Speaker 1: I'm Kate Winkler Dawson.
Speaker 2: I'm a journalist who's spent the last twenty five years
Speaker 2: writing about true crime.
Speaker 3: And I'm Paul Hols, a retired cold case investigator who's
Speaker 3: worked some of America's most complicated cases and solve them.
Speaker 2: Each week, I present Paul with one of history's most
Speaker 2: compelling true crimes.
Speaker 3: And I weigh in using modern forensic techniques to bring
Speaker 3: new insights to old mysteries.
Speaker 2: Together, using our individual expertise, we're examining historical true crime
Speaker 2: cases through a twenty first century lens.
Speaker 3: Some are solved and some are cold, very cold.
Speaker 4: This is buried Bones.
Speaker 3: Hey Paul, Hey Kate, you know you've got this case.
Speaker 3: I'm really interested to hear this other case. It might
Speaker 3: or might not be related.
Speaker 2: We'll wrap up some stuff with Nancy first and I'll
Speaker 2: give you a recap, and then we'll get into the
Speaker 2: other case and we'll see where we go here. So,
Speaker 2: just to recap for the last episode, we are in
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy Sacramento and twenty eight year old Nancy beIN
Speaker 2: Alac was murdered and sexually assaulted in her apartment. The
Speaker 2: front door was locked. There doesn't seem to be any theft,
Speaker 2: any disturbance in anywhere in the apartment except for in
Speaker 2: the bedroom. Nancy is face down, thirty stab wounds, very
Speaker 2: very violent. They collect evidence, including these weird finger coverings
Speaker 2: that the offender apparently made. Now they're going to start
Speaker 2: really trying to get the timeline down. We have some
Speaker 2: ear witnesses who say somewhere in the one am to
Speaker 2: two am range they heard different kinds of noises. We
Speaker 2: have no idea if any of it has to do
Speaker 2: with Nancy, and so now you know, we're at a
Speaker 2: little bit of a loss. As they moved forward, Did
Speaker 2: I miss anything? Is there anything that I didn't include? Paul?
Speaker 3: You know, the one thing that I think stands out
Speaker 3: is the prowler that had been seen. So they have
Speaker 3: the composite of that prowler, but that may or may
Speaker 3: not be the person responsible for Nancy's homicide.
Speaker 2: Exactly right, So let's continue. They talk to a lot
Speaker 2: of people, including of course her fiance, Ferris, who is
Speaker 2: the chief public defender. And I read an obituary of
Speaker 2: him and he just seems like this legend in that area,
Speaker 2: so that was really interesting. He tells police that he
Speaker 2: last saw Nancy Sunday night, so presumably not long before
Speaker 2: she was killed. So aside from the offender, if he
Speaker 2: is not the offender. Aside from the offender, it seems
Speaker 2: like her fiance is the last one to have seen
Speaker 2: her so earlier in the day. They went from Nancy's hometown,
Speaker 2: Grass Valley, which is about an hour outside of Sacramento,
Speaker 2: where they hung out with her mom, and they went
Speaker 2: back to Sacramento. They got dinner, Ferris brought Nancy to
Speaker 2: her apartment. They spent some time together, which could have
Speaker 2: meant sex. I don't have a lot of details here,
Speaker 2: but he did not stay the night. He left around
Speaker 2: one thirty and then he went back home. So he
Speaker 2: says when he left Nancy's apartment, she was asleep in
Speaker 2: bed and wearing just her underwear, which would have been
Speaker 2: you know, her way. He said that her sliding glass
Speaker 2: door is where he was sure the entry was made.
Speaker 2: And I'll tell you why in a minute. Looking for patterns.
Speaker 2: But what do you think so far? You know, I mean,
Speaker 2: the fiance nobody saw him coming or going. He was
Speaker 2: around all the time, you know, I don't know if
Speaker 2: police buy his story or not. It seems feasible for
Speaker 2: a Sunday.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I think you know, of course, he has
Speaker 3: to be looked at pretty hard because he's putting himself
Speaker 3: in her apartment almost in the middle of what the
Speaker 3: ear witnesses are saying when they hear, you know, the
Speaker 3: baby cry, hurried footsteps, somebody driving out of the parking
Speaker 3: lot at a I'm assuming a high rate of speed,
Speaker 3: you know. So it's like, okay, so what is going
Speaker 3: on here with him? We see this all the time.
Speaker 3: It's entirely possible. He's telling absolute truth, you know. It
Speaker 3: just so happens that once he left, the offender came
Speaker 3: in and then is, for whatever reason, attacking Nancy.
Speaker 2: The interesting part of the entry is when we talk
Speaker 2: about Nancy's sliding glass door. You know, the droplets were there,
Speaker 2: there was a trail of blood that dropped down to
Speaker 2: the first floor, the ground floor, the boat shoe that
Speaker 2: was there, the print, and then the trail off to
Speaker 2: the parking lot. So he said that nancy sliding glass
Speaker 2: door when he left was slightly open, okay, And the
Speaker 2: reason was she had a cat and that way the
Speaker 2: cat could go in and out of the apartment. So
Speaker 2: the police find this out from Ferris, and of course
Speaker 2: they're not crossing him off the list just yet. But
Speaker 2: when we're talking about access, they're saying, okay, well that
Speaker 2: that seems to make sense. But they now feel pretty certain.
Speaker 2: And this is what I want to know from you too,
Speaker 2: that whomever killed Nancy knew this, knew her habit, knew
Speaker 2: that this would be accessible at some point, and was
Speaker 2: potentially watching.
Speaker 3: You know, my question would be, well, what's the visibility
Speaker 3: of that sliding door, Let's say, from somebody who is
Speaker 3: just kind of wandering the grounds. You know, at least
Speaker 3: with the photo of the apartment complex, I could kind
Speaker 3: of see that the top of like I'm assuming windows
Speaker 3: or sliding doors, So it's possible you have a prowler
Speaker 3: who happens to notice, oh there's an there's an opening.
Speaker 3: How does the prowler get up to the second floor.
Speaker 3: Is there something that this this person could climb up
Speaker 3: to get onto the balcony to walk through this open
Speaker 3: sliding door. That's one thing I'd be taking a look at.
Speaker 3: And this is where it's just trying to trying to determine,
Speaker 3: like you had brought up all this, did the offender
Speaker 3: have pre existing knowledge of Nancy's habit and knew that
Speaker 3: sliding door would be unlocked and open. And is this
Speaker 3: something that's because the offender has, you know, a personal
Speaker 3: connection to Nancy or is this a stranger who is
Speaker 3: doing surveillance ahead of time and happens to notice this.
Speaker 2: Yeah? Absolutely, I think And I had forgotten to mention
Speaker 2: this in my recap. Investigators think that the offender climbed
Speaker 2: up that fence. So if you look at that photo again,
Speaker 2: there's a fence, and that once he got on the fence,
Speaker 2: he was able to sort of pull himself over the
Speaker 2: railing onto her balcony. The question would be would he
Speaker 2: be able to see whether or not she was leaving
Speaker 2: this door open and letting the cat in and out.
Speaker 3: I think he could, you know, based on what I'm
Speaker 3: seeing from this this photo of the apartment complex. Now, Yeah,
Speaker 3: to climb up that fence and to get up over
Speaker 3: that balcony, I mean there's some physical agility here. Yeah,
Speaker 3: you know, so that's that would be something you know,
Speaker 3: as I'm eballing, you know, suspects, you know, does this
Speaker 3: guy look like he's physically capable of getting up into
Speaker 3: Nancy's apartment as well? As being able to jump down
Speaker 3: and run away. You know, I know I might be
Speaker 3: able to do that today, but I would probably struggle
Speaker 3: at my age, right. So that's just an interesting observation,
Speaker 3: is that the physicality he's demonstrating to get in and
Speaker 3: out of her apartment.
Speaker 2: Yes, Glenn Campbell, as in our sketch, the prowler would
Speaker 2: have been able to do something like that. We'll see
Speaker 2: how it goes. Okay, so faris the fiance doesn't have
Speaker 2: an alibi for that evening. She says alibi basically. Then
Speaker 2: she goes home. He goes home, and that's it. He's
Speaker 2: very cooperative with the police. He says, come search my house,
Speaker 2: take all my clothing, look for anything you want. He
Speaker 2: takes that light detector. He even says, take some of
Speaker 2: my blood. You know. They compare it against the blood
Speaker 2: they found at the scene, and he's ultimately ruled out
Speaker 2: as a suspect. I don't know what that means. I
Speaker 2: don't know if they look at the blood and he's
Speaker 2: got an obvious different blood type and that is ruling
Speaker 2: him out, and that's it. Is that going to be enough,
Speaker 2: I guess in the nineteen seventies to rule somebody out right.
Speaker 3: Well, that's you know, that really was the power of
Speaker 3: the ABO testing was to exclude. And so under the
Speaker 3: circumstances of the crime scene, it sounds like they were
Speaker 3: confident that the blood trail or the blood that was
Speaker 3: left behind, came from the offender, and it's a different
Speaker 3: blood type than the fiance, and so they can say, well,
Speaker 3: he's not the one that's dripping blood and running off,
Speaker 3: so he's likely as not her killer. Now is that
Speaker 3: an absolute elimination of his involvement in the case. You'll
Speaker 3: probably hit me some detail down in a few minutes.
Speaker 3: That probably puts more suspicion on him, But right now
Speaker 3: I would say it sounds like he's excluded.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think so, No, no more suspicion. Ferris goes
Speaker 2: on to live until eighty four, and as a legend
Speaker 2: in defense, they eventually rule out the fiance. The police
Speaker 2: began interviewing the people closest to her family and friends,
Speaker 2: especially those with fresh injuries. That makes sense, you know,
Speaker 2: with the stabbing. So then they go to Nancy's father.
Speaker 2: So his name's braun In, and when police interview him,
Speaker 2: he has a bandage on his hand that he says
Speaker 2: is the result of a workplace accident. But he says,
Speaker 2: just so you know, Nancy and I have never had
Speaker 2: a great relationship. He was abusive towards Nancy's mother in
Speaker 2: the past, but he's also ruled out as a suspect,
Speaker 2: and there's just not enough solid evidence tying him to
Speaker 2: the daughter's murder. So the wound on the hand, I know,
Speaker 2: is valid. And I guess that's just one little thing
Speaker 2: that they're going to be looking at and saying, oh,
Speaker 2: you've got these, you know, fresh wounds. Let's talk about
Speaker 2: it in your past relationship with her?
Speaker 3: No, you know, but this is this is just investigation
Speaker 3: one oh one. They are checking the boxes, looking at
Speaker 3: family friends, you know, the fiance and when something like
Speaker 3: the a fresh wound on dad's hand, you know that's
Speaker 3: going to stand out. They're going, oh, you know, that
Speaker 3: is consistent with our offender having been cut. But of
Speaker 3: course we know, just like what he explained is there's
Speaker 3: innocent explanations for that as well.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Okay, well, let's see, We've got a couple
Speaker 2: of other people that I need to run by you.
Speaker 2: This might be a dead end, but here it goes.
Speaker 2: There's a guy named Barry Segal. He is a name
Speaker 2: dropped as a person of interest from a Sacramento Bee article,
Speaker 2: which is interesting October twenty ninth, which is just days
Speaker 2: after Nancy's murder. So this is one of the early
Speaker 2: people on their suspect list. He spent more than eight
Speaker 2: years in prison during the nineteen sixties with the second
Speaker 2: degree murder of his landlady. When he's in prison, he
Speaker 2: befriends a supervising deputy district attorney, Vincent Rigar. I have
Speaker 2: no idea why or how, but when the killer is paroled,
Speaker 2: the deputy assistant attorney offered him a place to stay.
Speaker 2: And almost immediately after Nancy's murder, the sheriff tries to
Speaker 2: suggest that Sagall might have been involved with this, and
Speaker 2: it sounds like it's just simply because he was a
Speaker 2: criminal and had killed a woman and that was basically.
Speaker 2: But all of these people are being pulled into this
Speaker 2: case because the police are really desperate, obviously to try
Speaker 2: to find out who did this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, and this is part of just starting
Speaker 3: to assess characteristics of your offender and what suspect pool
Speaker 3: that offender would be found in. And you know, of course,
Speaker 3: with a let's say, sexually motivated homicide, you're looking at
Speaker 3: individuals that have a past that includes that type of crime.
Speaker 3: And it sounds like this Barry Cigal, it was somebody
Speaker 3: that you know, the DA's office was aware of and
Speaker 3: had been released. So so Matt, you have to have
Speaker 3: to look at him for sure.
Speaker 2: But there are different categories, right, So peeping Tom would
Speaker 2: be the beginning of being a sexual predator, right, and
Speaker 2: then what are the beginnings of the serial killer aside
Speaker 2: from you know, we've talked about hurting animals and having
Speaker 2: problems in childhood. I know there are these different tiers,
Speaker 2: but they're categories too, yep.
Speaker 3: But it's not it's not hard and fast, you know.
Speaker 3: And when you take a look, typically when you start
Speaker 3: looking at offenders that are breaking into houses, and this
Speaker 3: was a much more common from a from a serial
Speaker 3: predator standpoint, much more common back in the seventies than
Speaker 3: today because of technology and surveillance and dead bolts and
Speaker 3: all that. But usually it's these barriers to a fence.
Speaker 3: You mentioned the peeping Tom. Well, I like to, you know,
Speaker 3: talk initially to people and say, think about walking in
Speaker 3: your neighborhood and you accidentally walk on your neighbor's front lawn,
Speaker 3: you get nervous. It's like, oh no, you know, that's
Speaker 3: kind of not socially acceptable. And so imagine taking that
Speaker 3: to the point where now you're walking up all the
Speaker 3: way across the lawn to look into your neighbor's house
Speaker 3: through a window. You know you've crossed a certain social
Speaker 3: barrier to do that. Now you're breaking into houses when
Speaker 3: nobody's home. Then you're breaking into houses when somebody's home.
Speaker 3: And it's when you start to see that where now
Speaker 3: you have the like the cat burglar spect where they're
Speaker 3: going into how occupied houses. That is a predictor of
Speaker 3: being a very dangerous offender because they are just one
Speaker 3: step away from going hands on with a person. So
Speaker 3: that's one kind of prototypical evolution. That's Joseph DiAngelo, that's
Speaker 3: the Golden State killer. But they don't necessarily follow that
Speaker 3: pattern in the same way. It varies from person to person.
Speaker 3: And then you brought up the serial killer triad, the
Speaker 3: bed wetting, the animal cruelty, the fire setting, and then
Speaker 3: the reality is the only one I put really any
Speaker 3: weight on is the animal cruelty, because if you're willing
Speaker 3: to inflict violence on a creature, You're one step away
Speaker 3: from doing that to a person.
Speaker 2: You know. There is a story that I thought about you,
Speaker 2: and I heard there's a story happening not in Austin,
Speaker 2: in the Austin area about a high school club where,
Speaker 2: you know, I don't know if it was a four
Speaker 2: h but students were raising animals and they caught a
Speaker 2: young woman, a teenager, poisoning and killing a goat from
Speaker 2: her competitor. And I just thought, oh my god, I mean,
Speaker 2: that's unbelievable. I don't remember ultimately what happened to her,
Speaker 2: if she was eighteen or you know, whatever happened, but
Speaker 2: to just brazenly be willing to do that to a goat,
Speaker 2: you know, just for a contest. I mean, I'm real.
Speaker 3: Once I trained a couple of the prosecutors in my
Speaker 3: former office. You know, they would be presented cases of
Speaker 3: you know, your teenage boys doing bad things to cats
Speaker 3: and dogs, and so they would bring me the details,
Speaker 3: you know, and so I'm assessing, going, yeah, this is
Speaker 3: a predictor, this is a person that is likely going
Speaker 3: to hurt somebody down the road, and we need to
Speaker 3: intercede now to try to prevent that person from that
Speaker 3: boy from doing that in the future, and then that's
Speaker 3: when it's you know, mandated psychological counseling, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Now we're going to put a pause in Nancy's case
Speaker 2: because we have another case and police are not yet
Speaker 2: able to determine whether these cases related, but they seem
Speaker 2: very similar. So this is about a woman named Judith
Speaker 2: hawk Aary. She's in Sacramento, and she is murdered six
Speaker 2: months before Nancy and I have pictures around this too.
Speaker 2: Now you know, you can imagine this is a twenty
Speaker 2: three year old nurse. She is also engaged. They look
Speaker 2: fairly similar. I know you don't put a ton of
Speaker 2: weight on that, and I'll show you a picture of
Speaker 2: Judy in a second, but they are struck by the similarities. Here,
Speaker 2: let me tell you a little bit about Judy and
Speaker 2: then we'll look at some photos. So she is, as
Speaker 2: I said, twenty three years old, she's engaged, she's in
Speaker 2: the workforce. They live within one block of each other,
Speaker 2: these two women. So go to your photos. I told
Speaker 2: you there are a lot of photos with this one.
Speaker 2: This is what happens when we dip into the nineteen seventies.
Speaker 2: This photos galore. If you look on your page seven,
Speaker 2: there's a picture of Judy sixties hair. We're barely in
Speaker 2: the nineteen seventies, so she's got the high hair again.
Speaker 2: Love it, you know, if you find it valuable to
Speaker 2: compare the way they both look and you know all
Speaker 2: of that. But the photo of Nancy's on.
Speaker 3: Page one, well, you know Nancy and Judiths. You know,
Speaker 3: they do have a somewhat similar look. Both appear to
Speaker 3: be brunettes, classic nineteen sixties kind of look about them.
Speaker 3: I think it's you know, the fact that you do
Speaker 3: have them living so close, and that Judith, you know,
Speaker 3: six months prior, had been killed. You have to look
Speaker 3: at the possibility that these cases are related. Now, I'd
Speaker 3: like to know more details about what happened in Judas case.
Speaker 2: Okay, look on the next page, because I just want
Speaker 2: you to see the distance with their apartments. I mean,
Speaker 2: I told you a block of block's a block. But
Speaker 2: if you look on page your page eight, you'll see
Speaker 2: Nancy's apartment in judish apartment. Is that a coincidence? I mean,
Speaker 2: how is that? I don't know there are such things
Speaker 2: as coincidences.
Speaker 3: I guess yes, I mean, it absolutely could be a coincidence. However,
Speaker 3: you have to put some weight on that proximity. You know,
Speaker 3: these offenders, you know, when they're out prowling, they get
Speaker 3: comfortable with a ser in geographic location, you can go
Speaker 3: into any neighborhood and find a victim. So it's possible
Speaker 3: this could be a watering hole. This is what I were.
Speaker 3: A predator is just comfortable in this particular area of
Speaker 3: town for one reason or another, and has killed two
Speaker 3: women six months apart in that same area. But I've
Speaker 3: just seen it enough to where it's also possible these
Speaker 3: are two completely separate cases and just coincidentally happened to
Speaker 3: be in the same part of the area of town.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, Okay, here are the circumstances with Judy. So
Speaker 2: it is eleven thirty pm on the night of March
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy, about six months before Nancy goes missing. Judy
Speaker 2: is a nurse. She leaves her shift at the hospital
Speaker 2: and she tells Raymond, I'll see you at my apartment
Speaker 2: and she starts to head home. So Raymond, her fiance,
Speaker 2: his name's Raymond Willis, he was at her apartment waiting
Speaker 2: there for her, and he said it. It should have
Speaker 2: only taken her ten minutes, so he knew she should
Speaker 2: have been home before midnight. She left at eleven thirty,
Speaker 2: so she doesn't show up, and when she hasn't come
Speaker 2: home by one forty five, he becomes very worried. He
Speaker 2: goes outside. He sees Judy's car parked in the apartment
Speaker 2: complex's parking lot, but she's not there.
Speaker 3: Okay, so it appears that she drove from the job
Speaker 3: the hospital to her apartment complex but never makes it
Speaker 3: up to her residence.
Speaker 2: Yes, okay, I don't know when he calls the police yet,
Speaker 2: but he said that the car's doors were all unlocked,
Speaker 2: the keys were on the floorboard, and a few buttons
Speaker 2: from the coat that she was wearing seemed to be
Speaker 2: yanked off, and they were in the back seat as
Speaker 2: if there had been a struggle between Judy and we
Speaker 2: presume to be the offender. No blood in the car.
Speaker 2: There were strips of towel in the back seat which
Speaker 2: didn't belong to Judy, and so you know, obviously none
Speaker 2: of this sounds very good, and we have some speculation
Speaker 2: coming up.
Speaker 3: Well, sounds like, you know, the offender could have been
Speaker 3: inside judas vehicle out there at the hospital, and you know,
Speaker 3: she gets in and at a certain point the offender
Speaker 3: pops up from the rear seat. That's you know, with
Speaker 3: the strips of towel, like, you know, binding material that
Speaker 3: the offender brought with him. And you know, then if
Speaker 3: that's kind of the scenario, and you know, right now,
Speaker 3: I'm just kind of doing like a you know, a
Speaker 3: little speculation. But if that's the scenario, then Judath isn't
Speaker 3: the one that drove the vehicle all the way back
Speaker 3: to the you know, the parking lot. The offender likely
Speaker 3: did that once he got her under control inside her
Speaker 3: own vehicle.
Speaker 2: So interesting, Okay, so here's where we may see the
Speaker 2: man we may not. Her co workers. Judy's coworkers later
Speaker 2: say that a man with red hair had stopped by
Speaker 2: the hospital earlier in the day asking for Judith her
Speaker 2: real name. But there are three Judiths at that place
Speaker 2: at the time, and so we don't know which Judith
Speaker 2: he was looking for, and it doesn't sound like he
Speaker 2: connected with any of them, so that sort of went
Speaker 2: a little cold. There was witness that reported seeing a
Speaker 2: brown car turn into her apartment's parking lot around the
Speaker 2: time that Judy would have arrived home. So between eleven
Speaker 2: thirty and twelve, another person said they saw a dark
Speaker 2: colored car driving so fast and recklessly from the area
Speaker 2: that it nearly sideswiped their vehicle, and neither car is
Speaker 2: ever identified. So I presume what that means, Paul is
Speaker 2: the first witness, if it's connected to this case, is
Speaker 2: seeing the guy pull into the parking lot. Because they're
Speaker 2: not saying Judy's car is pulling into the parking lot.
Speaker 2: They're saying a brown car pulls into the parking lot
Speaker 2: around the time she got home, and then there's another
Speaker 2: car that leaves very quickly and recklessly.
Speaker 3: And so there's a possibility, taking it to consideration those details,
Speaker 3: that Judy could have driven to her parking lot and
Speaker 3: is abducted as soon as she opens the door to
Speaker 3: her vehicle. Under that circumstance, I would expect that there
Speaker 3: would be some ear witnesses, because I don't think Judy
Speaker 3: would be very I think should be, you know, pretty loud,
Speaker 3: screaming and trying to fight this guy as he's trying
Speaker 3: to get her into his vehicle.
Speaker 2: But remember her coat, jacket buttons are in the back seat,
Speaker 2: and those strips of towel are in the back seat.
Speaker 2: So do you think he tried to get her in
Speaker 2: the back seat first and then there was a struggle
Speaker 2: and he gagged her with these towel strips. I'm not
Speaker 2: saying that's what happened. I'm just saying I wonder if
Speaker 2: that could have been a possibility too.
Speaker 3: That's a big chance it is, you know, and that
Speaker 3: kind of goes back to my initial speculation that he's
Speaker 3: you know, you have an offender lying in wait inside
Speaker 3: her own vehicle. This could have been a tandem, you know,
Speaker 3: where he gets her under control, and then you have
Speaker 3: another offender that's that's driving a vehicle. And now you
Speaker 3: have let's say two offenders that are the ones that
Speaker 3: are abducting Judith and so at her apartment. You know,
Speaker 3: why why let her get all the way to her
Speaker 3: apartment if your plan is is to attack her initially
Speaker 3: at the hospital?
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, let's keep going. Okay, no solid leads. They
Speaker 2: are searching, searching. We still don't know that Nancy is
Speaker 2: going to be a victim. That's several months away. But
Speaker 2: about a month and a half ish later into April
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy two, hikers like always hikers or the bottle
Speaker 2: collectors or kids discover Judy's body. It's in a shallow
Speaker 2: grave near an abandoned mind shaft series of abandoned mind shafts,
Speaker 2: about fifty miles from Sacramento. It's a long way from
Speaker 2: her apartment. So that's the next photo. So page nine
Speaker 2: is the photo of the shallow grave that looks so
Speaker 2: shallow to me. It looks pretty deep.
Speaker 3: It's hard the perspective of this photo. It's a black
Speaker 3: and white photo, and it's showing the grave in front,
Speaker 3: in the front of the foreground of the photo, and
Speaker 3: then you have what appear to be two detectives standing
Speaker 3: looking down into it. So obviously Judy's body has been
Speaker 3: collected at the point. But the grave itself, that's I mean,
Speaker 3: that's down several feet, you know. It's not like a
Speaker 3: cemetery grave, you know, but most certainly relative to my
Speaker 3: experience with shallow graves usually that's like eighteen inches, you know,
Speaker 3: and part of the victim is sticking up out of
Speaker 3: the ground. This looks like it's possible that she could
Speaker 3: have been completely out of sight because it looks like
Speaker 3: it's deep enough.
Speaker 2: I wonder what the mind shafts If this was doug already,
Speaker 2: it's just some hole. Maybe machinery had been removed or something,
Speaker 2: and this was something I can't see. Sure this guy
Speaker 2: digging that? I mean, boy, when I think shallow grave,
Speaker 2: I think just enough to cover up a body. Well,
Speaker 2: let me tell you what they find. Okay, they find
Speaker 2: her body, and here's what the medical examiner says. She
Speaker 2: was brutally beaten. She was sexually assaulted, she was bludgeoned.
Speaker 2: They don't know with what she was Then she was
Speaker 2: also strangled with her own nylon stockings. So he put
Speaker 2: her in a large canvas that was buried. Now they say,
Speaker 2: here two feet deep. You're right, the perspective is wonky
Speaker 2: on this. Then two feet That's not two feet when
Speaker 2: I see But anyway, So they also find more of
Speaker 2: those towel strips like the ones found in her car,
Speaker 2: so they think that he used those to gag Judy.
Speaker 2: They also find a gray sweatshirt that they believe belonged
Speaker 2: to her killer, probably because it must have been buried
Speaker 2: with her, and even trace the canvas bag to a
Speaker 2: company that produced them specifically for the San Juan Unified
Speaker 2: School District. In Sacramento County, which seems like a specific clue.
Speaker 2: So what do you think about that? I mean, does
Speaker 2: it sound like somebody who is the same kind of
Speaker 2: killer as the person who ends up killing Nancy? Also
Speaker 2: totally different.
Speaker 3: It is different in terms of the mo you know,
Speaker 3: you've got an abduction sexual assault on the side, and
Speaker 3: you know, hiding the body fifty miles away than you
Speaker 3: have with Nancy. Of course, you have the offender going
Speaker 3: in and having her. You know, there's some planning going
Speaker 3: on here with with Judith in terms of the towel strips,
Speaker 3: you know, so that's that's kind of interesting from Okay,
Speaker 3: the offender is deciding to use the towel strips, you know,
Speaker 3: for for binding. Maybe it possibly a ligature or a
Speaker 3: gig the canvas bag. Coming back to San Juan School District,
Speaker 3: you know, that's where Okay, who all would have access
Speaker 3: to these bags? You know? Is this something that you know,
Speaker 3: somebody who's not affiliated with the San Juan School District
Speaker 3: would be able to just casually grab, you know, while
Speaker 3: being on school ground somewhere, or is this something where
Speaker 3: it's a specific person, let's say, a maintenance person, a
Speaker 3: janitor that would have access to these these bags. But
Speaker 3: that's also a little bit of a mess up on
Speaker 3: the offender's part to have something that could be traced
Speaker 3: back to him. You know, this could also be staged
Speaker 3: where it's you know, purposely choosing something that doesn't come
Speaker 3: back to the offender. You know. So, but right now,
Speaker 3: it's interesting. I mean, there's overlap in terms of the victimology.
Speaker 3: There's overlap in terms of sexual assault homicide of a female,
Speaker 3: but there are some significant differences. I still would consider
Speaker 3: the possibility of the same offender even with those differences.
Speaker 2: It's so interesting because you know, if you were to
Speaker 2: tell me about these two cases and the way that
Speaker 2: the crimes were structured, in the way they were planned out,
Speaker 2: I would have thought it would have been flipped. I
Speaker 2: would have thought he would have gone in and realized
Speaker 2: this was too quick. With Nancy, I'm probably going to
Speaker 2: get caught. They're probably going to be able to trace me.
Speaker 2: And then he works harder on the next on Judy
Speaker 2: to really he takes her really far out to cover
Speaker 2: it up. And this is sort of the opposite so
Speaker 2: that when I initially read that, I thought, I don't know,
Speaker 2: I mean, don't they usually get a little bit more sophisticated,
Speaker 2: not less sophisticated when they do these I guess not right.
Speaker 3: They learn from their experiences, but they also experiment as
Speaker 3: they do you know cases. But I open up when
Speaker 3: I when I teach the serial Predator course, I bring
Speaker 3: up three cases out of the nineteen seventies that you
Speaker 3: go this is from three different offenders. And it turns out, no,
Speaker 3: it's the same guy. He's doing it differently each time.
Speaker 3: So that's part of the linkage. The difficulty of linkage
Speaker 3: using behaviors and mo aspects, it is a very difficult
Speaker 3: thing unless you have really unique set of circumstances. That's
Speaker 3: the beauty of having DNA today because we can really
Speaker 3: link cases through DNA showing it's the same offender, even
Speaker 3: though the cases on the surface look like completely different
Speaker 3: types of cases.
Speaker 2: Well, let me tell you. In Judith's case, who they're
Speaker 2: looking at. They looked at Raymond and cleared him. I
Speaker 2: told you that the fiance. The news spreads about Judy's murder.
Speaker 2: The guy who owns the property these mining shafts, he
Speaker 2: comes forward. He says that three men he had never
Speaker 2: met before were digging a hole on his property about
Speaker 2: a week after Judy was last seen, and the guys
Speaker 2: told him they were digging for antique to sell, which
Speaker 2: I had not heard of, but sounds interesting. They said
Speaker 2: it was a thing that people actually still do at
Speaker 2: old mining sites.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah.
Speaker 2: But he was uncomfortable with the encounter and so he
Speaker 2: wanted to call the police. These three guys were never
Speaker 2: fully identified. You know, there's a vague description of one
Speaker 2: of them, slim, six foot tall, has brown hair, but
Speaker 2: there just doesn't seem to be any kind of a
Speaker 2: strong link between Judy and these men. Another weird thing
Speaker 2: about this story is the hiker who found Judy's body
Speaker 2: happened to actually live near both of the women in Sacramento.
Speaker 2: He's hiking fifty miles outside of Sacramento and he finds
Speaker 2: these bodies and he lives, you know, within a couple
Speaker 2: of blocks of these women. They look at the guy
Speaker 2: and then they rule him out, and there's just never
Speaker 2: a clear connection. And there's never, Paul a clear connection
Speaker 2: between Judy's case and Nancy's case. And this goes cold.
Speaker 2: Both of these cases go cold for a long time.
Speaker 3: Okay, well, but both cases have sets of circumstances in
Speaker 3: which modern technology might be able to pay off.
Speaker 2: Okay, we're gonna flash forward thirty years. I'm going to
Speaker 2: name drop in a second, and you can tell me
Speaker 2: if you know this person. So in two thousand and four,
Speaker 2: investigators reopen Nancy's case, so the second case, and they
Speaker 2: create a DNA profile based on I'm presuming the blood evidence.
Speaker 2: It's not the semen. This isn't something that was possible,
Speaker 2: of course, you know, after the murder. And so the
Speaker 2: DNA profile helps investigators eliminate every single one of their
Speaker 2: original suspects. So all of these guys it eliminates, and
Speaker 2: they also submit it to FBI's CODIS and there's no match.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: So there's a guy who works in the Sacramento DA's
Speaker 2: office during this time period. His name is Scott Triplett.
Speaker 2: Have you ever heard that name?
Speaker 3: Yeah, the name is vaguely familiar, but I can't picture him.
Speaker 2: So Scott Triplett says, the staff uploaded the DNA in
Speaker 2: Dakotis in two thousand and four, and the DNA profile
Speaker 2: was run through the CA California Department of Justice familiar
Speaker 2: Search five times between two thousand and nine and twenty
Speaker 2: twenty one each with negative results. So explain how that works.
Speaker 2: It's different than CODIS, right, So tell me how often
Speaker 2: you know they end up running these searches. It has
Speaker 2: to be requested, is that right?
Speaker 3: Yes, it has to be requested. There is a formal
Speaker 3: process to make a familial search request, and you would
Speaker 3: have a group of people at the DOJ level that
Speaker 3: would evaluate each request and whether or not it merited
Speaker 3: doing this familial search. It's still relying upon CODIS now.
Speaker 3: CODIS is actually broken up basically at three tiers. You
Speaker 3: have a local CODIS, you have a state level CODIS,
Speaker 3: and then of course you have the national CODIS. Most
Speaker 3: states in two thousand and four. In fact, many states
Speaker 3: today don't allow familial searching to be done on their database.
Speaker 3: And so for a familiar search in California, you can
Speaker 3: only do that for the DNA profiles that are at
Speaker 3: the California level. So even though it's possible that this
Speaker 3: guy would have a son that's in CODIS in some
Speaker 3: up Midwestern state, they're not legally permitted to search that
Speaker 3: data base. So within California, we would just do the
Speaker 3: familial request against the California database and we would attempt
Speaker 3: to try to do familial requests on other states that
Speaker 3: would allow it, but that typically would be rejected.
Speaker 2: Well, the detectives in Sacramento keep this case going and
Speaker 2: going and going for decades. They of course see what
Speaker 2: happens with the Golden State killer, and they're hopeful that
Speaker 2: they might be able to crack Nancy's case. Two. I
Speaker 2: know that they were trying to make that connection in
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy between the two, but it sounds like that
Speaker 2: sort of dropped off and they were really trying to
Speaker 2: concentrate on Nancy's case because I'm not quite sure what
Speaker 2: they collected on Judy's case, and I don't know if
Speaker 2: this you know, probably her case would still offficial, be open,
Speaker 2: But they were really concentrating on breaking Nancy's.
Speaker 3: Case well, and that's because they were confident that they
Speaker 3: had DNA evidence that would link back to the offender
Speaker 3: in Nancy's case. In Judy's case, you know, her body's
Speaker 3: found a month later. You know it's possible she's so decomposed,
Speaker 3: and they just never did get a good DNA profile
Speaker 3: in Judy's case, even though you know, investigatively they're going, well,
Speaker 3: there's a chance that these cases are related, but their
Speaker 3: efforts are going to be going on that DNA evidence
Speaker 3: from Nancy's case.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, Okay, So in twenty nineteen, so just six
Speaker 2: years ago, they uploaded the Suspected killers DNA profile into
Speaker 2: the public genealogical databases. It takes three years and financial
Speaker 2: support in the form of a grant from the Bureau
Speaker 2: of Justice Assistance. Tell me that, I don't know if
Speaker 2: I've heard that before, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you know, this is a federal entity we shortened,
Speaker 3: we refer to them as BGA, and so law enforcement
Speaker 3: gets a wide variety of different grants out of these
Speaker 3: BGA programs, and so there are grants that at the
Speaker 3: federal level were coming out, you know, specifically for cold
Speaker 3: cases or prosecuting cold cases. And these grants have been
Speaker 3: modified over the past few years to permit that funding
Speaker 3: to fund the genealogy testing.
Speaker 2: Okay, good well, thank goodness for that Bureau of Justice assistants,
Speaker 2: because they helped figure out this killer. So eventually, using
Speaker 2: those funds and using genealogy, they land on the name
Speaker 2: Richard John Davis. He was twenty seven years old when
Speaker 2: he murdered Nancy I can give you details. You can
Speaker 2: also see his photo and I don't know if you
Speaker 2: just want to compare him to the boy scout looking,
Speaker 2: you know, Glenn Campbell. But Davis is on the very
Speaker 2: last page, and of course it's photo.
Speaker 3: You know, in some ways he he almost has a
Speaker 3: Ted Bundy look to him. Yeah, it's hard to say
Speaker 3: if does he match that composite, but most certainly you
Speaker 3: could see even at his age, he's got a fairly
Speaker 3: full head of hair, so it's possible, you know, maybe
Speaker 3: he did match the Glenn Campbell look. But you know,
Speaker 3: the composite is on the side. Now, they got DNA right,
Speaker 3: and so once they identify him as as a potential
Speaker 3: through genealogy, then they would have done a direct sample
Speaker 3: from him and compared you know, his DNA profile using
Speaker 3: the traditional law enforcement type of DNA the STRs, to
Speaker 3: the str profile that had previously been generated from assuming
Speaker 3: the bloodstains collected at Nancy's apartment or along that blood trail,
Speaker 3: and would be one hundred percent match. So they know
Speaker 3: he's the guy.
Speaker 2: Well, let me tell you about Richard John Davis. He
Speaker 2: lived in the same apartment complex as Nancy. Okay, that
Speaker 2: brings me back to ear witnesses who said, oh, we
Speaker 2: heard a car take off out of the parking lot.
Speaker 2: We don't know if that was him or not. But
Speaker 2: I'll let me tell you a little bit more about
Speaker 2: the circumstances. So he has a roommate. Both Richard and
Speaker 2: his roommate were interviewed after Nancy's death, and they provided
Speaker 2: alibis for each other. You know, certainly, I don't know
Speaker 2: what that means. I mean, my goodness, if we were
Speaker 2: hanging out at my house, you could slip out for
Speaker 2: twenty minutes or go to that state I have to
Speaker 2: go to bathroom, Kate and slip out and you know,
Speaker 2: come back out. And if you're living right across the way,
Speaker 2: I mean, I maybe the roommate isn't making up this alibi.
Speaker 2: I don't know, but I could see it being possible
Speaker 2: that he slips across the way and doesn't take very
Speaker 2: long to do all this. But I don't know.
Speaker 3: Well, like Nancy's case, you know, this is not where
Speaker 3: the offender has spent a ton of time. Like I said,
Speaker 3: this type of promise I can occur very quickly. Now
Speaker 3: if he you know, was in there sexually assaulting her
Speaker 3: over the course of hours. That's one thing. But I
Speaker 3: mean it appears based on Ferris in his interview, is
Speaker 3: that well, when I left Nancy was you know, she's
Speaker 3: closed like she would be for bed, which basically was
Speaker 3: just in our underwear. So it looks like Richard Davis
Speaker 3: breaks in confronts Nancy. She probably puts up much greater
Speaker 3: resistance than what he was expecting, and now he kills
Speaker 3: her and he runs off. And this is a matter
Speaker 3: of a few minutes in which all of that could
Speaker 3: have occurred versus that other scenario brought up where he's
Speaker 3: spending a lot of time sexually assaulting her. He never
Speaker 3: got to the point of sexually assaulting her in all
Speaker 3: likelihood under this set of circumstances.
Speaker 2: The police have for fifty years quietly believed that Richard
Speaker 2: should be on the radar. And here's one main reason.
Speaker 2: They said that his apartment had the perfect vantage point
Speaker 2: of her door. Okay, he would be able to see
Speaker 2: the fiance going and coming, and all he would have
Speaker 2: had to do is walk toward the back to see her,
Speaker 2: leaving the door open just a crack to let the
Speaker 2: cat in and out. And you know, he lived there
Speaker 2: he lived in the apartment complex, so he would have
Speaker 2: known very well about her habits, even though I think
Speaker 2: she would have had a more predictable schedule I would
Speaker 2: guess as a court reporter than somebody like Judy as
Speaker 2: a nurse who probably worked all kinds of different shifts.
Speaker 2: But you know, he's there, he's able to see everything,
Speaker 2: and I think the police just had a bad feeling
Speaker 2: about him. They think that the bloody trail that we
Speaker 2: were talking about that ends in the parking lot that
Speaker 2: someone said, oh yeah, I heard a car take off,
Speaker 2: and I think this complex is small enough where people
Speaker 2: it would have been unusual for a car to leave
Speaker 2: that early in the morning. They think, actually, maybe this
Speaker 2: blood trail doesn't actually end in the parking lot. It
Speaker 2: could have extended all the way to a staircase where
Speaker 2: Richard could have gotten into his place.
Speaker 3: Well, but you also have to you know, this guy's
Speaker 3: rapidly getting out of Nancy's apartment, you know, and at
Speaker 3: a certain point, once he's you know, separated himself, he's
Speaker 3: now looking on I'm bleeding, and now he wraps his
Speaker 3: hand in his shirt or something, and so now you're
Speaker 3: not getting that consistent trail That's just a normal response
Speaker 3: that you see from offenders in flight. You know, once
Speaker 3: they get a certain distance away, you know, now they're
Speaker 3: kind of assessing what happened and looking at themselves. It's
Speaker 3: also entirely possible he got into his vehicle and drove off,
Speaker 3: you know, because he's now thinking, oh shit, I need
Speaker 3: to get away from here because they're going to, you know,
Speaker 3: find out you know, that I tried to attack Nancy
Speaker 3: or I killed Nancy.
Speaker 2: Would you expect now, I guess this is what I thought.
Speaker 2: I expected that level of violence and sort of planning.
Speaker 2: Whether I think the finger protectors you're silly or not,
Speaker 2: he's planning stuff. I would have thought this was not
Speaker 2: his first encounter, a violent encounter. But would that surprise
Speaker 2: you or not surprised you, regardless of whatever his background is.
Speaker 2: Would you think that he has done something along these
Speaker 2: lines before or no?
Speaker 3: Well, I think that's That's one of the things that
Speaker 3: we are finding out with the cases being solved with
Speaker 3: genealogy as cases that I normally would evaluate and go,
Speaker 3: you know, this looks predatory, Like you mentioned with Nancy's case,
Speaker 3: the pre planning, the covering up, the you know, the fingertips.
Speaker 3: He's obviously going in there with a knife. He's figured
Speaker 3: out that that sliding door would would be available for
Speaker 3: him to be able to get into and out of
Speaker 3: and nobody would know, and you'd go, yeah, this guy
Speaker 3: possibly has others. And he was you said, twenty seven
Speaker 3: at the time of her homicide, you know, And generally
Speaker 3: this is you know, where you do see offenders have
Speaker 3: a few cases at a younger age and in a predatory,
Speaker 3: fantasy motivated type of homicide. However, we're seeing those types
Speaker 3: of cases where these offenders commit them once and never
Speaker 3: do it again. It's what we call the one off offender.
Speaker 3: There's likely a lot of fantasy going on in Richard
Speaker 3: Davis's head, you know, and he's watching her, he's watching Nancy,
Speaker 3: fantasizing about what he wants to do with Nancy, and
Speaker 3: then develops a planned and he got scared or you know,
Speaker 3: when she fought back and he wasn't expecting it, and
Speaker 3: now he's going, oh god, you know, don't I didn't
Speaker 3: like that. I'm paranoid. I'm never going to do that again.
Speaker 3: And that's just what we're finding. You do have offenders
Speaker 3: that commit this horrific type of crime and then never
Speaker 3: do it again. That's why they're not being solved in CODIS,
Speaker 3: because they COTIS is predicated on the repeat offender versus genealogy.
Speaker 3: He may never offend to get his DNA collected from him,
Speaker 3: but he can't help his third cousins from doing genealogy research.
Speaker 3: And now we can triangulate from the third cousins and
Speaker 3: drop down on Richard Davis.
Speaker 2: Well, let me tell you about Richard. He had no
Speaker 2: violent record, He had a couple of DUI's, he had
Speaker 2: a drinking problem according to people in his life. But
Speaker 2: after he was killed, Richard seemed to live a quiet
Speaker 2: life with a wife and children. I mean, you know
Speaker 2: that we know of of course, I always say that
Speaker 2: he wasn't arrested for anything violent. We don't know what happened.
Speaker 2: Investigators are incredibly happy about this, as is I'm assuming
Speaker 2: Nancy's family. This is solved fifty years later. The really
Speaker 2: sad part of this to me is that Richard Davis
Speaker 2: died in ninety seven in Sacramento County, Okay.
Speaker 3: So he died before they ever discovered who he was. Yep,
Speaker 3: you know I've had that happen.
Speaker 2: He got away with it right.
Speaker 3: But you know, it's still it's an answer. It is,
Speaker 3: you know, and Nancy's family. It will never bring Nancy back,
Speaker 3: but having an answer at least is something.
Speaker 2: And you know, just talking about the other case that
Speaker 2: they were never able to connect, which is Judy huck
Speaker 2: Awry's case, it's unsolved. They were never able to move
Speaker 2: the needle on that, and you know, it's considered I
Speaker 2: believe in an open case at this point, but at
Speaker 2: least we're able to talk about it in case people
Speaker 2: do know anything that happened. These are relive for us,
Speaker 2: relatively recent cases where there could be people out there.
Speaker 2: I think through those circumstances, and Richard living in that
Speaker 2: complex makes sense as the offender. You know, he's able
Speaker 2: to see her pattern in everything. I'm not sure Richard
Speaker 2: with Judy makes sense. It's not his apartment complex. I
Speaker 2: guess he could be stalking her, but she has an
Speaker 2: unpredictable schedule. I guess it could be a crime of opportunity.
Speaker 2: But if he was interested in that, he had one already,
Speaker 2: you know, there in the apartment complex. I mean, I
Speaker 2: guess you never know, but I was just thinking, to me,
Speaker 2: this feels like two different offenders, but I don't know,
Speaker 2: we don't know.
Speaker 3: It would not surprise me, you know. With with Judith,
Speaker 3: you know that Richard is prowling a different apartment complex
Speaker 3: than his own right, and for that first case, maybe
Speaker 3: he does do surveillance on Judy, finds the life pattern
Speaker 3: the offender. In Judas case, I mean the torn towelstrips
Speaker 3: that shows pre planning, if the offender is at her
Speaker 3: place of work and is maybe hiding in her car.
Speaker 3: You know, he's definitely showing that there's been some thought
Speaker 3: put into attacking Judith and then figuring out how I'm
Speaker 3: going to dispose of her body. That very well could
Speaker 3: be Richard Davis, yeah, you know, and he can't help
Speaker 3: himself when he's seeing Nancy day in and day out
Speaker 3: in his own apartment complex. You know. I think with
Speaker 3: Judas case, it sounds like enough. Of course, I don't
Speaker 3: know to what extent that they've gone after the evidence,
Speaker 3: you know, and it's a much more difficult case from
Speaker 3: a DNA standpoint, But I those torn towel strips, I
Speaker 3: think the technology today, the sensitivity of the DNA testing
Speaker 3: today could potentially find offender DNA, you know, So I'm
Speaker 3: hoping that they've at least pursued that and maybe they
Speaker 3: struck out, But if they haven't, that would be one
Speaker 3: of the things I would I would recommend you never know,
Speaker 3: this guy could have put the towel in his mouth
Speaker 3: while he's tearing it, and you actually have a saliva
Speaker 3: stain with a whole bunch of DNA on it, and
Speaker 3: you just need to have the right DNA analyst who's
Speaker 3: very thorough to find something like that.
Speaker 2: Okay, one thing that I think you'll find interesting. There
Speaker 2: was a lot of chatter online on Reddit and other
Speaker 2: message boards and blogs that the belief that Nancy might
Speaker 2: have been a victim of the Zodiac killer. I didn't
Speaker 2: explore it because, of course, now we know this was
Speaker 2: a lot of this predates, of course, the DNA evidence.
Speaker 2: I don't sure why that would have been an option
Speaker 2: for folks on Reddit to think that she would have
Speaker 2: been Do you have any ideas about this?
Speaker 3: Oh? Yeah, no, for sure. This is I You know,
Speaker 3: I kind of got into the Zodiac world because I
Speaker 3: was working that and you know, my lab had actually
Speaker 3: done work on the Zodiac case, so I had access
Speaker 3: to some materials, and you know, once my name kind
Speaker 3: of got associated with work in the Zodiac. Then of
Speaker 3: course I've got all the various online people you know,
Speaker 3: hitting me up, and with Zodiac, there's a thought that
Speaker 3: Zodiac has many, many more cases than the actual you know,
Speaker 3: four attacks that we know he did, even some of
Speaker 3: my unsolved cases out of Contacosta County, these Zodiac slews
Speaker 3: are saying, well, it's got to be Zodiac, he must
Speaker 3: have done all of this. And then as we solve
Speaker 3: cases like, no, it's not. You know, we have a
Speaker 3: lot of these predators out there, particularly back in the
Speaker 3: nineteen seventies, so it's not surprising to me, you know,
Speaker 3: like with Nancy's case, that somebody would go, well, that's
Speaker 3: got to be Zodiac, you know, because he had one
Speaker 3: point he sent like a card in it was like
Speaker 3: me thirty eight you know, SFPD zero or something. You know.
Speaker 3: So they're thinking, well, he's now admitting that he's done
Speaker 3: thirty eight cases, and so they're trying to scoop all
Speaker 3: these unsolved cases as being Zodiac and that's just not
Speaker 3: the case.
Speaker 2: Well, I hope somebody is involved still with Judy Hakari's case,
Speaker 2: because you know, she deserves justice too, And I don't
Speaker 2: know what the reaction was of Nancy's family about at
Speaker 2: least having some answers here. I'm sure there's some sort
Speaker 2: of sense of relief, not closure, but just some sort
Speaker 2: of knowing, you know that that this is this is
Speaker 2: a person who, though he died without facing justice, there
Speaker 2: still is you know that being able to put that
Speaker 2: part of it to rest. That's a hard case. I mean,
Speaker 2: talking about young women dying in their twenties in such
Speaker 2: a horrible way and with such promise, not even the
Speaker 2: I'm going to get married part, but that just these
Speaker 2: you know, they seem like effervescent, well liked people, and
Speaker 2: it's just so awful to kind of go through that.
Speaker 2: But I also I like this case, these two cases,
Speaker 2: because the juxtaposition of them, to me, really kind of
Speaker 2: shows how unpredictable a killer could be, because you and
Speaker 2: I are both kind of going it could be and
Speaker 2: they might be connected and they might not. What you
Speaker 2: can't do is rely on a profile or what we've
Speaker 2: heard on TV to say this was overkill. It had
Speaker 2: to have been the fiance or somebody knew her, or
Speaker 2: somebody who was in love with her, when that was
Speaker 2: clearly not the case. But a lot of people would
Speaker 2: say something like that. So that's why I bring these
Speaker 2: kind of cases to you.
Speaker 3: No, well, I think you know, and like you when
Speaker 3: you say a profile, you know, the sort of that
Speaker 3: behavioral analysis there. I do believe that there is there
Speaker 3: is value to having you know, that somebody who has
Speaker 3: expertise in that, but it's also recognized the limitations of that,
Speaker 3: you know, and it's it's really where, you know, if
Speaker 3: there is something that the offender has done that is
Speaker 3: just so unique that behavioral profiler possibly can spot that
Speaker 3: where the average detective won't because the average detective doesn't
Speaker 3: work these types of cases day in and day out
Speaker 3: and hasn't seen stuff. So there is value, but sometimes
Speaker 3: people way overreach and you know, and it's not necessarily
Speaker 3: appreciating that. You can have, you know, what appear to
Speaker 3: be the same types of cases happening at the same
Speaker 3: time in the same neighborhood and it's all by different offenders,
Speaker 3: that's a reality, or you can have cases that don't
Speaker 3: look related at all, like Judith and Nancy. He's outside
Speaker 3: of the geographic connection and it could be the same offender,
Speaker 3: he's just doing different things.
Speaker 2: Well, next week will probably not be diving into DNA,
Speaker 2: much to your chagrin, will probably be stomping around on
Speaker 2: a farmhouse in the eighteen hundreds trying to figure out
Speaker 2: what somebody would do with like a pickaxe or something.
Speaker 2: But they're all valuable. These are all the same people
Speaker 2: every I mean, I just don't you see that that pattern.
Speaker 2: It's just people are people, and that's it. It doesn't
Speaker 2: matter if it's from the seventeen hundreds or twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: They all kind of react exactly the same to things.
Speaker 2: They cover stuff up, and you know, we might have
Speaker 2: more resources now, but it doesn't mean you're going to
Speaker 2: get caught. They got caught in the eighteen hundreds. You'll
Speaker 2: get caught now.
Speaker 3: Nope, for sure. Well I'm looking forward to it.
Speaker 2: All right, I will see you next week.
Speaker 3: Sounds good, Kate.
Speaker 1: This has been an exactly right production.
Speaker 3: For our sources and show notes go to exactly rightmedia
Speaker 3: dot com slash Buried Bones sources.
Speaker 1: Our senior producer is Alexis Emirosi.
Speaker 3: Research by Maren mcclashan, Ali Elkin, and Kate Winkler Dawson.
Speaker 2: Our mixing engineer is Ben Tolliday.
Speaker 3: Our theme song is by Brivogel.
Speaker 1: Our artwork is by Vanessa Lilac.
Speaker 3: Executive produced by Karen Kilgaroff, Georgia hard Stark, and Daniel Kramer.
Speaker 2: You can follow Buried Bones on Instagram and Facebook at
Speaker 2: buried Bones pod.
Speaker 3: Kate's most recent book, All That Is Wicked, a Gilded
Speaker 3: Age story of murder and the race to decode the
Speaker 3: criminal mind, is available now.
Speaker 2: And Paul's best selling memoir Unmasked, My life solving America's
Speaker 2: cold Cases, is also available now.
Speaker 3: Listen to Buried Bones on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 3: or wherever you get your podcasts