Speaker 1: Please be advised this story contains adult content and graphic language. Surprisingly,
Speaker 1: you met with your son's murderer, Daniel Wozniak while he
Speaker 1: was waiting in jail before his trial. We spoke for
Speaker 1: a total of almost six hours. During that time, he
Speaker 1: had told me that actually he had planned to um.
Speaker 1: Initially he had planned to kill his parents. Welcome back
Speaker 1: to Sleuth. We have Steve Hair, Samuel Hair's father, and
Speaker 1: sam was one of Daniel Wazniak's murder victims. And we're
Speaker 1: very grateful to have you here today. Steve, thank you
Speaker 1: good to be here. So I want our listeners to
Speaker 1: understanding of appreciate how our relationship began. We met actually
Speaker 1: after the trial officially, and I had been going on
Speaker 1: for years trying to find out the truth of what happened.
Speaker 1: The police regarded as far as what they could tell me,
Speaker 1: obviously because they had to prepare for the trial as
Speaker 1: well as the prosecutors, so they couldn't tell me much.
Speaker 1: But I found out enough of my own through interviews
Speaker 1: of my own certain things. And then when you had
Speaker 1: introduced yourself to me, you had mentioned something, and that's
Speaker 1: something told me that other people trusted you with that information.
Speaker 1: So I figured if those people trusted you with that information,
Speaker 1: I could trust you and share some of the information
Speaker 1: that I had received. And I believe what you're referring
Speaker 1: to is when I told you that I had seen
Speaker 1: the pictures and what those pictures reflected were what Daniel
Speaker 1: was Nia did to your son. And once again, once
Speaker 1: I realized that those people entrusted you with showing you
Speaker 1: those pictures and they were quite graphic, trust me, I
Speaker 1: know then that was good enough for me. So from
Speaker 1: there we really did share a journey together. I think
Speaker 1: it really fortified um the results we came up with
Speaker 1: and the work that we did when we were able
Speaker 1: to join forces and do it together. When you came
Speaker 1: along and when you told me what you had seen
Speaker 1: and I said, okay, let's do a little collaboration on this,
Speaker 1: and all the stuff you hadn't covered, Linda, and all
Speaker 1: the interviews you've done showed me what a true investigative
Speaker 1: reporter should be. I've always believed right from the beginning
Speaker 1: that there was more than just Dan mos NAC's involvement.
Speaker 1: Through Sam's friends, quite an number of occasions would fill
Speaker 1: me in on certain areas that just strengthened my belief
Speaker 1: that there were more people involved. Then when you and
Speaker 1: I had met and we started going over some notes
Speaker 1: that we had, we realized that this goes much deeper,
Speaker 1: and that began our collaboration as far as, hey, let's
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of this. Let's find out or
Speaker 1: try to find out the whole truth. And part of
Speaker 1: that truth is in fact looking into others involved in
Speaker 1: these crimes, looking into accomplices of dance and and to
Speaker 1: try to find out in fact what their roles were,
Speaker 1: if any, and and the evidence to support that. And
Speaker 1: I think some of that focus has to do with
Speaker 1: Rachel Buffett, who was Danniel wznia x x fiance and
Speaker 1: quite frankly the person that he was allegedly committing these
Speaker 1: crimes for so that he could win favor with her
Speaker 1: and and take her on a beautiful honeymoon with your
Speaker 1: son's hard earned savings. And so I think to focus
Speaker 1: in on her with a trial coming up very soon
Speaker 1: charging her with three felony counts. As an accessory, I
Speaker 1: think we learned a lot through police transcriptions that I
Speaker 1: was able to procure from a source, gave a real
Speaker 1: blueprint into her guilt. It's the lies I always say
Speaker 1: that led us to believe that she was guilty of
Speaker 1: a lot more than police were able to prove. It's
Speaker 1: the blueprint, is the foundation, it's the whole building. Uh.
Speaker 1: Those the information that you had received, What they did
Speaker 1: is they strengthened my suspicions of her her influence. I
Speaker 1: have said, actually after the last two and a half
Speaker 1: years of of my time in on on this investigation,
Speaker 1: that I truly believe that Daniel Wozniak wouldn't have committed
Speaker 1: these crimes if he had never met Rachel Buffett. And
Speaker 1: I will say that Costa Masa please agreed with me
Speaker 1: on that. On several occasions, I know that they tried
Speaker 1: to come up with all the evidence necessary so that
Speaker 1: the d A could go after her for murder charges
Speaker 1: or accomplished charges, but they just fell short, and that
Speaker 1: just confirmed my belief that, Yeah, she's much more part
Speaker 1: of this story. I mean, at this point, you really
Speaker 1: had the access to Sam's friends who lived in Campden
Speaker 1: Martinique at the time, so you could talk to them.
Speaker 1: I know it's hearsay, but you certainly did speak to
Speaker 1: quite a few people to find out her nature. And
Speaker 1: her relationship with Dan, and how she was really the
Speaker 1: one in charge. She was the one in control. I
Speaker 1: mean she I have a quick little story that I
Speaker 1: think really reflects their relationship and her power over him,
Speaker 1: when they would get together with a bunch of neighbors,
Speaker 1: including your son, and they called it, I think Taco Tuesday,
Speaker 1: and it was that a neighbor's a mutual friend, Dave Barnhart's.
Speaker 1: And when they get together for these parties, Rachel would
Speaker 1: like to exert her power over Dan by sort of
Speaker 1: telling other guys there, look, watch, I'll get him to
Speaker 1: kiss a guy, and I'll tell him if he doesn't,
Speaker 1: we're not going home together. And sure enough she would.
Speaker 1: She would basically assert to him, unless you kiss that
Speaker 1: guy sitting next to you, I'm not going home with you.
Speaker 1: And that's what do you do? And everybody laugh and
Speaker 1: and and that just that to me is so revealing. Well,
Speaker 1: I had learned that story from you, but I had
Speaker 1: heard the other stories. Whereas she was the one pulling
Speaker 1: the strings in that relationship. She was the one who
Speaker 1: quote wore the pants in that family. She was the boss.
Speaker 1: But once again, everything led to certainly Rachel of being
Speaker 1: part of this, you were actually face to face with
Speaker 1: Rachel on Dr Phil's stage for a national television audience.
Speaker 1: They were young, in love and living the American dream
Speaker 1: of being actors in California. Rachel's claim to fame was
Speaker 1: playing Princess Ariel at Disneyland. Dan was well known in
Speaker 1: the local Orange County theater scene. They were in the
Speaker 1: prime of their lives, engaged to be married, and just
Speaker 1: a week away from their beach side wedding. That is
Speaker 1: until the cops called it off. I'm December two thousand twelve.
Speaker 1: I got a call from Dr Phil Studios saying that
Speaker 1: they wanted to do a show on this and I said, no,
Speaker 1: I don't want to get involved. And they had told
Speaker 1: me what Rachel Buffett is going on there, basically to
Speaker 1: profess her innocence, so I said, sign me up. Two
Speaker 1: days later we had a pre interview, and then three
Speaker 1: days after that, the following Wednesday, we taped the show.
Speaker 1: Because of how much these people are hurting and they
Speaker 1: think that I had anything to do with that, It's
Speaker 1: bringing up a lot of pain for me. And if
Speaker 1: I had not gone on that show, they would have
Speaker 1: had a show with her who was going to benefit
Speaker 1: from this except for Rachel. I'm finding out random different lies.
Speaker 1: Jobs that he never had, people that he talked to
Speaker 1: on the telephone, that never existed, a condo that he
Speaker 1: never owned, over John Bank accounts. I'm starting to question
Speaker 1: if I've ever known him. I absolutely feel like I
Speaker 1: was stupid by Dan. So of course Rachel goes on
Speaker 1: and I'm in the they keep me in the green
Speaker 1: room there and I'm watching, and she's saying, well, I
Speaker 1: didn't know Dan. I didn't know he was like this.
Speaker 1: I didn't know he was like that. She did know
Speaker 1: certain things, she knew the financial It wasn't what she
Speaker 1: was saying on Dr Phil was it wasn't the truth.
Speaker 1: And then I did have the opportunity to confront her,
Speaker 1: if you're so innocent, reputations whatever, it's hard on your business.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but my son is dead. My son and
Speaker 1: his friend, his tutor, is the part. They're both dead.
Speaker 1: He was cut up into pieces. And you to come
Speaker 1: on here and go on the TV stations. Poor me.
Speaker 1: That offends me. That offends me. And album was leave
Speaker 1: it at that, and Dr Phil also confronts Rachel on
Speaker 1: some of her inconsistencies. Well, what I want to do
Speaker 1: is give you, Rachel, the opportunity to tell your side
Speaker 1: of this story. According to the d A, Rachel described
Speaker 1: a third party who came with Sam on the night
Speaker 1: they picked up Dan. Now, according to police, Dan admitted
Speaker 1: fabricating this third party. And it's my understanding that you
Speaker 1: didn't say you inferred that there was a third party,
Speaker 1: but that you told the authorities that you saw a
Speaker 1: third party. Is that not correct. I don't recall telling
Speaker 1: that specifically to them. She said, I saw Sam, saw
Speaker 1: Sam coming down with another person on the day Sam
Speaker 1: was murdered, and he had a black hat, and he
Speaker 1: had a black hat. And then so that was something
Speaker 1: that police say, oh, that's the story that Dan came
Speaker 1: up with. But then he recanted that story when we
Speaker 1: eventually got him to confess, and he told us that
Speaker 1: was a made up person. And so one of the
Speaker 1: charges is that she said that to police. And the
Speaker 1: reason how she described that story on Dr Phil was
Speaker 1: because of this coffee pot story. You have a wife, right,
Speaker 1: I do, a beautiful wife. Thank you. If your wife
Speaker 1: told you that she had just made a cop or
Speaker 1: a pot of coffee and it was in the kitchen
Speaker 1: and then you didn't see it. But later on somehow
Speaker 1: it became really important whether or not it was there,
Speaker 1: and a cop to um, what was in your kitchen
Speaker 1: and say, oh, Spahila fork and a pot of coffee.
Speaker 1: I trusted him, and I trusted that what he said
Speaker 1: was true, and especially before I thought it really mattered,
Speaker 1: I didn't question it. And then later on in question
Speaker 1: when the police asked me, well, did you as actually
Speaker 1: see him, and I said, well, no, no, I didn't.
Speaker 1: That sounded like a really rehearsed and coached response. She
Speaker 1: told the police that the man at the black hat
Speaker 1: did not live at the apartments, she didn't recognize him. Well,
Speaker 1: if you say somebody doesn't live at the apartments and
Speaker 1: you can't recognize him, implies that you saw him. You
Speaker 1: don't hear from anybody, It implies that you saw this person.
Speaker 1: That's not right, Lie. I think that's a really important point.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the weaknesses of that, which is that, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: normally there's a recording camera on the body of the
Speaker 1: Coasta Mesa police wherever they go, and in this case
Speaker 1: there was no recording. The other thing that unfortunately might
Speaker 1: be considered a problem is that when you look at
Speaker 1: the police report, the date that the police report was
Speaker 1: in fact completed and written up was a year later
Speaker 1: after this incident. So because there's such a leg and time,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that it does lead people to have
Speaker 1: some reasonable doubt. The facts are the facts. If they're
Speaker 1: handed out the next day or they're handed out a
Speaker 1: year from that date, the facts state. The way I
Speaker 1: look at is she lied and she's being charged with
Speaker 1: that lie. The other basis for her felony charge is
Speaker 1: that she lied about Sam telling her before he left
Speaker 1: with Dan that Friday, that Faithful Friday when he was murdered,
Speaker 1: when he he was leaving cam Den Martinique with Dan,
Speaker 1: because Dan asked him to go help move some furniture
Speaker 1: in the attic of a theater up on the low
Speaker 1: Selimentist military base, and she said that when Sam came
Speaker 1: down to leave with Dan, he kind of pulled her
Speaker 1: aside on on their deck and said, I'm having some
Speaker 1: issues because she said she saw him and he seemed
Speaker 1: forlorn and a little despondent, and he explained it by
Speaker 1: saying that he had these family issues. Here's what happened.
Speaker 1: Dan ro Nack was one of the ways we helped
Speaker 1: catch Dan was when I spoke to Dan and Dan
Speaker 1: told me. This was a few days after I found
Speaker 1: the body. He said, Sam seemed nervous that day and
Speaker 1: I said, what do you mean. He said, well, he
Speaker 1: said he was having some issues, women issues, and he
Speaker 1: and Dan wose Nick told me Sam said he had
Speaker 1: family problems. That was the red flag that told me
Speaker 1: Dan Mosnack was part of something I didn't know at
Speaker 1: the time Sam was dead, and so I knew Dan
Speaker 1: mos Nack was lying because Sam and I are best friends.
Speaker 1: We shared so much together. My goodness he has That's
Speaker 1: how they identified his body. He had a huge heart
Speaker 1: with a rose on his chest that said mom and dad.
Speaker 1: So when Dan wood Nac told me Sam told him
Speaker 1: that he had family problems, I knew Wosnack was lying.
Speaker 1: When Rachel goes on and tells the police, Sam told
Speaker 1: her that he had family problems. I absolutely knew Rachel
Speaker 1: Buffett was lying because there were no problems. She got
Speaker 1: that because Dan and her concocted up that story, and
Speaker 1: that puts her right in the mix. And Steve confronts
Speaker 1: Rachel on another falsehood for Dr Phil's audience. Rachel had
Speaker 1: mentioned that Sam confide in her well alluded to the
Speaker 1: fact that Sam was having family troubles. Anybody who knows
Speaker 1: Sam knows there we absolutely no family troubles. Dan said
Speaker 1: the same thing in his alibies, that's that Sam was
Speaker 1: having family problems. Sam wouldn't tell you anything on family
Speaker 1: problems here because there were none. So your story absolutely
Speaker 1: coincides with your ex fiancee's dance, which, as we know
Speaker 1: now we're fabricated. Explain that it could be something as
Speaker 1: simple as he was having girl problems and just didn't
Speaker 1: want to tell anything. I'm talking about girl problems and
Speaker 1: talking about family problems. I don't know why I would
Speaker 1: have said it. She's still trying to back down up,
Speaker 1: she's still going with it. She's still going with it,
Speaker 1: and she's going with something that never existed. She lied
Speaker 1: about the man in the black hat, she lied about
Speaker 1: the relationship that we had Sammy and myself and Raquel had,
Speaker 1: and she also lied about other things. Do you believe
Speaker 1: she belongs in prison? Yes, you're lying and you're covering
Speaker 1: it up. So now that we're focusing in on these
Speaker 1: felonies in Rachel's case, she's been charged with accessory after
Speaker 1: the fact, which implies that she covered up the crime
Speaker 1: but didn't participate in the planning of the crime. What
Speaker 1: is the maximum time she faces if convicted. I was
Speaker 1: told the maximum time. There's different levels of felony after
Speaker 1: the fact. The maximum time Rachel will get is three
Speaker 1: years in prison. That's the maxim California. In other states
Speaker 1: is ten years. Some stage is thirteen years, but in
Speaker 1: California it's three years. So our whole point here is
Speaker 1: it is both of our beliefs that those charges should
Speaker 1: have been accomplished charges or in fact murder charges. That's
Speaker 1: that's how we feel, based on the knowledge that we've
Speaker 1: accumulated all over these years. But the d A just
Speaker 1: felt it wasn't enough. It was a circumstantial at best,
Speaker 1: and he felt strongly that he had a better case
Speaker 1: for accessory. It's not what you and I believe, it's
Speaker 1: what the coast of Masa police believed as well. And
Speaker 1: if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.
Speaker 1: And so that leads us to the third and final charge,
Speaker 1: which in my mind, it's the strongest charge that the
Speaker 1: DA has against Rachel Buffett, and that charge involves a
Speaker 1: gentleman by the name of Chris Williams, and he was
Speaker 1: the person that they had met through the Nine Cast.
Speaker 1: He was very friendly with one of their fellow cast members,
Speaker 1: and within weeks of knowing him, Daniel asked him for money,
Speaker 1: which he often asked many people for money because they
Speaker 1: were being evicted and Chris was willing to give them
Speaker 1: some money. He felt that it was a good gesture
Speaker 1: to pay it forward after all of these fellow Thesbians
Speaker 1: had come up with a charity concert for him, because
Speaker 1: he had some upcoming surgeries and and he had quite
Speaker 1: a bit of money that came from that concert. So
Speaker 1: he offered to loan Dan and Rachel the money, but
Speaker 1: he wanted it back within a very finite period of
Speaker 1: time because he didn't know them very long and he
Speaker 1: was worried about getting his money back. So Chris told
Speaker 1: Dana's story. By the way, Dan told Chris he was
Speaker 1: a fellow Paison, which he was not. So he told
Speaker 1: Dan that there were these loan sharks that he got
Speaker 1: the money from, and if he didn't get that money
Speaker 1: back by Friday, they were going to come after him.
Speaker 1: Chris Williams, and that was a big concern, so Dan
Speaker 1: new Friday was the deadline, and with that, Chris Williams
Speaker 1: shows up at their apartment wanting his money back, and
Speaker 1: Dan said he was going to try to get some
Speaker 1: of it back, and Chris saw Dan leave with your son.
Speaker 1: When Dan came back alone, he handed Chris the money,
Speaker 1: and Chris offered to give them a twenty because they
Speaker 1: had no food money, and so he did that, and
Speaker 1: he said he soon wanted to leave there because the
Speaker 1: stress was so high between the two of them, and
Speaker 1: there was obviously a very negative energy going on there.
Speaker 1: And the reason why I think this charge for accessory
Speaker 1: is the strongest. When she was questioned by police, she
Speaker 1: told them that Dan most likely gave the money back
Speaker 1: to Sam or one of the loan sharks outside of
Speaker 1: the apartment. So she completely lied because she was there
Speaker 1: present when she saw Dan give Chris the money directly,
Speaker 1: That to me not only is the strongest charge, but
Speaker 1: quite frankly for me, that says to me that she
Speaker 1: is an accomplice and was very much part of the
Speaker 1: planning of the murders, because for her to say that
Speaker 1: she had to have known Sam was dead. I'm in
Speaker 1: agreement with you regarding this is the strongest charge. Rachel
Speaker 1: Buffett on Friday saw it. Dan mos Nack give Chris
Speaker 1: Williams four hundred dollars he had just murdered. Sam comes
Speaker 1: back and says, here, Chris, here's money, and there's four
Speaker 1: and according to the records, Chris says, here's twenty dollars.
Speaker 1: Hold on and Chris gives him the money and then
Speaker 1: he takes off, and half an hour later he gets
Speaker 1: a call from Rachel and says, by the way, you
Speaker 1: dropped twenty dollars, why don't you come and pick it up?
Speaker 1: And essentially that's what I've heard that's on Friday, that
Speaker 1: every bone in his body told him not to go
Speaker 1: back there, that he said something was wrong because she
Speaker 1: saw me hand them with twenty. I didn't drop a twenty.
Speaker 1: I handed it to them for food. And he said her,
Speaker 1: do you want me to come back because of the
Speaker 1: money issue? And she said no, it's something else. I
Speaker 1: believe she was trying to lure him back, as do police,
Speaker 1: because she realized he was the only one that saw
Speaker 1: Dan leave with Sam. But that was just another indication
Speaker 1: to me that revealed that a she's capable of luring
Speaker 1: people and be She could have very easily been part
Speaker 1: of the plan if she was willing to make that call.
Speaker 1: Why else would she put the blame on Sam? Say, oh,
Speaker 1: Dan could have given the money to Sam, because it
Speaker 1: falls in line with their whole story. They wanted Sam
Speaker 1: to be the man on the run. He had it
Speaker 1: out with Julie and there was some kind of love triangle.
Speaker 1: He kills Julie, he's on the run. He had this
Speaker 1: pass that once he was charged with murder, he's the
Speaker 1: perfect candidate for our new tail, are you know our
Speaker 1: new play? The night they arrested Dan for bank fraud
Speaker 1: because they still thought your son was the prime target, right,
Speaker 1: They couldn't find him, so they brought Dan and thinking
Speaker 1: he was hiding Sam or helping Sam. So he was
Speaker 1: at that point just being charged with bank fraud. That's
Speaker 1: the same early morning when you know she's being walked
Speaker 1: to the car after they brought her in for questioning
Speaker 1: and she said, oh, by the way, Detective morale Us,
Speaker 1: did you look into Sam's past. It's all part of
Speaker 1: this story, this narrative that they came up with well
Speaker 1: before the murders. Why Sam was going to be their
Speaker 1: target I'll leave it at that. We certainly know that
Speaker 1: Dan was luring Julie to Sam's apartment on Sam's phone.
Speaker 1: Sam's phone was more archaic, a flip phone, where Dan's
Speaker 1: was a more state of the art phone. Not only
Speaker 1: that he was luring Julie after he spoke to Rachel,
Speaker 1: after he came home and he came with Rachel. Prior
Speaker 1: to that, Dan was texting with Julie. He was posing
Speaker 1: as Sam, but it was light bantering, has nothing to
Speaker 1: do about luring. Until after he came out. It went
Speaker 1: from just like you say, friendly banter. How are you doing,
Speaker 1: what's going on? What's your day? Like blah blah blah too?
Speaker 1: Where are you going to be? When can you be?
Speaker 1: When can you meet me? I'm in trouble, I'm in pain,
Speaker 1: I'm suffering. I need to talk to someone, no sex.
Speaker 1: When can I meet with you? That the intensity shifted
Speaker 1: as soon as he came home, brought that money to Chris,
Speaker 1: and then was with Rachel. It's what police believe instigated
Speaker 1: the murder of Julie because they surmised that Rachel saw
Speaker 1: the text that Dan sent to Julie as Sam, where
Speaker 1: he said I'm with my neighbor Dan, we're moving furniture
Speaker 1: in the theater, So at that point police feel that
Speaker 1: Rachel felt it was time to do something about Julie
Speaker 1: because he put himself as the last person with Sam.
Speaker 1: One of my interviews in this case was with a
Speaker 1: gentleman named Dave Barnhard, who was very close with Dan
Speaker 1: and Rachel at the time of the murders, and he
Speaker 1: shared with me that he in fact had a budding
Speaker 1: relationship with Julie Cabuishi, and that they had actually consummated
Speaker 1: that relationship just two nights before the murders. Back in
Speaker 1: and I was told by several people that Rachel also
Speaker 1: had interests in Dave, would actually play with him and
Speaker 1: tease him, and and that she knew that Dave had
Speaker 1: a serious crush on her. Whether or not that relationship
Speaker 1: was a consummated or not is still something I haven't
Speaker 1: been able to firmly verify. While Dave Barnhard did say
Speaker 1: to me that he did not consummate that relationship with Rachel,
Speaker 1: he confessed to a mutual friend, Ruben Manacho, that he
Speaker 1: did have an affair with her. I felt it was
Speaker 1: important to share that with Detective Michael Cohen, who was
Speaker 1: one of the lead detectives on the Wozniak murder case,
Speaker 1: because I wondered if maybe jealousy was a factor in
Speaker 1: Julie's murder given what was written on the back of
Speaker 1: her sweater, and he time, you have a jealousy factor
Speaker 1: when in the case with Rachel, she always thought that
Speaker 1: she would control men with her feminine wiles and that
Speaker 1: she was sort of the focus of any man's attention.
Speaker 1: And to find out that potentially she might not be
Speaker 1: the only girl that Dave Barnhard was was entangled with,
Speaker 1: makes you kind of wonder if there was some form
Speaker 1: of jealousy, because that has an element of rage to it,
Speaker 1: if that would ever play into the idea of what
Speaker 1: was written on the back of of julie sweater all
Speaker 1: yours fuck you. Um. Is that a possibility, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean it's a possibility of Rachel's you know, piste off
Speaker 1: and as a an anger towards Julie. And this was
Speaker 1: a good way uh in her and Daniel Kosniac's master
Speaker 1: plan that you know, he needs money, she needs money. Uh.
Speaker 1: They get rid of Sam and they get rid of Julie,
Speaker 1: so that takes care of her and Uh, it's a possibility, absolutely,
Speaker 1: I believe it could be. And for them she was
Speaker 1: just like a prop in one of their plays. Another
Speaker 1: telling Rachel's story involves Violet Randolph, who was married to
Speaker 1: John Randolph at the time. They as a couple were
Speaker 1: very close with Dan and Rachel. Of all the people
Speaker 1: that came to Martinique, and when you had found Julie's
Speaker 1: body in your son's apartment that Saturday night, that weekend
Speaker 1: of the murders, I believe they all got together, right.
Speaker 1: They had called Dan and Rachel back from a cast
Speaker 1: party and they all got together to basically discuss who
Speaker 1: has seen Sam last, where was he, who was he with?
Speaker 1: And Dan was changing stories in that meeting. He he
Speaker 1: was really inconsistent, and at one point they kind of
Speaker 1: broke off and went back to the Randolph's apartment and
Speaker 1: that's when Rachel said to Dan, your stories are changing
Speaker 1: and it's messing up my story something along that line.
Speaker 1: That's what the Randolphs told me, And remember talking with
Speaker 1: you about that. And it was told in kind of
Speaker 1: a little bit stronger language that Rachel was telling Dan,
Speaker 1: you're screwing put the other expletive there up my story, Dan,
Speaker 1: be quiet. But you had mentioned that Dan and Rachel
Speaker 1: had gone over Jake and Dave's apartment when they were
Speaker 1: called in because they were talking about who was found
Speaker 1: in Sam's apartment. And that's when Dan was telling the
Speaker 1: guys he was changing the story there about what this
Speaker 1: guy looked like, about this man was in a black hat?
Speaker 1: Was he in a white hat? What was he? Was
Speaker 1: not there? Not Reuben was not there that night. It
Speaker 1: was Jake, I believe, a couple of randolph And what
Speaker 1: I had heard they had told me was Rachel said,
Speaker 1: we gotta get out of here, we gotta go, and
Speaker 1: they abruptly left, and Ashley was there. Ashley was there,
Speaker 1: and she she and the Randolph's told me that when
Speaker 1: Dan was messing up his stories, Rachel said, we have
Speaker 1: to get out of here, and she pulled him out
Speaker 1: of the meeting and and so we've got to go,
Speaker 1: We've got to go. Like she was panicking because she
Speaker 1: could hear his right And then when she went back
Speaker 1: with just the Randolph's, that's when she said, you're effing
Speaker 1: up my story. Dan, You've got to stop her story. Yeah, right,
Speaker 1: So that that's that's pretty big. Once again It just
Speaker 1: solidifies my belief, and I'm sure others believe that she's
Speaker 1: much more involved, and I share with Detective Cohen another
Speaker 1: noteworthy story involving Violet and Rachel. I just wanted to
Speaker 1: say when you were talking about the call between Dan
Speaker 1: and Rachel while he was in jail, and she's telling
Speaker 1: Dan that you know, she ran into Tim and he's
Speaker 1: got this evidence, and he's like, no, baby, no, baby,
Speaker 1: you can't show that. You can't do that. I'm dead
Speaker 1: if you do that, and she's like, I have to
Speaker 1: because I'm on a recorded call and I have to
Speaker 1: look like I'm cooperating. I wanted to mention to you
Speaker 1: that I've spent quite a bit of time with a
Speaker 1: woman by the name of Violet Randolph who happened to
Speaker 1: be in the car sitting next to her when that
Speaker 1: phone call was taking place. And the reason why she
Speaker 1: was saying that on the phone to Dan was because
Speaker 1: Violet had threatened her and said, I am calling Jose Morales,
Speaker 1: Detective Morales right now if you don't tell the police
Speaker 1: about this evidence before it gets destroyed by Tim, because
Speaker 1: she was saying, I don't want to do it, I
Speaker 1: don't want to tell them. So, I don't know if
Speaker 1: you know that or not, but I thought it was important. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I do recall now that, yes, she was kind of
Speaker 1: forced to do it because of Violet. Yet, during Dan
Speaker 1: Bosniak's trial, Prosecutor Matt Murphy told yours that the cornucopia
Speaker 1: of evidence, as he put it, was a gift from
Speaker 1: Rachel Buffett, but it was actually Violet Randolph who was
Speaker 1: going to make sure that the authorities knew about this
Speaker 1: grab bag of evidence. And one of the questions I
Speaker 1: asked Detective Morales, who was one of the lead detectives
Speaker 1: in this case, what would have made the difference between
Speaker 1: charging Rachel with accessory after the fact versus an accomplice.
Speaker 1: He said that they would have had to have proven
Speaker 1: that she was part of the planning and that, for instance,
Speaker 1: she staked out the locations. Well, that's indeed what she did.
Speaker 1: We have eyewitness testimony that shows puts Rachel and Dan
Speaker 1: at the Liberty Theater, which was the scene of the
Speaker 1: crime of the murder of your son. Puts them both
Speaker 1: at the Liberty Theater two nights before the murder. And
Speaker 1: I also spoke to the ranger of El Dorado Park.
Speaker 1: I had gone there two months after the murder, and
Speaker 1: he said that this couple and he identified Dan, had
Speaker 1: stopped at that park prior to the murders as well,
Speaker 1: and that is where Dan told cost to Masa police
Speaker 1: that he spread your son's body parts after leaving the
Speaker 1: Liberty Attic theater where he had dismembered his body. And
Speaker 1: I and I have three witnesses that saw her at
Speaker 1: the theater. There was no reason for them to be
Speaker 1: at the theater. One of those witnesses, Stuart McDougall, told
Speaker 1: me that they were rehearsing a show that night for
Speaker 1: Rachel and Dan to show up at the theater that night,
Speaker 1: that Wednesday night before the murders. Was there a specific
Speaker 1: reason for them to be there or was it a
Speaker 1: shock to everybody? I was shocked, surprise to everyone. There's
Speaker 1: no there's no reason for them to actually be them. No,
Speaker 1: they just combed up down, but combed up, you know,
Speaker 1: And but that's we hadn't seen him for a while
Speaker 1: and they just thumbed up. Do you suspect that there
Speaker 1: were drugs involved? But how I would definitely suspect about
Speaker 1: She was a nervous nelly. I'm not kidding she was.
Speaker 1: She looked strung up. Jeez, you know, hope the hell
Speaker 1: was going on? Not Nate, you know, because and again
Speaker 1: I just put it Day didn't know. I just thought
Speaker 1: she was at my head. And then I just done
Speaker 1: and asked him you, okay, yeah, I'm fair on fair pay,
Speaker 1: and they just brushed off of it. On Steve, let's
Speaker 1: talk about your meeting with Dan one on one, three
Speaker 1: separate visits while he was sitting in County jail waiting
Speaker 1: for his trial to start. You actually made an effort
Speaker 1: to meet with him, and he agreed to meet with you.
Speaker 1: I had absolutely nothing to lose, so I decided one day,
Speaker 1: let me go to the jail. We spoke for a
Speaker 1: total of almost six hours. During that time, he admitted it.
Speaker 1: He apologized eyes. He had told me that actually he
Speaker 1: had planned to uh. Initially he had planned to kill
Speaker 1: his parents, but he backed out from that. And then,
Speaker 1: of course, in a very he wrote it, okay, he
Speaker 1: said Sam, and Sam was not my first target. Was
Speaker 1: not initially my first target. And they said, what do
Speaker 1: you mean? And he didn't want to say it, so
Speaker 1: he wrote he carried a bible with him with a
Speaker 1: little golf pencil, and he wrote in the Bible my
Speaker 1: parents mean His parents were initially his first target, and
Speaker 1: Dan confesses the same to Rachel during one of their
Speaker 1: jailhouse calls. So they leave your family, then crazy. That's
Speaker 1: why you left them, because you're crazy, because they hate compromications,
Speaker 1: because they required too much out of mean and I
Speaker 1: couldn't deliver. And the main reason that I left them
Speaker 1: is I almost reached the point where I almost killed them.
Speaker 1: Did you almost reach the point where he killed me? No? Never,
Speaker 1: I promise you were my only light personally, I would
Speaker 1: have chosen that then Sam which still and Julie would
Speaker 1: still be alive. But he also spoke about other things.
Speaker 1: He spoke about Wesley, that he spoke about the plan.
Speaker 1: He told me certain things, not much about Rachel, but
Speaker 1: he had mentioned a few things about his brother Tim,
Speaker 1: which I believe you'll want to discuss in the later episodes.
Speaker 1: But once again, I wanted to go there and uh
Speaker 1: find out as much information as I could, because, like
Speaker 1: I have said, he was the only one who was
Speaker 1: going to give me the direct information, and I knew
Speaker 1: it was lies, but not all of them are lies.
Speaker 1: What I found out during my course of my investigations
Speaker 1: Sam's friends from the Camdens and what have you. Is
Speaker 1: that certain times Dan would tell the truth, certain times
Speaker 1: he would lie. Those lies would be when it would
Speaker 1: benefit him. He told me when Wesley would take money
Speaker 1: out from the A t M s. That's the young
Speaker 1: lad who took who had Sam's credit card. He told
Speaker 1: me he solicited for his help in his scheme. He
Speaker 1: he sent Wesley on the mission to go in like
Speaker 1: a hat and classes to camouflage his identity, but go
Speaker 1: to the A t M physically to get the money.
Speaker 1: He told me things like he told his brother not
Speaker 1: to look in the backpack, but his brother not only
Speaker 1: did that, but he took the money, the foreign money
Speaker 1: that was in Sam's He had mentioned it to me,
Speaker 1: so Dan was told also used Sam's card to try
Speaker 1: to get cass right. Well, I also found out that Tim,
Speaker 1: his brother, not only went into the backpack and took
Speaker 1: the foreign money which was actually worthless, but Tim actually
Speaker 1: went in and got Sam's A t M card and
Speaker 1: tries to use it to fill up his gas tank.
Speaker 1: This is from a person who said, meaning Tim his brother,
Speaker 1: who told me that he uh, he didn't even go
Speaker 1: into the backpack, so lying tends to run into wols
Speaker 1: Nack family regardless. So I did speak to him. There
Speaker 1: are those times, and I was getting certain answers. He
Speaker 1: said he was upset with Wesley. He was upset, not
Speaker 1: what he was upset with Wesley. This is what Dan
Speaker 1: told me. He said he got piste off at Wesley
Speaker 1: for using Sam's car, driving Sam's car around. But it
Speaker 1: bothered me in the sense that is Wesley not as
Speaker 1: innocent as he as he comes across. And then also
Speaker 1: that Dan gave him money to let him have money
Speaker 1: for drugs and things like that. I don't know how
Speaker 1: that played out, but I do know this. Dan told
Speaker 1: me certain things. Some of them proved out to be
Speaker 1: true and some of them was just out now bs.
Speaker 1: And Wesley did admit to me because I kept asking him,
Speaker 1: I don't understand what did you do it for? I mean,
Speaker 1: I understand you trusted Dan and he was like an
Speaker 1: older brother to you, and but why did you do it?
Speaker 1: You knew, I mean clearly you knew what you were
Speaker 1: doing was not on the up and up. And he
Speaker 1: did admit that one of those days he took out
Speaker 1: an extra four hundred for himself and he told me that, so, uh,
Speaker 1: that was clear. On the Saturday, he told Danny couldn't
Speaker 1: do what he did do it on that Saturday, so
Speaker 1: he did take an extra There you go, there you go.
Speaker 1: But funny it's and I just wished the police had
Speaker 1: done a little bit something towards Wesley the kid got
Speaker 1: off scott Ford. Do you feel when you had those
Speaker 1: conversations with Dan did you get the sense because so
Speaker 1: many people kept asking why is he protecting her? Why
Speaker 1: is he not coming forward and and and exposing her
Speaker 1: role in all of this. I mean even that jail
Speaker 1: house snitched that spoke to Dan. You know that for
Speaker 1: a Fernando Perez says in the letter that Dan told
Speaker 1: him that Rachel knew, and she said, go make us happy,
Speaker 1: Go do whatever you have to do. When he discussed
Speaker 1: the plan of killing Sam. Nobody could understand why Dan
Speaker 1: was protecting her. But to me answer, I would love
Speaker 1: for you to answer. The reason why Dan didn't snitch
Speaker 1: quote on Rachel is because if he snitches on Rachel,
Speaker 1: they will expose Tim. That's what I believe too. In fact,
Speaker 1: him said to me, if Rachel comes forward and says anything,
Speaker 1: that if he has to go down, so will she.
Speaker 1: I mean, he has said that he's pulled the wool
Speaker 1: over everyone's eyes, that he that he was able to
Speaker 1: dupe the FBI and the police, and oh that d a.
Speaker 1: What a great guy he is. I know I've gone
Speaker 1: to the police to push this and check on Tim
Speaker 1: and pushed it for him to be charged with more.
Speaker 1: But it falls on deaf ears with that case for
Speaker 1: the coast of Masa police end of the a's office.
Speaker 1: Tim's done. Tim has done, and now they're focusing on Rachel. Well,
Speaker 1: they made a deal with him. I mean they made
Speaker 1: a deal with him because they wanted to make sure
Speaker 1: their capital case was going to be one and they
Speaker 1: were worried that the defense attorney was going to talk
Speaker 1: about some kind of mental instability in his background. But
Speaker 1: a deal is premised on the fact that that person
Speaker 1: tells you the whole truth and that and Tim Mosenick
Speaker 1: did not tell them the whole truth. He lied often frequently,
Speaker 1: and for that that negates any deal. He was awful.
Speaker 1: I was in court that day. I was in court
Speaker 1: every day along with you, but that day I remember
Speaker 1: just he was babbling all over the place and nothing
Speaker 1: made sense, and he was inconsistent every other word out
Speaker 1: of his mouth, and he told me later that he
Speaker 1: specifically drank a fifth of jack. He wanted to come
Speaker 1: in there trash, so that he was the most ineffective
Speaker 1: witness they ever saw. And even with that, he still
Speaker 1: got away with everything because it worked. It worked, And
Speaker 1: I have been in the room when I've heard Matt
Speaker 1: Murphy characterized Tim Wozniak as just a hapless fool who
Speaker 1: was another Daniel Wasniak victim like Sam Hair and Julie Kis.
Speaker 1: There are so many questions that's still are unanswered, and
Speaker 1: I'd still like to know eventually why. That's all. I've
Speaker 1: heard you say that in many ways, my investigation picked
Speaker 1: up where yours left off, and that it re energized
Speaker 1: your desire as we together collaborated to find out the
Speaker 1: whole truth. But really the most important thing for me, Steve,
Speaker 1: is that you and your wife and the Kibuishi's learned
Speaker 1: the entire picture, so you all know what happened to
Speaker 1: your loved ones. And I do want to say, first
Speaker 1: of all, thank you, Linda, and let me explain my
Speaker 1: Once I saw that the police trusted you and you
Speaker 1: were able to see certain things, and once we started collaborating,
Speaker 1: I found out what true investigative reporting is. I had
Speaker 1: done episodes for Dateline, being a novice who never had
Speaker 1: exposure TV before, I assumed there they had investigative reporters
Speaker 1: who would find out everything, and unfortunately, everything they did
Speaker 1: they got from the transcripts. There was really no investigations
Speaker 1: per se. And you can give a lesson to every
Speaker 1: one of those shows what true investigative reporting is. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, Linda, Thank you so much, Steve, and
Speaker 1: I will continue to ask questions until the whole truth
Speaker 1: about this case can be told. I know Detective Michael
Speaker 1: Cohen yearns for the same answers. Cases can be looked
Speaker 1: at again. And there are others. There are others involved
Speaker 1: in this, absolutely absolutely. You know. There's no statue in
Speaker 1: homisid it. So you know, even though we have one
Speaker 1: guy in prison right now on death row, there's still
Speaker 1: plenty more room for others to follow. You have often
Speaker 1: said to me, Steve, that Dan Wozniak took away your
Speaker 1: best friend, he took away my hand, a large part
Speaker 1: of my life, Okay, and they can't put him to
Speaker 1: death fast enough for me. But let's find out about Rachel.
Speaker 1: Next week, tune in for an exclusive interview with Dan
Speaker 1: Wasniat defense attorney Scott Sanders. He will reveal some of
Speaker 1: his earlier frustrations during the Wazniak trial, and one of
Speaker 1: those frustrations involves his inability to introduce Sam Hair's dark
Speaker 1: past when he himself was charged with murder. Scott Sanders
Speaker 1: will take us through his legal predictions of Rachel's upcoming
Speaker 1: trial proceedings. Hear what we might expect from the courtroom
Speaker 1: drama between prosecutor Matt Murphy and Rachel Buffett's defense attorney,
Speaker 1: David Medina. If you enjoyed this episode of Sleuth, share
Speaker 1: it with a friend and be sure to leave a
Speaker 1: rating or review. Follow Sleuth on I Heart Radio, or
Speaker 1: subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts so that you never
Speaker 1: miss an episode