Speaker 1: Every so often in the course of our show, we
Speaker 1: have been able to make certain observations and predictions. Tonight's
Speaker 1: classic episode is about one of those observations and predictions.
Speaker 1: On the heels of our unfortunately ongoing series examining serial
Speaker 1: Killers on the Loose, we looked into the long delayed identification, arrest,
Speaker 1: and conviction of a killer known as the Golden State
Speaker 1: Killer or the original night Stalker.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, because this guy, James DiAngelo. He's only the
Speaker 2: first of a huge group of serial killers and other
Speaker 2: criminals who have been caught through the use of this
Speaker 2: type of DNA sequencing, you know, going through a family
Speaker 2: tree and finding out a relative. We're going to get
Speaker 2: into the episode. It's fascinating stuff, So let's jump right in.
Speaker 1: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. Is riddled
Speaker 1: with unexplained events. You can turn back now or learn
Speaker 1: this stuff they don't want you to know.
Speaker 2: Hello, welcome back to the show. My name is Matt,
Speaker 2: my name is Nolan.
Speaker 1: They call me Ben. We are joined with our super
Speaker 1: producer Paul Michig controlled Decan. But most importantly, you are you.
Speaker 1: You are here, and that makes this stuff they don't
Speaker 1: want you to know this episode is going to be
Speaker 1: an update on something. It's an update that we hoped
Speaker 1: but never truly thought we would ever have the chance
Speaker 1: to do. This is very much a what a what
Speaker 1: a time to be alive sort of show. You may
Speaker 1: recall longtime listeners that a while back, when.
Speaker 2: Was it Matt May twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: May twenty sixteen, we did an episode on what is
Speaker 1: known as the original night Stalker or the Golden State Killer,
Speaker 1: And in this episode we looked at the current research
Speaker 1: and investigation into those at the time unsolved crimes, the
Speaker 1: various theories, the various leads that were taken up and
Speaker 1: later rejected by law enforcement and armchair investigators on specialized
Speaker 1: crime forums on Reddit, all over the internet, and including
Speaker 1: some of the authors who made it their life's work
Speaker 1: to hunt down this killer. Today, however, we're telling a
Speaker 1: very different story. Today. We are making it official. After
Speaker 1: decades of dead ends, tantalizing theories, and frustrating leads, justice
Speaker 1: may have finally caught up with the Golden State Killer.
Speaker 1: Before you listen to this episode, if you would like
Speaker 1: a deep dive into the crimes and the past investigation
Speaker 1: of the crimes of the Golden State Killer, or East
Speaker 1: Area Rapist as they were also known. Do check out
Speaker 1: our episode from May twenty sixteen. We'll wait.
Speaker 2: Oh man, that was a good one, wasn't it?
Speaker 3: Kind of a bummer? Really?
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it was a fact filled episode and lots
Speaker 2: of lots of avenues to investigate, but.
Speaker 3: We get a happy ending here was what this amounts to, right.
Speaker 1: Of sorts. Yeah, there's definitely a light at the tunnel,
Speaker 1: at the end of the tunnel.
Speaker 3: That's a better turner phrase.
Speaker 1: We'll see, we'll see, we'll see. We hope we as
Speaker 1: a society make it to the light. Quick background for
Speaker 1: everybody who just sat quietly the way the three of
Speaker 1: us did in the studio while your fellow listeners were
Speaker 1: checking out that episode. From at least nineteen seventy four
Speaker 1: to nineteen eighty six, California was plagued by a serial
Speaker 1: break in artist, a burglar, later a rapist, and then
Speaker 1: finally a murderer who is known by several different names
Speaker 1: and was believed to be several different people for a time,
Speaker 1: the Visalia Ransacker, the Diamond Not Killer, the Golden State Killer,
Speaker 1: the East Area Rapist, and also the original Nightstalker, nowadays
Speaker 1: more often referred to as the Golden State Killer.
Speaker 2: I believe yeah, because the Golden State Killer encompasses all
Speaker 2: of these different crime sprees.
Speaker 1: And eventually, in the course of their investigation, law enforcement
Speaker 1: and independent investigators began to connect the dots and they said,
Speaker 1: we believe this is all the work of a single individual.
Speaker 1: So not copycatters, not a group operating in concert, although
Speaker 1: we do have a bit of a rabbit hole about that,
Speaker 1: but a single man, a man who might never be
Speaker 1: apprehended until that is on April twenty fifth, twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: when authorities announced the arrest of a suspect named Joseph
Speaker 1: James DeAngelo ju a seventy two year old retired police officer.
Speaker 1: He was rested on eight counts of first degree murder
Speaker 1: based on DNA evidence, and more than forty years since
Speaker 1: his criminal career began, the original Knightstalker would finally maybe
Speaker 1: be held accountable. This is the accumulation of countless of
Speaker 1: hours of police work, contributions, and analysis by thousands and
Speaker 1: thousands of people, several of whom are doubtlessly listening to
Speaker 1: this podcast today, and in a very real sense, a
Speaker 1: lucky break. So what happens. Can we look back over
Speaker 1: some of these original crimes. I think we must, Well,
Speaker 1: here are the facts that maybe we start with the
Speaker 1: Visalia ransacker, and we do have to say we are
Speaker 1: only at this point talking about documented crimes. As we've
Speaker 1: seen in previous shows, is an unfortunate fact in the
Speaker 1: US that many, many, many crimes do not get reported.
Speaker 3: Do you think that, because of what's come to light
Speaker 3: that we'll find out about more or do you think
Speaker 3: that's unlikely?
Speaker 1: You know, ideally, ideally there wouldn't be more defined, but
Speaker 1: realistically there are probably some. It's just a safe thing
Speaker 1: to guess. The question then becomes if we're talking about
Speaker 1: pre nineteen seventies stuff, right, were the authorities at the
Speaker 1: time collecting DNA? Does anything remain? You know, so it's tough,
Speaker 1: but who knows. Also, if it turns out we should
Speaker 1: say d Angelo has not been convicted yet, but if
Speaker 1: it turns out that he is, that he is convicted,
Speaker 1: and he already from what we understand, confessed to several things,
Speaker 1: he may just go on and start naming more names
Speaker 1: and instances because he is, frankly at the end of
Speaker 1: his life one way or the other.
Speaker 3: Yep, maz can often happen with these kinds of legacy crimes.
Speaker 1: Yeah, unfortunately, Well, the vizailureansacker was a master burglar and
Speaker 1: break in guy, believed to be responsible for more than
Speaker 1: one hundred crimes. Again, only the ones that we know of.
Speaker 1: The first ransacking that was recorded was on Tuesday, March nineteenth,
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy four, and one thing that stood out to
Speaker 1: people was that he passed over a lot of high
Speaker 1: value items, a lot of electronics, a lot of keepsakes
Speaker 1: and stuff, and instead he stole about fifty bucks worth
Speaker 1: of coins from a piggybank. That's what he took.
Speaker 3: Clearly something else at work here other than desire for
Speaker 3: monetary gain.
Speaker 1: Right, right, Because there are pawnshops everywhere. He could have
Speaker 1: taken something and then pawned it and made much more
Speaker 1: than fifty dollars.
Speaker 3: Is the keyword here, ransack right because it is about
Speaker 3: going through people's private things.
Speaker 1: Yes, just so, he was tearing houses apart, knocking over furniture,
Speaker 1: cutting stuff up, going in the c it's throwing out things.
Speaker 1: But he would only actually steal a few small items trinkets,
Speaker 1: cuff links, keepsakes, keepsakes, and he would also probably the
Speaker 1: creepiest thing you would do is he would arrange items
Speaker 1: and what appeared to be almost a ritualistic fashion, you know,
Speaker 1: like women's underwear. He did steal weapons. He stole six weapons.
Speaker 1: He was prolific. He committed multiple break ins in the
Speaker 1: same area on the same day, and he also set
Speaker 1: a record for that too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he broke into twelve different homes in a single
Speaker 2: day on Saturday, November thirtieth, nineteen seventy four.
Speaker 1: And at this point, other than the strange arrangement of items,
Speaker 1: it looks like a really creepy burglar, right until that is.
Speaker 1: On September eleventh, nineteen seventy five, a man who is
Speaker 1: strongly believed to be the ransacker, broke into the home
Speaker 1: of one Claude Snelling at five point thirty two Whitney Lane.
Speaker 1: It's now South Whitney Street if you're familiar with the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Claude caught someone trying to kidnap his daughter in their
Speaker 1: car port, and this still unnamed person shot Claude twice
Speaker 1: and Claude died and the assailant fled. This became the
Speaker 1: first known murder linked to what we call the original nightstalker,
Speaker 1: and this murder prompted him to leave town.
Speaker 3: So he's escalated already from ransacking to child snatching.
Speaker 1: Mm hmmm, yeah, it seems set. It seems like that
Speaker 1: was the course. It's it's pretty safe to say that
Speaker 1: if the daughter had been successfully kidnapped, she would have
Speaker 1: at the very least been assaulted.
Speaker 3: And then the murder, though, was a byproduct of being caught.
Speaker 1: Yes, the murder was more than likely a moment of
Speaker 1: panic too, or perhaps in some sense meant to erase
Speaker 1: a witness. It's probably not the primary intent.
Speaker 3: But the story of this man is one of escalations.
Speaker 3: I just wanted point that out. And that's interesting that
Speaker 3: this particular killing. I wonder if it's like, what kind
Speaker 3: of gave him the taste or something like that, and
Speaker 3: he's like, maybe I want to add this to my repertoire.
Speaker 1: I have to wonder too, because we find often in
Speaker 1: serial murders, like in our previous episodes on Uncaught serial Killers,
Speaker 1: we do see this escalation. You know, someone starts with fires,
Speaker 1: someone starts with mutilations, right or running by and slashing
Speaker 1: someone or choking somebody, and then it builds and builds,
Speaker 1: but this killer was at this point still lucid enough
Speaker 1: to realize the dangers if they chose to stay in Visalia.
Speaker 1: So in mid nineteen seventy six he moves to Sacramento,
Speaker 1: and that's where he progresses fully from burglary and murders,
Speaker 1: perhaps unintentionally, to sexual assault.
Speaker 2: So around June nineteen seventy six, our person here of
Speaker 2: interest moved to Sacramento, and this is when he's really
Speaker 2: progressing from burglary into sexual assault. Although you know, he
Speaker 2: originally targeted these women who were alone. Usually that's what
Speaker 2: his victim would look like. They would be in their homes,
Speaker 2: sometimes they would be with their children, and he would
Speaker 2: later prefer couples. Somehow it switched from just alone victim
Speaker 2: that he could attack to perhaps, like we were saying,
Speaker 2: the escalating thrill and whatever he was getting out of
Speaker 2: this escalated to where he needed to have a partnered couple,
Speaker 2: to where there is a male and female usually.
Speaker 1: And perhaps some of that is tied into his perception
Speaker 1: of the unattainable nature of someone already in a relationship.
Speaker 1: Perhaps some of it is a power move on his
Speaker 1: part to someone else witnessed helpless. It's spooky and disturbing stuff.
Speaker 1: His standard procedure smacked of prior training. These may have
Speaker 1: been crimes of passion when he got there, but he
Speaker 1: did a lot of homework. He did extensive research. He
Speaker 1: would typically break in through a window and awaken someone
Speaker 1: with a flashlight and a gun so they can't clearly
Speaker 1: see him as well, and then bind the victims, blindfold them,
Speaker 1: gag them with towels from their own house, and he
Speaker 1: would typically force the female victim to tie up her
Speaker 1: male companion before he tied the female victim up himself.
Speaker 1: And he operated that way for about a year June
Speaker 1: to seventy six to May seventy seven, and he had
Speaker 1: a three month gap and then he returned in Sacramento
Speaker 1: and other counties. He had another three month gap, and
Speaker 1: then he was operating in other counties until nineteen seventy nine.
Speaker 1: And from what the timeline shows, from June eighteenth, seventy
Speaker 1: six to July fifth, nineteen seventy nine, he committed overall
Speaker 1: fifty one crimes as the East Area rapist. As the
Speaker 1: original Nightstalker, he committed seven known crimes with multiple homicides
Speaker 1: that Marx has moved from break inspe to murder, So
Speaker 1: stay tuned. After a brief break for our sponsor, we
Speaker 1: will return and give you a grim introduction to the
Speaker 1: man known as Joseph James D'Angelo junior.
Speaker 2: So there are a lot of great timelines that have
Speaker 2: come out so far, a lot of them pretty brief,
Speaker 2: but we stumbled upon one on reddit that been found
Speaker 2: and we're just going to kind of go over this
Speaker 2: and hit some of the high points and low points
Speaker 2: in this man's life.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you can. You can find this on the East
Speaker 1: Area Rapist Original Knights Stalker subreddit posted by a user
Speaker 1: named Sacred Geometry. And I know it might sound maybe
Speaker 1: a little cursory for the three of us to be
Speaker 1: citing this sort of source, but this person has done
Speaker 1: their homework extensively and we found quite a quite a thorough,
Speaker 1: robust timeline here that follows from the birth of D'Angelo
Speaker 1: to the arrest. He was born November eighth, nineteen forty five,
Speaker 1: in Bath, New York.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and just to jump on there with what Ben
Speaker 2: was saying, I linked up some of these dates just
Speaker 2: as a fact checking exercise, and the Sacramento Bee has
Speaker 2: much of the same exact stuff on it, so.
Speaker 1: And shout out to the Sacramento Bee. They've been really
Speaker 1: leading the charge on reporting here.
Speaker 2: So he's born nineteen forty five. Then in nineteen sixty
Speaker 2: four he wins the Navy. He enlists there and he
Speaker 2: goes into naval training that same year in San Diego.
Speaker 1: And this is where he would have, as part of
Speaker 1: his training, learned a lot of knots that the average
Speaker 1: person would not would either not be aware of or
Speaker 1: would not be able to do on command.
Speaker 2: Specifically, like that diamond knot.
Speaker 1: Specifically, like that diamond knot, Matt, is that like a sheepshank?
Speaker 3: Was that some kind of like specialized sailing knot?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, And it was found at several of the
Speaker 2: crime scenes.
Speaker 3: Well I knew that, but I just you know, is
Speaker 3: it a particularly tricky one?
Speaker 2: Not tricky, just you wouldn't you wouldn't think to make
Speaker 2: a knot one that way.
Speaker 3: It's super interesting too, and you you know, it's such
Speaker 3: a long timeline of crime and now we have a
Speaker 3: person to associate with it. This timeline that we're looking
Speaker 3: at has photographs of him throughout his life, which is
Speaker 3: really interesting just to visually trace his you know kind
Speaker 3: of progression and think about what he was doing at
Speaker 3: the time those photos were taken. So he did, in
Speaker 3: fact serve in the Vietnam War. And then in August
Speaker 3: of nineteen sixty eight, he goes to Sierra College in Rockland, California,
Speaker 3: and fascinatingly got an associate degree in police science that
Speaker 3: could come in handy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he also attends later the year. After he graduates
Speaker 1: with an associate degree in police science, he goes to
Speaker 1: CSU and Sacramento, where he spends a year earning a
Speaker 1: bachelor's in criminal justice, and the same year he gets
Speaker 1: out of there, in nineteen seventy two, he spends the
Speaker 1: next approximate year, sometime during nineteen seventy two and nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy three, he completes an internship in the Roseville Patrol.
Speaker 1: This is interesting because at the time, if we look
Speaker 1: at the context, many police officers and law enforcement professionals
Speaker 1: did not have college education or higher education to this degree,
Speaker 1: not to mention an internship. So it's somewhat strange that
Speaker 1: we'll see this as his career continues. It's somewhat strange
Speaker 1: that he goes to smaller police forces. You know, he
Speaker 1: could have maybe ritten a ticket to Los Angeles or Chicago,
Speaker 1: but for some reason, he stayed in these smaller areas.
Speaker 1: The same year wherein we believe he completes his internship,
Speaker 1: he joins the Exeter Police Department on their burglary task
Speaker 1: force in May of nineteen seventy three. May of nineteen
Speaker 1: seventy three is also when experts believe the Visilia Ransacker
Speaker 1: crimes began.
Speaker 2: When's that crazy? Yeah, the burglary crimes. Hey, I'm on
Speaker 2: a burglary task force?
Speaker 1: In such a trope in fiction, right, like the what
Speaker 1: was that movie about the crime scene photographer Nightcrawlers? Who
Speaker 1: starts perpetrating crimes? Does he not? Really?
Speaker 2: Kind of? Yes, he does. He that's true, he does.
Speaker 3: That's very true. At first it starts off that he's
Speaker 3: he's looking for the big scoops, and then in order
Speaker 3: to get them, he kind of starts behaving in a
Speaker 3: monstrous way. He escalates, or like Dexter for example, not
Speaker 3: sure it's like a good show exactly, but you know
Speaker 3: blood expert who is also a serial kill.
Speaker 1: Or would Jude Law from Road to Perdition be an example?
Speaker 2: I oh wow, I don't remember.
Speaker 3: It's been a minute.
Speaker 2: What was he?
Speaker 3: What's his deal?
Speaker 1: I feel like we may be on the verge of
Speaker 1: a spoiler alert.
Speaker 2: It's okay.
Speaker 3: If we say it okay, then it's okay.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: Just don't don't get Tom Hanks angry at us for
Speaker 2: spoiling his movies.
Speaker 3: Road to Perdition spoiler coming in three two one.
Speaker 1: Jude Law's character is a photographer who is also killing
Speaker 1: people to get the best photographs of crime scenes. Yep, wow, yeah,
Speaker 1: but this and it's a solid film.
Speaker 3: If you haven't seen, Oh, it's coming back to me.
Speaker 3: I haven't seen it since it was in the theaters,
Speaker 3: but now I'm having flashes of it and it was
Speaker 3: quite good.
Speaker 2: One thing to point out here, in nineteen seventy Joseph
Speaker 2: was engaged and then he got married in nineteen seventy
Speaker 2: three as well. If we're imagining, so he's got his
Speaker 2: professional life, then he's also got his personal life that's
Speaker 2: going on. So he's engaged, and then three years later
Speaker 2: he gets married in the same year that the Facilia ransacker.
Speaker 1: Is right, but he doesn't marry the woman who was
Speaker 1: originally engaged to. No, he marries someone different. Correct, And
Speaker 1: in seventy five, As we said, Claude Snelling is murdered
Speaker 1: during the attempted kidnapping. There's an attempted murder of an
Speaker 1: officer McGowan in December of the same year when the
Speaker 1: police got close to handing the ransacker. And then this
Speaker 1: is when not only does the ransacker disappear from Visalia,
Speaker 1: but someone in Sacramento begins committing the East Area rapist crimes.
Speaker 1: For DiAngelo's part, he has relocated to the Auburn Police Department.
Speaker 1: So again these relocations, at least timing wise, begin to
Speaker 1: match up.
Speaker 2: And then in nineteen seventy nine, he gets caught and
Speaker 2: he's shop but not for any of these major crimes.
Speaker 2: He gets caught shoplifting. It's a hammer and what was
Speaker 2: the other thing?
Speaker 1: Oh it was not tape, but yeah, he got shop,
Speaker 1: got caught shoplifting small items.
Speaker 2: Yeah, specifically, I know a hammer was one of the
Speaker 2: major things.
Speaker 3: Was is the kind of items that you maybe wouldn't
Speaker 3: want a record of you having purchased.
Speaker 2: I don't know, it's it definitely seemed a bit strange,
Speaker 2: specifically with that hammer. But the police department finds out
Speaker 2: because he is actually found guilty of shoplifting, and then
Speaker 2: he gets fired from the Auburn Police Department in August
Speaker 2: of seventy nine.
Speaker 1: And many people will tell you that there was a
Speaker 1: slight pausing crime at that time. That's not entirely true,
Speaker 1: because in October of seventy nine, we know that there
Speaker 1: was an attack that went wrong on the ear side
Speaker 1: on what would be classified as the original Nightstalker crimes,
Speaker 1: and tried to break in and assault and murder a couple,
Speaker 1: but he botched it. Then, as the original Nightstalker, there
Speaker 1: is the murder of Robert Offerman and Deborah Manning in
Speaker 1: December of nineteen seventy nine. The next month there's a pause.
Speaker 1: March of nineteen eighty Lyman and Charlene Smith are murdered.
Speaker 1: In August, Keith and Patrice Harrington are murdered. During this time,
Speaker 1: DiAngelo buys a home in a neighborhood called Citrus Heights.
Speaker 1: February nineteen eighty one, a woman named Manuela Wittun is.
Speaker 2: Murdered, and then to jump back into his personal life,
Speaker 2: his first child is born in September nineteen eighty one,
Speaker 2: another huge change in his life. And then you see
Speaker 2: that there's a bit of a break, A big gap
Speaker 2: here that happens after September nineteen eighty one.
Speaker 1: Right, a five year gap in May of so the
Speaker 1: murder before the child was Sherry Domingo and Greg Sanchez
Speaker 1: in July nineteen eighty one. Matt, as you said, September
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty one, DiAngelo as his first child and.
Speaker 3: In Los Angeles, but he wasn't living there, was he?
Speaker 1: His child was born in Sacramento. And then Matt, as
Speaker 1: you said, radio silence for five years, at least as
Speaker 1: far as we know. In May nineteen eighty six, another
Speaker 1: murder is associated with the original Knightstalker. Thats Janelle Cruz.
Speaker 3: And then that same year in November, he has his
Speaker 3: second child in Los Angeles, but did he live there
Speaker 3: for an extending the amount of time It seemed like
Speaker 3: he was sticking to the smaller areas well.
Speaker 1: We know that the murders, at least the documented ones,
Speaker 1: appear to have stopped at that time. Interesting and as
Speaker 1: we look, he continues on for a while to have
Speaker 1: a relatively normal life, despite what some of us might
Speaker 1: assume about killers, and despite how we would assume having
Speaker 1: a criminal record for shoplifting would screw up your job prospects.
Speaker 1: He seems to have continued.
Speaker 3: He stayed working at the same place until retirement, the
Speaker 3: save mart, which was I guess he was like a
Speaker 3: loader or something in a distribution center.
Speaker 2: Or he definitely worked at the distribution center, and I'm
Speaker 2: assuming after working that many years, he probably moved up
Speaker 2: the ladder, but we don't have that information.
Speaker 1: Yeah, from August nineteen eighty nine, he was working at
Speaker 1: that distribution center Noel mentioned in Rooseville, California, and he
Speaker 1: worked there until what twenty seventeen until last year.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's retirement.
Speaker 1: Age, so he was settled in and everything seemed to
Speaker 1: indicate that this guy would retire and relative obscurity. He
Speaker 1: was living with one of his daughters at the time
Speaker 1: and her husband, So.
Speaker 3: That would put him today at in the neighborhood of
Speaker 3: seventy two years of age.
Speaker 1: And that would put the assuming there's a big assumption
Speaker 1: that's probably incorrect, Assuming that all the crimes that occurred
Speaker 1: are the crimes we know about, then that would put
Speaker 1: him at a murder rate of twelve to thirteen people,
Speaker 1: forty five to fifty sexual assaults more easily more than
Speaker 1: one hundred and twenty homes broken into.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's, of course, if he actually did all
Speaker 2: of these crimes.
Speaker 1: And that's a very good point to make. If, of
Speaker 1: course he actually did all of these crimes.
Speaker 2: He's being charged for several murders right now as we're
Speaker 2: recording this, but it's not all of them.
Speaker 3: Well what's that based on? Guys? What do we actually know?
Speaker 1: Well, answer what might be the most important question in
Speaker 1: today's episode. After a word from our sponsors, here's where
Speaker 1: it gets crazy. This man d' angelo was associated with
Speaker 1: these crimes, not through a bunch of people digging through
Speaker 1: microfiche or hunting down old leads alone. No, this man
Speaker 1: was apprehended due to a lead they derived from DNA,
Speaker 1: a DNA database. So one of the first questions is
Speaker 1: how did they find this DNA Because clearly, like in
Speaker 1: the nineteen seventies, for instance, they wouldn't have had the
Speaker 1: sophistication in terms of technology to investigate this. You can
Speaker 1: find a loose leaf notebook or something, but you wouldn't
Speaker 1: automatically be able to pull that info off of it.
Speaker 3: Oh totally. And when I first saw this case the story,
Speaker 3: I assumed that they had a sample of his DNA
Speaker 3: that ended up in one of these databases. But that's
Speaker 3: not quite how it went down, is it.
Speaker 1: No, not quite. It turns out that they took crime
Speaker 1: scene DNA which they had had from the time of
Speaker 1: the crimes, and ran it through various databases where all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, ding ding ding, it showed a match
Speaker 1: to what would turn out to be one on DiAngelo's
Speaker 1: distant relatives, someone who was who had their DNA in
Speaker 1: a public database. So let's look at that arrest, though
Speaker 1: it isn't until March of this year, as we record
Speaker 1: this March twenty eighteen, that he has identified as a
Speaker 1: suspect in these in these decade old crimes via a
Speaker 1: public database. And what's strange about it happened in twenty
Speaker 1: eighteen for a lot of people, is the idea that
Speaker 1: WHOA and authorities would hold on to this information for
Speaker 1: decades and not do anything. In nineteen eighty six, DNA
Speaker 1: was just emerging as a criminal investigative tool, and according
Speaker 1: to the experts, D'Angelo, as a former police officer, would
Speaker 1: have probably according to them, have known that this thing
Speaker 1: was on the way, or there was a possibility at least,
Speaker 1: So when they started looking for this. A lot of
Speaker 1: the stuff we read about says that they found a
Speaker 1: match that was a distant relative. But what does that mean.
Speaker 2: Oh well, it means that they took what they did
Speaker 2: have as far as DNA evidence from this killer and
Speaker 2: they threw it into one of these databases called GEDMatch
Speaker 2: dot com, and they found a fourth cousin of D'Angelo.
Speaker 2: Now they have no idea at this point who D'Angelo is.
Speaker 2: They just know that this DNA matches this person at
Speaker 2: least in some way, and this person had used this
Speaker 2: ged match program already and the service. And then they
Speaker 2: start looking through this person's family tree, this fourth cousin,
Speaker 2: and then they start trying to match up people's backgrounds
Speaker 2: from that family tree, and does anybody match up? Do
Speaker 2: they live in Vasiliador around this time? Do they live
Speaker 2: in Sacramento around this time? And they start picking out
Speaker 2: a few people to look at, and they eventually come
Speaker 2: upon mister DiAngelo. And it's a really strange process. How
Speaker 2: that just happened to work.
Speaker 3: Well, remember, on the Here's where it gets a crazy episode,
Speaker 3: we talked about this whole thing, and there was a
Speaker 3: story about this very same process that led them to
Speaker 3: like a fault positive. That can happen too, because they
Speaker 3: they got a hit, but the guy didn't match the
Speaker 3: criteria for the crime they were trying to to solve.
Speaker 3: So they looked at like his son or something like that,
Speaker 3: and it atched a little more and so they went
Speaker 3: with that and then ended up not being true. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, in this case, the investigation is fascinating because they
Speaker 2: got this match with the fourth cousin. Then they actually
Speaker 2: start looking at this guy and they start staking out
Speaker 2: his house.
Speaker 1: For like six or seven days, yeah.
Speaker 2: Exactly, and they're looking at his trash. I mean, they
Speaker 2: don't they don't state specifically how they got the DNA samples,
Speaker 2: but they do say it was probably from a container
Speaker 2: that he had drunken. He had taken a drink out
Speaker 2: of right, and they would watch him come in and
Speaker 2: out of his house, and they, you know, then they
Speaker 2: took that DNA sample and they tested it with the
Speaker 2: other DNA that they had from the previous case, and
Speaker 2: they went, oh, boy, guess what. Somehow we got the guy.
Speaker 2: It's him.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and the match was not something that was contested.
Speaker 1: We can't be more clear about this. Yeah, it wasn't.
Speaker 1: It wasn't like, oh, oh, this is a pretty good indicator.
Speaker 1: Let's see. No, this this, this was something they've been
Speaker 1: under investigation in a while for some time. A criminologist
Speaker 1: in Contra Costa County way back in two thousand and
Speaker 1: one had linked two sets of cases to the same
Speaker 1: individual thanks to DNA evidence. They just didn't know who
Speaker 1: it was.
Speaker 2: And that was the East Area rapist and the original
Speaker 2: night stalker cases.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and to the point that you made know when
Speaker 1: they get the DNA, it led them to a number
Speaker 1: of people, right, and they had to separate timeline, so
Speaker 1: they had to spend this time surveilling this guy and
Speaker 1: going through his trash most likely, although they don't say
Speaker 1: it that way because I don't think they want that
Speaker 1: image of law enforcement to be you know, they want
Speaker 1: to be presented as people digging through your trash.
Speaker 2: No, but they will, Yeah, but they will have to.
Speaker 1: Well, and they you know, they're there is a beyond
Speaker 1: ninety eight percent likelihood, beyond ninety nine percent likelihood that
Speaker 1: they have the right guy. This is the US, so
Speaker 1: technically he's innocent until proven guilty.
Speaker 3: Digging through trash is just good police work, my guys.
Speaker 1: I would agree. I would agree, and this is where
Speaker 1: the story stands. As the story emerges, we're going to
Speaker 1: hear new updates. Well, we can go ahead and call it.
Speaker 1: We're inevitably gonna hear I think the conviction of this criminal.
Speaker 1: On a side note, the neighbors said the same things
Speaker 1: that you would hear about serial killers in works of fiction.
Speaker 1: They said he was kind of a recluse. We didn't
Speaker 1: think he was a killer or a monster. They did
Speaker 1: say he was prone to violent public outbursts. Did you
Speaker 1: catch that?
Speaker 2: But somehow you've maintained it and kept it under control
Speaker 2: for years and years and years after his children were born,
Speaker 2: except for one case right after first daughter.
Speaker 1: Again that is and less more stuff emerges, like we
Speaker 1: have pointed out earlier, Unless it comes out that he
Speaker 1: is implicated in other stuff, I would be at this point,
Speaker 1: I'd be surprised because if there were DNA leavings from
Speaker 1: other crimes, they would have also pinged on those databases, right, yeah,
Speaker 1: because those databases work together pretty well. And this leads
Speaker 1: into the larger implication, which is a big question for
Speaker 1: us today. What does this mean for not just the
Speaker 1: like the DNA of criminals and these human monsters like
Speaker 1: serial killers. But what does this mean for you right now?
Speaker 1: Listening your DNA. We talked a little bit about this
Speaker 1: with an excellent post in our community page. Like you mentioned, Noel,
Speaker 1: here's where it gets crazy. And sometimes the three of
Speaker 1: us are usually on the same page about a lot
Speaker 1: of things. I mean, and get along famously, but we
Speaker 1: might have some differing opinions about DNA testing, like a
Speaker 1: number of people, and this is just personally, I've held
Speaker 1: off on some DNA testing due to privacy concerns.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a good call, and that seems to be
Speaker 3: a sentiment shared by many.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah. And Noel, you had earlier mentioned that
Speaker 1: you had experience with DNA testing from our earlier show
Speaker 1: Stuff of Life.
Speaker 3: I did, and I kind of just threw myself into
Speaker 3: it like a big dummy, thinking this will be cute
Speaker 3: and it's free, so why not. Kind of regretting it
Speaker 3: a little bit after digging into some of this stuff
Speaker 3: a little bit more. Not that I have anything to
Speaker 3: hide or that I'm worried about, you know, the government
Speaker 3: making a clone army based on my pristine DNA.
Speaker 2: I would do it if I could.
Speaker 3: Oh buddy, that's really sweet.
Speaker 2: But here's the deal, Noel. Yeah, what we found with
Speaker 2: this case is that it doesn't even matter if you
Speaker 2: have or have not submitted your DNA.
Speaker 3: Oh exactly. That's that's why I said earlier. When I
Speaker 3: first read the details this, I'm like, oh, I guess
Speaker 3: he did one of those and then they got access
Speaker 3: to it somehow. No, it was somewhere way down the line.
Speaker 3: You can't control. We haven't even met our fifth cousins.
Speaker 3: Ben and I did an episode about lineage in our
Speaker 3: other show, Ridiculous History, and the idea of knowing personally
Speaker 3: a fifth cousin was sort of.
Speaker 2: Absurd, well at least for us, for our Yeah.
Speaker 3: That's what I meant between between us, Ben, I think
Speaker 3: you said you were aware of some fifth cousins, but
Speaker 3: you certainly aren't, you know, taking in a movie of
Speaker 3: a weekend.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I come from a strange place, but but yeah
Speaker 1: it Matt. You make an excellent point that in other cultures,
Speaker 1: in place around the world, it's quite common to know
Speaker 1: your extended family or even live with them, or you know,
Speaker 1: maybe you're all in the same town or the same region.
Speaker 1: Not a lot of people here in the US are
Speaker 1: that close, and there are these implications that you mentioned.
Speaker 1: It's not somebody. It's not always going to be a
Speaker 1: case of someone signing up directly. We know that military.
Speaker 1: As we mentioned earlier, we'll take DNA samples. Now, if
Speaker 1: you are involved in law enforcement on the wrong side,
Speaker 1: if you get caught, then your DNA will go into
Speaker 1: a system. But the implications are that even if you
Speaker 1: say it like let's say Matt may is you as
Speaker 1: an example, No, okay, let's say that Paul doesn't it
Speaker 1: has never never been to jail, because he's a paragon
Speaker 1: of upstanding, young gentlemanness. And let's say he was also
Speaker 1: never in the military or something like that. And let's
Speaker 1: say he also additionally never signed up for something like
Speaker 1: twenty three ae meters or ancestry dot com or anything
Speaker 1: like that. If, however, one of Paul's relatives signs up
Speaker 1: for this thing, or if one of his relatives joins
Speaker 1: the right kind of organization, or if God forbid, they
Speaker 1: get in trouble with the law, then they will end
Speaker 1: up in the system, which means, by extension, he has
Speaker 1: ended up in a system, whether or not he agreed
Speaker 1: to be there.
Speaker 2: And in this case would be probably metadata on Paul,
Speaker 2: it wouldn't actually have his DNA or anything, right, I mean,
Speaker 2: that's how this whole thing would work. It's just you're
Speaker 2: in the system now because you are related in some way, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And we talked a little bit about how this
Speaker 1: data is supposed to be made anonymous. I can't pronounce it.
Speaker 1: Can you help me out?
Speaker 3: Anonymized?
Speaker 1: There we go, hold on one. Yes, anonymity, anonymity, my
Speaker 1: enemy's anonymity and enmity. And enmity means many things to
Speaker 1: me if we're just going to finish the poem. But
Speaker 1: the strange thing here is that we you know, we
Speaker 1: can't help but think of the comparison to big data
Speaker 1: and Facebook or the so called frictionless sharing.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 1: We have friends who have never been on Facebook and
Speaker 1: never want to be for various reasons of their own,
Speaker 1: but because they know us, or because if you have
Speaker 1: friends like this, they know you. Facebook has a shadow
Speaker 1: profile on them. And again, for anyone who heard our
Speaker 1: Cambridge analytic episode, Facebook doesn't like us to call them
Speaker 1: shadow profiles. It sounds spooky, yeah, but literally everybody else
Speaker 1: except for Facebook calls them shadow profile.
Speaker 3: I don't know what I think, what their internal nomenclature
Speaker 3: is for it.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe they call them like head start profiles,
Speaker 1: fun pages, fun pages, party profiles. So right now, there's
Speaker 1: no escaping that this stuff has made life massively better
Speaker 1: or at the very least provided some sense of closure
Speaker 1: for people who are survivors of victims of these horrific atrocities.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that we should forget the implications.
Speaker 1: At least that's what a lot of critics are saying
Speaker 1: about this stuff. Once you give that data way, you
Speaker 1: yourself have little to know legal protection regarding what happens
Speaker 1: to that information, and you have no control over where
Speaker 1: it ultimately ends up. We found an interesting take on
Speaker 1: this from the Parallax, which does a pretty solid job
Speaker 1: of painting the backgrounds here of the current industry and
Speaker 1: where it seems set to go.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there are a lot of possible positives, yes, that
Speaker 2: are here in this industry. So it says, quote, the
Speaker 2: consumer DNA market is poised to become the ten billion
Speaker 2: dollar business by twenty twenty two. Dozens of companies sell
Speaker 2: home DNA kits, Some like ancestry dot Com and family
Speaker 2: Tree DNA allow you to divine your ethnic background and
Speaker 2: connect you with different distant relatives. Others like twenty three
Speaker 2: and Me can also identify genes linked to ten diseases,
Speaker 2: including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Celiacs.
Speaker 3: Mine didn't do any of that stuff.
Speaker 2: See twenty three and me is pretty cool in that regard,
Speaker 2: and I mean it's pretty great. You can see ads
Speaker 2: for these services. They talk about how millions of people
Speaker 2: are already using them. Why don't you join in and
Speaker 2: let's find out? Say, well, I mean yeah, because they
Speaker 2: gotta get that much. But what they don't tell you
Speaker 2: is that unlocking your genetic code could also get you
Speaker 2: into trouble, legal trouble. Specifically, you can also prevent you
Speaker 2: from getting life insurance if you find something in your
Speaker 2: DNA that you didn't know was there before, and now
Speaker 2: your insurance company is all like.
Speaker 3: Uh yeah, yeah, man. It's at least if you like
Speaker 3: lie on your insurance papers and say you don't smoke,
Speaker 3: and then they like ransack your Facebook page and find
Speaker 3: a picture of you smoking, Okay, that's all in good fun.
Speaker 3: You know, they they gave good chase whatever this is like,
Speaker 3: you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this is it. Yeah, Well, here's the worst one
Speaker 2: for you. What if you, let's say, do twenty three
Speaker 2: and me, then you find out, Oh wait, that's not
Speaker 2: my dad. That would be.
Speaker 3: Pretty messed up, right, are you my dad? Matt.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying, oh, well, you'll find out one day soon.
Speaker 2: Uh so, Uh nope, daddy. No, But like, this is
Speaker 2: a genuine thing that I'm assuming has happened. I haven't
Speaker 2: seen it reported, but surely like.
Speaker 3: You, you you understand the risk of finding out something
Speaker 3: like maybe you don't though. Maybe that's the thing they
Speaker 3: think that just pops up as a notification, like your dad.
Speaker 1: Maybe they send like a very lung killer guy to
Speaker 1: come in and break the news to you while he
Speaker 1: takes your fishing or something.
Speaker 3: That's one of these things too. If we start like
Speaker 3: really like we're going down a rabbit hole here, but
Speaker 3: getting into the territory of targeted ads, what if you
Speaker 3: start getting ads targeted at you because of your DNA information?
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, that's a great question. I mean, it is
Speaker 1: completely it used to be possible. We're about two years
Speaker 1: from it being plausible, and it's a spooky escalation.
Speaker 3: Like in the same way that person got an ad
Speaker 3: for a baby product right before knowing no the father
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 1: The household received an ad for in the mail for
Speaker 1: expectant mothers, and that's how they found out that their
Speaker 1: daughter was pregnant. Target literally knew.
Speaker 3: Before they do it's ray. They called Target.
Speaker 1: Boy no kid man. And now whenever I don't know
Speaker 1: about you, I don't want to ruin this for anybody
Speaker 1: who still receives those circulars and those you know, those
Speaker 1: slightly better quality than straight up newspaper coupon books. Yeah,
Speaker 1: when I receive those. Now Ever, since we did that
Speaker 1: episode and looked into that stuff, I always get a
Speaker 1: little freaked out. And I always try to treat it
Speaker 1: like a magic eight ball or some tea leaves for
Speaker 1: the believers in prognostication. You know, I always wonder, like,
Speaker 1: what what do they know about me that made them
Speaker 1: think I need a deck?
Speaker 3: At this point, I just kind of wish they would
Speaker 3: deliver my mail directly into the trash. Now saved me
Speaker 3: as a trip.
Speaker 1: I use it for art projects.
Speaker 3: It's cool, you're a very enterprising and earth friendly individual.
Speaker 1: Cheap is another way to put it in.
Speaker 3: Yep, that's yep.
Speaker 1: But her thrifty, brave Cleyon Reverend, if you get that right,
Speaker 1: in there's a real world example of this stuff happening,
Speaker 1: at least the life insurance stuff happening. In twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: a writer named Christina Farr, writing for a fast company,
Speaker 1: gave us the story of someone identified as Jennifer Marie,
Speaker 1: not the real name to protect their privacy, although the
Speaker 1: horse may have already left the barn there at the time.
Speaker 1: She was thirty six, gamefully employed, and had no current
Speaker 1: medical issues. But on September fifteenth of twenty fifteen, her
Speaker 1: application for life insurance was denied. And here's the quote
Speaker 1: they used. Unfortunately, after carefully reviewing your application, we regret
Speaker 1: that we are unable to provide you with the coverage
Speaker 1: because of your positive BRCA one gene. The letter reads.
Speaker 1: In the US for background far Rights, about one in
Speaker 1: four hundred women have a BRCA one or two gene
Speaker 1: and it's associated with an increased risk of breast or
Speaker 1: ovarian cancer.
Speaker 2: Wow. So she was denied that because she had done
Speaker 2: one of these tests.
Speaker 1: Because the insurance company had access to that genetic information.
Speaker 1: So now does that qualify as a as a pre
Speaker 1: existing condition? Does you know? Is it something where we
Speaker 1: would have to say from the life insurance company. And
Speaker 1: you know, of course the US this privatized insurance. From
Speaker 1: the life insurance company's perspective, is it a matter of
Speaker 1: in the long run, protecting the rest of their customers.
Speaker 2: So they don't go under you mean, right?
Speaker 1: Is that part of it? How do they how do
Speaker 1: they address that? How do they process that?
Speaker 2: Stop being private companies selling health insurance? That's how that's
Speaker 2: how they fix that.
Speaker 1: A lot of people would make that argument, but there
Speaker 1: is there is hope in form of the Genetic Non
Speaker 1: Discrimination Act, which we mentioned I think previously as well,
Speaker 1: and also known as GINA. It is meant to prohibit
Speaker 1: employers and health insurance from using your genetic info against you. However,
Speaker 1: it is full of loopholes, and Congress is going to
Speaker 1: swiss cheeze it a little bit more. And this goes
Speaker 1: back to that question we asked before, and we received
Speaker 1: a fantastic comment regarding the the idea of how to
Speaker 1: prioritize technological progress and potential gains. Right, if we're risking
Speaker 1: ruining the lives and the livelihoods of a few people,
Speaker 1: certainly maybe more than we think, is that worth the
Speaker 1: potential of saving maybe hundreds of thousands or even millions
Speaker 1: of lives down the line. I mean, this becomes a
Speaker 1: very deep dilemma very quickly. I don't know, what do
Speaker 1: you guys think. We talked about it a little bit
Speaker 1: about this earlier.
Speaker 2: I definitely see the side and mentioned this in the
Speaker 2: other episode that we were just recorded. Just I do
Speaker 2: see this as being a great thing potentially in the
Speaker 2: long run, specifically fixing a lot of these genetic disorders,
Speaker 2: just by having enough data, because that's one of the
Speaker 2: biggest problems is not being able to track DNA over
Speaker 2: time and looking at how these specific sequences actually change
Speaker 2: a human beings development. I think it could be huge,
Speaker 2: and it could be exactly what we need.
Speaker 3: But is it for everybody? Though? Like it is it
Speaker 3: going to mean that the wealthy are going to be
Speaker 3: prioritized and be able to, you know, extend their lives
Speaker 3: and the lives of their offspring by having access to
Speaker 3: this because of their wealth.
Speaker 2: Certainly, Yes, that's what will happen until there's some big change.
Speaker 2: And here's the here's the other thing. What happens when
Speaker 2: let's just say, the wrong group of people ends up
Speaker 2: getting in power somehow, and there are all of these
Speaker 2: databases that can be found and someone in power wants to,
Speaker 2: let's say, get rid of certain types of DNA in
Speaker 2: the culture, right, mass eugenics or something. You've got literally
Speaker 2: all of the data that you would ever need for that,
Speaker 2: if you know, it's compulsory, and everyone eventually one day
Speaker 2: signs up for something like this because you kind of
Speaker 2: have to.
Speaker 1: And instead of present your papers the way it was
Speaker 1: in various world wars, it's spit into this tube and
Speaker 1: stand here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, wait, I.
Speaker 1: Mean that's it. That's a terrifying thing. We'd all like
Speaker 1: to think it's it's far it's far off right, or
Speaker 1: that it's not actually going to happen sort of a
Speaker 1: nimby process and not in my backyard. But at this point,
Speaker 1: you know, again, if you haven't written into us about this,
Speaker 1: we we we want to hear from you. Where do
Speaker 1: you fall on this side of the line, And we
Speaker 1: want to end today's episode with, first off, a clear
Speaker 1: admission again, Joseph James DeAngelo has not been convicted. He
Speaker 1: is he is talking from what we understand, and he
Speaker 1: is confessing, but that doesn't he hasn't had the core
Speaker 1: time yet. Although it's it's pretty much a clear cuta.
Speaker 1: Do we know anything about his mental state? Apparently, aside
Speaker 1: from the violent outburst, he does appear lucid interesting, which
Speaker 1: is which is interesting. And you know right now, given
Speaker 1: the time that it's elapsed, if there are other crimes
Speaker 1: or murders, he is literally the best chance of finding them.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, And every day we're finding out new things.
Speaker 2: I would follow the Sacramento Bee online if you can,
Speaker 2: you have the time to do it, and you're interested
Speaker 2: in this case. There are all kinds of new little
Speaker 2: stories about maybe he had an accomplice during some of
Speaker 2: these crimes, maybe it was a breakup that sent him
Speaker 2: on that first raping spring, unsuccessful engagement. Yeah, I mean
Speaker 2: there's all there was all kinds of interesting things coming out,
Speaker 2: and I just have to say, like we said before,
Speaker 2: the Sacramento Bee is the place that I'm finding them
Speaker 2: the soonest.
Speaker 1: And we have one other thing here, not a conclusion.
Speaker 1: There's not really a conclusion to this story yet and
Speaker 1: not a shout out corner, though we will be returning
Speaker 1: that segment soon. We have something that when we were
Speaker 1: talking about this off air, we were all texting each
Speaker 1: other as we were working on this, and Noel, you
Speaker 1: pointed out to us another recent development involving DNA and killers.
Speaker 3: And the Sacramento b They I believe, were first on
Speaker 3: the scene to report that police in the Laho have
Speaker 3: obtained DNA supposedly linked to the Zodiac killer and that
Speaker 3: it's being processed in a lab and we could see
Speaker 3: results any day now. This was on May the second, And.
Speaker 2: They're probably going to do a lot of the same
Speaker 2: things here, or at least potentially doing the same things,
Speaker 2: finding that match, linking that up, and then going from there,
Speaker 2: familial searches, looking in that trash again, maybe.
Speaker 1: Maybe going through belongates. Yeah, you know, there's not really
Speaker 1: a different way to phrase it. But today this ends
Speaker 1: our episode. From now our update on the Golden State
Speaker 1: Killer aka the Diamond Knot Killer, aka the Original Nightstalker
Speaker 1: aka the East Area Rapist, and the Salia Ransacker. We
Speaker 1: would like to hear from you. What do you think
Speaker 1: will be the results of this What do you think
Speaker 1: of a world wherein for the greater good, everyone's DNA
Speaker 1: is considered part of this large database. Would do you
Speaker 1: think the benefits outweigh the negatives? I mean, in this case,
Speaker 1: it seems pretty clear cut that they do.
Speaker 3: I propose that it's very similar to requiring you, this
Speaker 3: is going to be controversial, maybe to register your car.
Speaker 3: Your car has to be in a database because it
Speaker 3: could either allow you to escape from a criminal act
Speaker 3: or you could even use it as a weapon. It
Speaker 3: is a very powerful thing, and you can't have a
Speaker 3: car unless you register it. You can do all those
Speaker 3: things with the human body. So yeah, that logic. I mean,
Speaker 3: I'm not saying that I necessarily support that, but I
Speaker 3: could see law enforcement surely thinking that this is something
Speaker 3: that would be very helpful and important to solving crimes,
Speaker 3: but at the risk of of what privacy? And uh,
Speaker 3: it's my DNA.
Speaker 1: You also have a requirement to have a license to
Speaker 1: operate a car, would you have would that lead into
Speaker 1: having a license to reproduce? I mean, I'll double down
Speaker 1: on controversy here. Uh, there are inevitably some some of
Speaker 1: you listening are are going to see the potential parallel
Speaker 1: thread between registering a car, registering DNA, registering a firearm.
Speaker 1: If we're going to go controversial, right, yeah, I don't
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, that's a really interesting argument, Noel,
Speaker 1: Because you can't have an unregistered car yeah.
Speaker 3: But you're right though, when you start going, you know,
Speaker 3: taking that and taking it too, well, what if then
Speaker 3: you need a license to reproduce? Or then we start
Speaker 3: entering when we start when we start putting our physical
Speaker 3: forms into the into the equation and treating them as
Speaker 3: though we as though it were a motor vehicle or
Speaker 3: a gun or something like that, that really opens up
Speaker 3: a lot of a lot of worm It is interesting.
Speaker 2: Bat your bags, I am. It's so weird. I would
Speaker 2: have been so against this, like one thousand percent against
Speaker 2: all of this, and for some reason, somehow, as I'm
Speaker 2: getting older, oh gosh, you guys, I'm kind of like, well,
Speaker 2: get everyone a DNA scanned and put it on a
Speaker 2: tattoo and then their arms and they're registered. And if
Speaker 2: anyone doesn't, no no, we will find you a no
Speaker 2: no yes for you, no no, then we get you.
Speaker 1: I love this voice. It sounds like he's either got
Speaker 1: loose dentures or he's also eating cottage cheese. I'm not sure.
Speaker 2: The cottage cheese is one of the finest foods you
Speaker 2: can eat. I would recommend it early in the morning
Speaker 2: and late in the afternoon and also early at night.
Speaker 1: Well, you know what, Matt, I have to say, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for giving us a note of levity,
Speaker 1: gracing us, Yeah, gracing.
Speaker 3: Us, goodness, gracious, that was saying, I can't smiling at
Speaker 3: that old man.
Speaker 1: Man.
Speaker 3: That's what happens too. You get old, you start to
Speaker 3: decide you want to give up all your civil liberties,
Speaker 3: or at least the young whipper snappers should, right, I
Speaker 3: agree with with with those realizations. Also, your voice changes
Speaker 3: and you start to sound like a very very old man.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's mostly the testicular group, I think is what
Speaker 2: causes that. I keep trying to get a rise out
Speaker 2: of Paul mission control decking, and he's just not even No,
Speaker 2: that's not sure him.
Speaker 3: From the angle that I'm seeing him, he had a Yeah,
Speaker 3: he's got a smirk. He's got a bit of a
Speaker 3: glimmer of a smile.
Speaker 1: All right, And there's always one to thank you for
Speaker 1: tuning in. You are the most important part of the show,
Speaker 1: and we would like to hear from you.
Speaker 2: Tell us what do you think about DNA collection and
Speaker 2: all of this stuff. Do you think they got the
Speaker 2: right person? Do you think there's someone else out there?
Speaker 2: What else do you think about the East Area rapist.
Speaker 2: Have you ever lived in any of those places? How
Speaker 2: did these crimes affect you growing up? Just anything you
Speaker 2: want to talk about. Is there another serial killer that
Speaker 2: you think we need to jump and jump into a
Speaker 2: little bit deeper, or maybe information about the Zodiac Killer,
Speaker 2: because that may potentially be an episode coming up with
Speaker 2: all the things happening right now with that case, talk
Speaker 2: to us, let us know.
Speaker 3: You can hit us up on Facebook most of the
Speaker 3: social media's We are Conspiracy Stuff on Facebook, we are
Speaker 3: Conspiracy Stuff show on Instagram. And if you have a
Speaker 3: cool story, a little missive something about growing up in
Speaker 3: one of these areas, we would love it if you
Speaker 3: left us a voicemail.
Speaker 2: Please we are And that's the end of this classic episode.
Speaker 2: If you have any thoughts or questions about this episode,
Speaker 2: you can get into contact with us in a number
Speaker 2: of different ways. One of the best is to give
Speaker 2: us a call. Our number is one eight three three
Speaker 2: std WYTK. If you don't want to do that, you
Speaker 2: can send us a good old fashioned email.
Speaker 1: We are conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2: Enough that they don't want you to know is a
Speaker 2: production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the
Speaker 2: iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 2: favorite shows.