he's trying to keep
himself from being digitally marked anywhere, then trying to look for,
say a state sign or a local sign that he
figures is going to be there over an indefinite period
of time. Using those types of things as locations to
remember is a very practical type of thing, so that
(35:26):
he wouldn't you know, if he doesn't, I'm not aware
of and I know we have too many cases in
my head to remember that he didn't record anything as
far as where he had put is. They haven't discovered
anything as far as notes or anything that point to
any of these caches, so in you know, but if
(35:48):
he's got a good memory, he can remember approximately the
locations and then once he gets in the area, you
know he was close to a county line, So now
all he has to do is found that kind of
find the county line sign and then he can you know,
that prompts his memory enough to remember to know where
he put the cash.
Speaker 4 (36:06):
So, yeah, Josh, So we were able to connect the
FBI to one potential new cash in Louisiana and that's
what the map is that we sent as well. And
so this was a tip that was posted online about
three years ago, and we basically what we've been doing
is just fact checking every time we meet with Special
(36:27):
Agent Holland just try to make any tip from the
case file that talks about a cash so we can
try to investigate anyone that could really be his. And
he was very intrigued right away by this because they
had this map from his computer that had about fifteen
to thirty pinpoints a grid marked all around Louisiana and
(36:48):
the cash that was described was in the exact spot
is one of the markers on the map. So they've
they've since gone down and contacted law enforcement there and
spoke with a tipster to try to get more information
on it. But that's the only map that they have
that has a grid on it. And what's interesting is
(37:08):
of the fifteen to thirty markers pinpoints on the map,
ninety percent of them were the number two and then
there were I think four to five other pinpoints that
had larger numbers that were like thirty five, forty seven,
forty two that were in different areas, So we don't
know if that's a rating system. And this is something
that I think is a new discovery that they've been
(37:31):
able to find through upgrades and forensic software, So we
don't know if they know exactly what that is yet.
And we weren't able to get an actual photo of
the map. We were only basically DCODA and I looked
at it for maybe thirty seconds and identified a few
numbers and where they are. But the map that we
(37:51):
made is just like a visual representation of It's not accurate,
but that's that's the first piece of evidence that we've
seen where he actually has pinpoints laid out in a
plan in place, but no other writings that we've found
that would indicate where a cash.
Speaker 6 (38:06):
Was, What is the tip on the cash, What was
that tip that came in and was it somebody found something.
Speaker 8 (38:17):
Or basically an eyewitness said that they interacted with him
down just outside New Orleans and that they could remember
kind of the time frame they interacted with him, and
that they didn't know who he was at the time,
but then they saw him on the news as being
arrested for Samantha Cone's abduction, and that when they went
(38:43):
back to the location they were able to they located
a bucket with items inside. They reported it to law enforcement.
Law enforcement came and collected the cash, and so we're
hoping that that they still have it and lock up
still have it in evidence, and that the FBI is
going to be able to recover it.
Speaker 6 (39:05):
And law enforcement didn't let the FBI know, were they
not aware?
Speaker 8 (39:10):
Yeah, the witness said that they called to follow up
with law enforcement and told them about Israel Keys and
that they think that that is connected and that was
who the person was. And the quote that we've been
told that from law enforcement was that they don't have
time to chase ghosts.
Speaker 4 (39:28):
And they also had a connecting receipt on February third,
he was at a Walmart that was within a few
miles of that same area Israel was, so, you know,
he didn't tell us what was on the receipt, but
they do have a receipt from that Walmart at the
same time, Frank, because this was all within a week
to thirty days of when Israel was arrested, and he
(39:49):
was in Louisiana around that time, going on a cruise.
Speaker 6 (39:53):
So well, I think that's a good tip. It's a
good lead, something to follow up on. And certainly if
you can place them in that area and somebody found
one of these caches and there, I mean, it seems
like something very valuable to follow up on. Now what
(40:14):
those numbers mean, I don't know that. Clearly they mean
something to him, and he's using his computer to document
things or mark things and cross referencing those two maybe
other things that might be on his computer might give
an indication to what those numbers mean to him.
Speaker 1 (40:37):
You know, if I.
Speaker 6 (40:39):
Would give all the data, and I think as technology advances,
maybe they can pull even more off his computer that
they maybe couldn't pull off in you know, back when
he was first apprehended. But going back and just giving
someone all the data and trying to cross reference, maybe
what those different mean is their additional data that they've
(41:02):
recovered that they can try to figure out specifically, where
are those marks? So do they correspond to the map
in some way? Is there something there? How are they related?
All of that needs to be done in a full analysis.
I'm sure it's being done, but doub's what I would
be calling on some expert look at all this data
(41:24):
and cross reference and let's try to figure out what
these things mean. And there are people in the FBI
that are very smart and can do.
Speaker 1 (41:30):
Stuff like that.
Speaker 6 (41:32):
We've worked with them, so we know. But that's what
I would do. Clearly, he's doing this on his own.
This is not something that is for the benefit of
law enforcement or for anybody else. He's on his computer.
I'm going to guess he's not that technically savvy because
(41:53):
of the way he was caught. He's not that when
it comes to what lawn horseman is capable of doing.
In some ways, he's very he was very naive, and
so I don't think he's putting things on his computer
that necessarily trying to mislead. This was probably something that
he was documenting for his own information to refer back to.
(42:19):
So that's maybe where a lot of these answers could lie.
You know, what, what do these numbers mean? Is this
an area where we should go back to and find
out is there anyone that's missing from this area close
by within the parameters of what you've seen in the
other cases.
Speaker 1 (42:39):
Sounds like a very worthy tip.
Speaker 7 (42:43):
Right, I mean, is it a cash is it a
particular location of a building or business or who was
living there at the time. You know, you'd have to
look at all of it and and and and is
it all somehow related or are they you.
Speaker 5 (42:59):
Know, they could also be disposal sites.
Speaker 6 (43:02):
Could be that those numbers mean something to him. So
and that's where I think he's less likely to obscure things.
And when he's on his computer and he's at home
planning things and looking things up. I just don't think
he was ever anticipating I'm going to throw everybody off
(43:23):
by making these crazy maps that make no sense. You know,
I could see him doing that. It was something he
knew for a fact was going to be discovered, like
the writings in his cell. So exploiting all of the
information on his computer and cross referencing that I think
would be very informative.
Speaker 4 (43:45):
And especially a Jianhaala told us that they've found seventy
plus maps on his computer and they're all zoomed in
extremely close, so they don't know what state they're in
or what area they're in. But they're currently doing exactly
what you said. They're trying to plow those spit spots
on a map and then out to those different duris
jurisdictions and see if missing persons or cash already a
doe has found, or anything like that.
Speaker 6 (44:07):
And we know he did that in the Courier case.
And I think when when you are going back and
trying to recreate things, don't go don't rely and I
know you're not doing this, but don't rely on what
he says. Rely on what he's done already. I would
(44:27):
not take anything, any of the directions he's given anything
at face value. Look at compare it to what he
already did in the past, and we can prove and corroborate.
Speaker 8 (44:41):
We pay attention to the things he says because it's
just a part of the information that we have available
to us. I think I think the most important things
that we take from what he says are the smaller
stuff that I don't think that he would have realized
that are a bit of a giveaway, you know, like
when he's leading investigators to the Blake Falls cash, like
(45:03):
those little directions that he's giving to get them to
where they're going. I don't I don't know if he
knew that a lot of that stuff does line up
with the caching manual. And like the techniques you would
use for cashing. And of course we don't put one
hundred percent stock in everything he says, but I think
(45:24):
that there are some the smaller things hold maybe more
value than we might think.
Speaker 6 (45:30):
Well, now, if he said something and it's been corroborating,
you found it, then certainly you can rely on that.
But I just wouldn't rely on anything else that hasn't
been corroborated. But how he explains something, how he tells something,
certainly that gives you insight. You have to pay attention
to what he said, how he says it, when he
(45:50):
says it. I think that's all really important. You really
do have to pay attention to what he says. Just
don't take it face value, which again I know you don't.
I don't think anyone does or should.
Speaker 3 (46:09):
Next time on Somewhere in the Pines, we conclude the
Cara Call series with part three of this conversation as
we prepare to continue the search of the lakes, rivers
and forests of Washington State.
Speaker 10 (46:42):
Thanks for listening to this episode of Somewhere in the Pines.
Remember to subscribe and tell a friend. If you want
to support the show, please join us on Patreon at
Patreon dot com, forward Slash Somewhere in the Pines, and
if you're looking for further information on the investigation, you
can find at ww dot Somewhere in the Pines dot com.
(47:03):
As always, we'd like to give a very special thank
you to our Patreon supporters, Heather Horton, Whedon, Nicole Gooseman,
Colleen Sullivan, outh Mann, Caitlin James, Stephanie Maximo, Brian Hannah,
Kathy Nation, Alie Pink, Trista Dale, Axton, Corey Geatley, and
Virginia Williams.
Speaker 5 (47:54):
Once a sexual murderer has murdered, then sexual as salt
would be would pale in comparison as far as the
excitement and the sense of control and proof that you
are superhuman and all that stuff. And necrophilia is just again,
it's a control thing, and it's it's combining violent, morbid
(48:18):
sexuality with taking the ultimate control over a human body.
Speaker 4 (48:27):
It's crazy. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
Speaker 6 (48:31):
Unfortunately, yeah, say does it?
Speaker 5 (48:40):
Someone is outside right now putting a tracker on your
cop
Popular Podcasts
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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