Speaker 1: Please be advised this story contains adult content and graphic language.
Speaker 1: So I've decided to call Deep Throat on air right
Speaker 1: now for my final attempt to see if she will
Speaker 1: in fact come forward on her own and share all
Speaker 1: she knows about her conversation with Rachel Buffett and Rachel
Speaker 1: Buffett's role in these murders. Okay, welcome to Sleuth. I'm
Speaker 1: Linda Sawyer. This is our finale episode. And over the
Speaker 1: last month, I've mentioned to you that there has been
Speaker 1: a person that's come forward that I like to refer
Speaker 1: to as Deep Throat, and Deep wrote came forward after
Speaker 1: episode nine and shared with me conversations that she had
Speaker 1: with Rachel Buffett, very telling conversations of Rachel's involvement, her knowledge,
Speaker 1: and what her participation was in these murders. And I
Speaker 1: have been working with Deep Throat now for over a
Speaker 1: month trying to convince her to come forward, and she
Speaker 1: has yet to commit to that. I've met with her
Speaker 1: several times, and at this point she knows that today's
Speaker 1: the deadline because we are in fact recording our finale episode.
Speaker 1: So I've given her a window of three hours that
Speaker 1: she has the opportunity to call in and share with
Speaker 1: our listeners firsthand all of the information that she knows
Speaker 1: that could in fact indict and have Rachel charged as
Speaker 1: an accomplice. Deep Throat is a religious person, and up
Speaker 1: till now, I had the faith that she would find
Speaker 1: the courage to come forward and tell her story. She
Speaker 1: did reach out to me, and so I want to
Speaker 1: believe that by the end of the recording of this
Speaker 1: finale episode we will hear from her. Otherwise I will
Speaker 1: share what she's told me without revealing her name, because
Speaker 1: I made a promise that she would remain anonymous unless
Speaker 1: she decided to come forward. So with that, I want
Speaker 1: it now share with our listeners that throughout the podcast,
Speaker 1: it's clear that there have been many questions that have
Speaker 1: come up over the time, over the twists and turns
Speaker 1: that you all have been willing to share on this journey.
Speaker 1: And so why particular person who stood out to me
Speaker 1: as I want to call my number one listening fan,
Speaker 1: Jeff Maddox, who reaches out to me on almost a
Speaker 1: daily basis with questions, really good questions that it made
Speaker 1: me think, why don't you come on the last episode
Speaker 1: and represent all of the listeners questions and if we
Speaker 1: could collect all of their questions and including Jeff's, and
Speaker 1: have him come on and turn the tables on me
Speaker 1: and ask me those questions, perhaps that would put to
Speaker 1: bed any lingering thoughts, observations, concerns that you have about
Speaker 1: my work on Sleuth. So with that, I would like
Speaker 1: to introduce to our listeners Jeff Maddox. Thank you for
Speaker 1: coming here today. Thank you so much. Linda. I'm it's
Speaker 1: kind of cool to finally be here. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: flattered that you invited me in. And I have been
Speaker 1: asking questions because, like everyone, as I listen, things come up,
Speaker 1: I go, wait, what was that about? What? What? What
Speaker 1: was going on doing that? And I think some of
Speaker 1: my questions are not on one second, we have Daniel
Speaker 1: hulk Yard calling in, and Daniel Hulkyard is actually Daniel
Speaker 1: Wazniat pastor. Daniel hulk Yard. Hi, you're you're on the
Speaker 1: air live. Thank you for calling. Absolutely So, Uh, how
Speaker 1: how did it go with your conversations with Danny Wozniak? Well,
Speaker 1: that went fine. I've we've basically uh touched base on
Speaker 1: the one and uh asking how family members were and everything,
Speaker 1: and uh we discussed a few things in general it went,
Speaker 1: it went well. And did you share with him the
Speaker 1: fact that you participated in Sleuth? Yes, I did, and
Speaker 1: he had told me that he had heard all of
Speaker 1: the episodes, and uh, you know, as with anyone who
Speaker 1: depending upon which here you're listening with or what are
Speaker 1: you're looking at it through, he had his differences of opinion,
Speaker 1: but he did here my my version and he said, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're entitled to that, and I said, I know, I'm
Speaker 1: entitled to it. And I think he was referring to
Speaker 1: my opinion about Rachel Buffett's participation what my thoughts were,
Speaker 1: and I told him that I just told him that,
Speaker 1: I just told him what I felt. And uh. I
Speaker 1: told him I thought that they were airing on the
Speaker 1: side of justice, as I would say, they were trying
Speaker 1: to get perspectives from both sides, and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: and I encouraged him. I said, if you have a
Speaker 1: difference of opinion with Sleuth, you need to call them
Speaker 1: to to make your case. And I said, other than that,
Speaker 1: we have the bloggers point of view and we have
Speaker 1: Sleuth point of view. And I told him at that time,
Speaker 1: I'm more inclined to listen to Sleuth art because it
Speaker 1: seems to have more of the players who are more objective,
Speaker 1: who were there and have nothing to gain from their
Speaker 1: point of view one or the other. And he disagreed.
Speaker 1: He you know, he has absolute faith in his blogger.
Speaker 1: Are you when you say the blogg are you talking
Speaker 1: about the blogger that has the website? Daniel Wozniak is
Speaker 1: my friend. Yes, yes, And my bottom line and all
Speaker 1: of this, after my conversations with Daniel is that I
Speaker 1: I don't know. I've I'm just not sure anymore. I've
Speaker 1: the Daniel I knew and the Daniel I'm talking to
Speaker 1: they're not the same people. I'm just I'm to come
Speaker 1: to that conclusion, and I've decided that I don't know
Speaker 1: what to believe anymore. I am talking to Daniel. I
Speaker 1: just feel like there's just it's hard to get a
Speaker 1: handle on and things that didn't know that actually happened
Speaker 1: that I've heard. He he says he won't go into
Speaker 1: it because he says, there are certain records that you
Speaker 1: know that have everything that absolutely happened, uh that he
Speaker 1: can be discussed because of some kind of thing about well,
Speaker 1: I guess a while back here, h there's that thing
Speaker 1: in the Orange County jail system where they were snitching,
Speaker 1: going on all kinds of stuff. And he said, because
Speaker 1: of that, there's certain people they need to have interviewed
Speaker 1: and they can't. And this went on, and I said, finally,
Speaker 1: I said, Dan, stop, I said, you know what, this
Speaker 1: is the way over my head. I said, I have.
Speaker 1: All I've asked is that I'd like to help you
Speaker 1: with your ministry. I'd like if you feel that you
Speaker 1: have been absolutely truthful and everything. But I said, that's
Speaker 1: got to be your call. I said, I really don't
Speaker 1: want to discuss this anymore because Linda, I don't know
Speaker 1: what the truth is anymore. I'm just not talked to Dan.
Speaker 1: I don't know if I'm being put on now. Why
Speaker 1: was he upset with what you said about Rachel. You
Speaker 1: would think that that would have pleased him. No, I
Speaker 1: don't think it did, because I think there's so much
Speaker 1: more connected to all of this. I don't think we'll
Speaker 1: ever get the truth here. But I do believe that
Speaker 1: someone's hiding someone from someone, and I just I don't
Speaker 1: I don't understand anymore. He took issue with the fact
Speaker 1: that his that that Darrell died because of the injuries.
Speaker 1: He took issue with that and said that was not
Speaker 1: true and that evidently the brother, whoever it was, was
Speaker 1: banished and told to leave the family. Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean the injuries were a direct result of him
Speaker 1: going into a coma. Well that I don't know. I
Speaker 1: aparned that. He denies a lot of it and said
Speaker 1: that the brother is not allowed around there anymore. Right,
Speaker 1: that's why. That's why the brother is not allowed any
Speaker 1: there anymore, because he beat him to a pulp. And
Speaker 1: you know what, Bob Castillo came on the show and said,
Speaker 1: I saw him moments after he was beaten by Mike
Speaker 1: and he had bruises and black eyes and bleeding everywhere.
Speaker 1: It's sad because this is not the family I knew.
Speaker 1: And I feel from Merry in his mom I feel
Speaker 1: for all of them what's going on there, and this
Speaker 1: is tragic. And I never once got remorse for the
Speaker 1: victims that didn't even come up. It wasn't even volunteered.
Speaker 1: And usually the dan, I know what, I'll apologize or
Speaker 1: something like that, and felt bad, But that Dan's going
Speaker 1: that the Danson San Quentin, and my feeling is the
Speaker 1: Dan that belongs to San Quentin. What he did was unforgivable,
Speaker 1: but his lack of remorse is even more unforgivable. I
Speaker 1: just it just breaks my heart. I don't know what
Speaker 1: he's hiding, I don't know who he's hiding, but I
Speaker 1: don't think the total truth has come up well he.
Speaker 1: I think that we know that the the taking on
Speaker 1: Rachel and and framing her for her role in these
Speaker 1: murders are directly correlated to Tim's role in the murders.
Speaker 1: And I think that that's what's that's what's the big
Speaker 1: secret here. That's a shame. But I look at it
Speaker 1: this way, Linda. Unless someone goes after Dan, unless something breaks,
Speaker 1: it's not gonna happen. I mean, it's so now here.
Speaker 1: So now you feel like you you won't be able
Speaker 1: to get the truth out of him at this point,
Speaker 1: it sounds to me like that's what you're feeling. No,
Speaker 1: I honestly feel that way. I don't think the truth
Speaker 1: is going to come out and I don't and I've
Speaker 1: discussed it with my family and I just said, you
Speaker 1: know what, my family and I we need we need
Speaker 1: to move on. This is sad, but we appreciate your efforts.
Speaker 1: I will always support Sloth and what you've done. I
Speaker 1: think you've done an admirable job. You know, what do
Speaker 1: you do when you have a pathological liar and that's
Speaker 1: the only source you can get to. I mean, boy,
Speaker 1: you're you're taking that's a toy. Cause there when I
Speaker 1: talked to him on the phone, he was like, oh
Speaker 1: my god. If I had not known Dan, I thought
Speaker 1: we had gone back ten years because he was that charming.
Speaker 1: But then something about what he was saying and how
Speaker 1: he said and what he was abating, I just said, yikes,
Speaker 1: this is not the Dan I knew. This is a
Speaker 1: different man that sitting in Quentin. And I pretty God
Speaker 1: will guide him and what he's going to do. But
Speaker 1: that's his call. And as far as all the people
Speaker 1: have been involved, I'm just I'm so sad for the
Speaker 1: families and for what everybody went through, the lives that
Speaker 1: were touched. But I appreciate the effort you put forth.
Speaker 1: Do you put a gallant effort forth? And in the end,
Speaker 1: the story is not finished. We don't know how it
Speaker 1: completely ended, and we won't. I just don't think we will.
Speaker 1: And who knows when Dan's gonna tell the truth or not.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Are you still Are you still planning
Speaker 1: on going to see him on January onee? No, No,
Speaker 1: I cut that off. I've it hurts too much. I can't.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to spend two hours and you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to spend two hours be like too,
Speaker 1: And that's about what it's going to turn out to be.
Speaker 1: It's that's what that's I just don't want to do that.
Speaker 1: And I'm just it's it's a waste of my time.
Speaker 1: And I've I've waited heavily. I prayed about it, I
Speaker 1: thought about it. I said, no, I said, I got
Speaker 1: to let let's go. You know, I've I hope you're
Speaker 1: able to pursue however further you're going to pursue, But
Speaker 1: that and is not ever going to tell you the
Speaker 1: truth because I don't think honestly, Dan Wisnia knows the truth.
Speaker 1: You know. The one thing about the truth versus a lie,
Speaker 1: you don't have to remember the truth. It's always going
Speaker 1: to be there. It's those lies that you have to
Speaker 1: sort it out and go, oh, was that the truth?
Speaker 1: Is that the truth? He knows the truth, he just
Speaker 1: refuses to share it for whatever reasons. No, I don't know,
Speaker 1: but I wish, I wish his family, his mom very well,
Speaker 1: that I've always turned but Dan, right now, I'm very
Speaker 1: frustrated with I mean, well, very frustrated Daniel. We appreciate
Speaker 1: you coming on and telling us everything and sharing with us,
Speaker 1: and I can hear in your voice how painful this
Speaker 1: all is, and I know how much it meant to
Speaker 1: you to be able to reach out to him and
Speaker 1: and maybe get some answers so that there could be
Speaker 1: justice all around here. But thank you for all your efforts, Daniel,
Speaker 1: and we will keep in touch. Okay, thank you learned
Speaker 1: that was a surprise, that was that was indeed, and uh,
Speaker 1: it's unfortunate, but I think he just learned a lot
Speaker 1: more about his old dear friend, Daniel Wozniak than he
Speaker 1: probably didn't want to accept um till now. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: guess the moral of the story is people change and
Speaker 1: whether you believe they can change it not. It sounds like,
Speaker 1: I mean, you could hear the hurt in his voice
Speaker 1: when he's talking about how much of a different person
Speaker 1: he is compared to the Danielle knew he was planning
Speaker 1: on seeing him January one and San Quentin, but I
Speaker 1: guess the phone calls are just too much to bear.
Speaker 1: So this was just a phone call that he had
Speaker 1: with him. He's had several almost daily in the last
Speaker 1: couple of weeks. So the fact that he's decided against
Speaker 1: visiting him says a lot. Yeah, it does. I wonder
Speaker 1: if that's going to change. I don't know. I wonder
Speaker 1: I wonder if this if maybe he was a source
Speaker 1: of support for him, even though he's not apparently being
Speaker 1: honest with him, if he was some sort of source
Speaker 1: of support, and the lack of phone calls, because it
Speaker 1: sounds like he's done. It sounds like he just just done.
Speaker 1: So I wonder if the lack of this contact might
Speaker 1: make him change his tune a little bit, maybe to
Speaker 1: come maybe to get him to come around. So, I
Speaker 1: don't know. I don't know. He has the blogger, yeah,
Speaker 1: that reaches out to him, and and his mother, and
Speaker 1: I think they both are there for him, whether it's
Speaker 1: financially or emotionally or otherwise. They they're the two that
Speaker 1: really are the steady influences in his life at this point.
Speaker 1: So I guess we'll just have to wait and see
Speaker 1: if we see something on dateline or CNN or the
Speaker 1: news at some point that things have changed, maybe that
Speaker 1: would be even better. So let's begin now your questions
Speaker 1: that you've collected from various listeners I have, so I
Speaker 1: wanted to get started by kind of refreshing everyone's memory
Speaker 1: on what made you so passionate about the story. It
Speaker 1: really had a connection with my children and the fact
Speaker 1: that these were all musical theater people that were involved
Speaker 1: in this case, and I just I couldn't imagine that
Speaker 1: a person for musical theater would be capable of chopping
Speaker 1: up there, you know, killing their friends in there in
Speaker 1: the attic of a theater where they're performing in and
Speaker 1: chopping them up. It's just it was like the real
Speaker 1: life Phantom of the Opera. And it just shook me
Speaker 1: to the core because one of my daughters could have
Speaker 1: been kissing Daniel Wasna on stage, and that really did
Speaker 1: horrify me. And for so long, for so many years
Speaker 1: growing up as kids and even into college, my kids
Speaker 1: were passionate about musical theater. That was a safe haven
Speaker 1: for them, and so I had to find out what
Speaker 1: happened here. I mean, it almost sounds like he's two
Speaker 1: different people. The one person on stage that that's kissing
Speaker 1: girls and pretending to whatever, and then the other person
Speaker 1: who is even remotely whether it's from outside forces or
Speaker 1: not even remotely capable of taking such an action. And
Speaker 1: that's probably and I think I'd have to agree that's
Speaker 1: part of one of the reasons it's been this is
Speaker 1: Sleuth has been so compelling for me is to hear
Speaker 1: the story of what happened, how it happened, and are
Speaker 1: you serious a person like that can do that well? Funny?
Speaker 1: His favorite one of his favorite roles in musical theater
Speaker 1: was jackal and Hyde. The irony, the irony. Um So
Speaker 1: getting into the questions. One of the things we talked
Speaker 1: a lot about was some of the comments on Facebook
Speaker 1: and everywhere the podcast can be heard. I heart the
Speaker 1: app One of the things that a lot of people
Speaker 1: had kind of talked about is obviously your motivation, your
Speaker 1: long term goal for this particular podcast, this season of Sleuth,
Speaker 1: and whether it's to help the prosecution to get to
Speaker 1: to obviously to uncover a lot of information, which I
Speaker 1: think you've been amazingly successful at doing so. Certainly, congratulations
Speaker 1: on doing that, because you've obviously worked really hard. Do
Speaker 1: you feel like you've been successful. As this is the
Speaker 1: final episode, do you feel like this has been a success. Well,
Speaker 1: I sure hope that Deep Throat decides to call in.
Speaker 1: Is that I think would be the final piece of
Speaker 1: the puzzle. And I never like to walk away from
Speaker 1: a puzzle unless it's finished. While I can share with
Speaker 1: my listeners what she told me, obviously, it would be
Speaker 1: incredible if, if, if she could come forward and and
Speaker 1: and tell tell, tell the story herself. But I have
Speaker 1: worked very hard and I appreciate you recognizing that. And
Speaker 1: I do feel like even if the justice that I
Speaker 1: was hoping for for the victims families, even if some
Speaker 1: of these others that were involved in this horrific tragedy,
Speaker 1: if they weren't brought to justice, at least from a
Speaker 1: social media aspect, and at least for all of my listeners,
Speaker 1: they know the truth. They know what happened here. Um,
Speaker 1: you might not have found it out in the courtroom,
Speaker 1: but social media could be a whole another courtroom in
Speaker 1: and of itself, because nobody is going to google any
Speaker 1: of these people's names without having them connected to this case.
Speaker 1: And I think the more people that listen to Sleuth,
Speaker 1: the more they're going to know how deeply they all
Speaker 1: were involved. Do you feel like I mean, obviously, listening
Speaker 1: to the show, it's not hard to see that what
Speaker 1: you're trying to do is come up with evidence. Neither
Speaker 1: the prosecution chose not to present or couldn't find themselves. Probably,
Speaker 1: I'm guessing they've got a lot of money that the
Speaker 1: budgets pretty big. They've got some deepockets over there, probably
Speaker 1: have most of the information I would imagine that you've presented. Um,
Speaker 1: do you think your motivation had anything to do with
Speaker 1: wanting to compel them to release some of the information
Speaker 1: or to use some of that information. Well, I just
Speaker 1: wanted the public to understand that you're not always going
Speaker 1: to get the truth in a courtroom. You're not gonna
Speaker 1: always here everything that happened in a case from a courtroom,
Speaker 1: or even from headlines or broadcast shows like Dateline or
Speaker 1: or forty eight Hours. There's only a limited amount of
Speaker 1: time they have to tell a story, and it's usually
Speaker 1: based on the goings on and the happenings in the courtroom.
Speaker 1: So I just thought, in this particular case, because there
Speaker 1: was a narrative that it was Dan and Dan alone,
Speaker 1: that's just struck me as not entirely truthful, that I
Speaker 1: felt like there was more to this story, and if
Speaker 1: I continued on the path of learning and and connecting
Speaker 1: with other people that were involved in the story, that
Speaker 1: I would get the answers that would flush out the
Speaker 1: picture of what really happened to Sam and Julie and
Speaker 1: to expose who else was really involved into what extent.
Speaker 1: And the only way to do that is is get
Speaker 1: out there and do investigating, you know, and just stick
Speaker 1: with it and and even if you're an island, onto
Speaker 1: yourself sometimes because when you're telling the truth and when
Speaker 1: you're investigating a case like this, you can't always please
Speaker 1: everyone all the time. There's going to be hurt feelings
Speaker 1: at some point, there's going to be people that disagree
Speaker 1: with you or or want to dismiss you. But you
Speaker 1: can't let that stop you. You have to keep going
Speaker 1: because that is the only way you get the full picture,
Speaker 1: is to just keep going and keep interviewing people and
Speaker 1: keep learning the story behind the story. More people involved,
Speaker 1: like two sets of footprints maybe. Um, So, speaking of time,
Speaker 1: how much time do you think you've put I mean,
Speaker 1: you said it was what five years ago or so?
Speaker 1: That you first heard about the story. If you had
Speaker 1: to quantify, just off the top of your head, if
Speaker 1: you had to pick a number, how much time do
Speaker 1: you think you spent us in addition to the podcast
Speaker 1: on this particular case, Well, it was early December when
Speaker 1: I first heard about it. So it's been three years years.
Speaker 1: And I think the fact that you know, my children
Speaker 1: are are raised in our young adults, living their lives
Speaker 1: and they don't need necessarily my physical time as much
Speaker 1: as they used to. Um And because I'm not married,
Speaker 1: and it's probably going to remain that way if I
Speaker 1: continue to be investigative reporter I have. I have my
Speaker 1: time to choose how and where I use that time.
Speaker 1: So I I just I'm a seven day a week girl.
Speaker 1: Whenever someone calls or I hear from someone or a
Speaker 1: source that says, you know, meet me at such and
Speaker 1: such diner at midnight, I go. And yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: I don't have anybody to answer to. I don't have
Speaker 1: to like sneak out of a bed or have dinner
Speaker 1: ready at a certain time so that I can go
Speaker 1: somewhere to to talk to a new source. It's it's
Speaker 1: really my call, my decision, and my life. So I
Speaker 1: I chose to commit my life to this case because
Speaker 1: of the reasons I told you earlier, and because I
Speaker 1: care so much about the families, And I felt like
Speaker 1: there was a certain level of political expedients to this
Speaker 1: case because it was a death penalty case, because there
Speaker 1: was a diving force in the District attorney's office where
Speaker 1: they needed to win this at all costs, because their
Speaker 1: cameras were in the courtroom. They weren't going to lose
Speaker 1: in front of the cameras. There was a narrative that
Speaker 1: Dan and Dan alone committed these crimes, and it just
Speaker 1: didn't sit well with me. It sounds like there's plenty
Speaker 1: of evidence to prove otherwise, but for one reason another
Speaker 1: political or not, they aren't interested. Perhaps would you agree
Speaker 1: In the end, it's it's all about justice and we
Speaker 1: have to have faith in the justice system. If we
Speaker 1: lose faith in the justice system, we lose everything. So,
Speaker 1: speaking of politics, there's a new d A. After over
Speaker 1: twenty years, there's a new DA. Do you think Todd Spitzer,
Speaker 1: in your opinion, is going to maybe re look at
Speaker 1: this well. I've been told he's aware of the podcast
Speaker 1: and that he has been listening and oh, it's my
Speaker 1: earnest hope that he does re examine the case of
Speaker 1: Rachel Buffett as well as Tim and know A Buffett.
Speaker 1: But it's too early to be able to predict where
Speaker 1: he would potentially go with that, and we'll see. I
Speaker 1: wanted to address just to put it out there. I
Speaker 1: listened to the obviously the press conference where you were
Speaker 1: called out. That's pretty powerful stuff. So just to put
Speaker 1: it out there plain English, do you believe Daniel Wisnac
Speaker 1: belongs on death row? I think in the episode where
Speaker 1: Scott Sanders, Scott Moxley and Paul Wilson, who was actually
Speaker 1: a victim of Scott to Cry, he lost his wife
Speaker 1: of twenty six years at the hands of Scott to Cry,
Speaker 1: and Scott to Cry was another client of Scott Sanders,
Speaker 1: besides Daniel Wozniak, And I point blank said to the
Speaker 1: defense counsel, have I ever once said that I don't
Speaker 1: believe Daniel woznia belongs on death row? And his answer
Speaker 1: to that was no. Now, if there was ever a
Speaker 1: person in this story that I would potentially say that too,
Speaker 1: it would obviously be the defense counsel too. Schmooze my
Speaker 1: way into some kind of a trusting relationship, right, But
Speaker 1: I don't do that. That's not how I operate. I
Speaker 1: I believe that Daniel Wozniak is where he belongs. No
Speaker 1: matter how many times Matt Murphy says it, I have
Speaker 1: never once claimed otherwise. Well, I haven't heard it on
Speaker 1: the podcast myself, but as I said, I just wanted
Speaker 1: to come around to it one more time. I think
Speaker 1: Daniel Wisnia believes he's where he's supposed to be. Yes,
Speaker 1: I do. I think. I think part of that conversation
Speaker 1: we just heard from Daniel hulk Yard was him sort
Speaker 1: of saying, listen, leave me alone. I took the I'm
Speaker 1: taking the responsibility for all of it. If you keep going,
Speaker 1: other people could end up sitting in the cell next
Speaker 1: to me. And I don't want that. I'm I'm where
Speaker 1: I'm supposed to be and just leave it be. I
Speaker 1: think that's not Linda. So I kind of wanted to
Speaker 1: get into some more of the not quite as heavy questions.
Speaker 1: This is this and again this is probably gonna be
Speaker 1: the last one for me, and I've got a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of questions from the listeners that I'm really excited
Speaker 1: to get into episode seven. That was where you interviewed
Speaker 1: Rachel Buffett's ex boyfriend who happened to be her father's
Speaker 1: age or so something along those lines. A lightning rod
Speaker 1: of an episode. Yes, it was. It certainly was, and
Speaker 1: there were a lot of questions about that episode, primarily
Speaker 1: there was a lot of talk about flirtation during that episode.
Speaker 1: I heard it. I brought it up to you. We
Speaker 1: were talking on Facebook. I mentioned it to you. I said, Wow,
Speaker 1: that's interesting. How was that in studio? And your response
Speaker 1: to me was, I gotta tell you. I was stunned
Speaker 1: by the reaction that episode received. My partnering Crime Mike,
Speaker 1: who is my audio engineer, and uh, he was in
Speaker 1: the studio with me, and we left thinking, yeah, he's
Speaker 1: a character, but what a wonderful opportunity to open a
Speaker 1: window into a crazy world that the listeners would have
Speaker 1: never heard before. And never once did we say to
Speaker 1: one another, boy, he was really flirting with me or
Speaker 1: I was really flirting with him. I'm just not someone
Speaker 1: that even really. I mean, I know this might sound crazy,
Speaker 1: but I don't even really know how to flirt. I
Speaker 1: don't I've I've long passed the years in my life
Speaker 1: of flirting, and so for me, I'm always focused on
Speaker 1: extracting the story out of someone, extracting the truth out
Speaker 1: of them, telling, listening to them, and and and trying
Speaker 1: to engage them make them feel comfortable in the situation. Obviously,
Speaker 1: there was laughter that I was also criticized for, and
Speaker 1: I thought we tried to touch upon that at the
Speaker 1: end of the episode by saying, the levity is is
Speaker 1: what sometimes makes you feel more at ease when you're
Speaker 1: sharing the most intimate details of a situation and a
Speaker 1: time in your life that maybe you're not altogether proud of,
Speaker 1: but yet you are courageous enough to come forward because
Speaker 1: if it helps, if it helps the case, if it
Speaker 1: helps the story, if it helps get to the truth
Speaker 1: for the victims families, He did that for them and
Speaker 1: and I I tried to alleviate his concerns about the
Speaker 1: laughter by saying, know, I have spent countless hours, week
Speaker 1: after week for years with with Steve hair, who first
Speaker 1: and foremost is one of the funniest men I've ever met,
Speaker 1: and I used to feel guilty about laughing, knowing why
Speaker 1: we were together, what we were talking about, what we
Speaker 1: were discussing, and he said, don't you ever feel guilty
Speaker 1: about laughing, because the fact that I can make you
Speaker 1: laugh and that we can find laughter and all this
Speaker 1: it keeps me alive. I remember you saying something about
Speaker 1: that it was for him, it was it was sort
Speaker 1: of his purpose at this point, and so you know,
Speaker 1: I apologize to any listeners that I offended. That certainly
Speaker 1: was not my intention. And if anything, again, the point
Speaker 1: was to allow for this person to feel at ease
Speaker 1: and to feel that he was in a safe place
Speaker 1: to share a very uncomfortable story. I and I in
Speaker 1: to agree, And as I said to you before, I
Speaker 1: think this is what you do. You're and you're good
Speaker 1: at it. Sometimes you just kind of have to go
Speaker 1: with the flow. And if that means it's if that
Speaker 1: makes it sound a little bit less than quote unquote
Speaker 1: professional or less than um serious, then so be it.
Speaker 1: But at least you're getting information. And I will tell
Speaker 1: you I think when I was I was listening to it,
Speaker 1: I think the things that may be stuck out to
Speaker 1: people was not you so much. I mean, yes, it
Speaker 1: was laughing. But so when he he talked a lot
Speaker 1: about he talked a lot about getting laid and he
Speaker 1: and he made a few sexual innuendows. I think maybe
Speaker 1: that's his sense of humor. Maybe he's like that with
Speaker 1: a lot of people. Um. And then at the at
Speaker 1: the very end, he said, Oh, but you're just so
Speaker 1: charming and funny, and I think that probably is what
Speaker 1: And then I think you probably chuckled after that because oh,
Speaker 1: thanks whatever. I think that's probably where people got that impression.
Speaker 1: I think he's has a sarcastic tone to his delivery sometimes,
Speaker 1: and I think that he was just being himself. And
Speaker 1: I can't judge a person for being themselves. I can
Speaker 1: only expect and certainly hope for them to just come
Speaker 1: on and tell me the truth. That actually brings up
Speaker 1: a good question that I have. So do you feel
Speaker 1: I don't want to point in the finger at anybody
Speaker 1: in particular, do you feel like anybody came in here
Speaker 1: and didn't tell you the truth or maybe stretch the truth,
Speaker 1: or maybe it was just here because they went Wow,
Speaker 1: it's a big podcast with over two million listeners, and
Speaker 1: I could be famous if I'm on here. Do you
Speaker 1: think anybody had motivations other than the whole truth, nothing
Speaker 1: but the truth? So help me, Linda, I don't think
Speaker 1: anybody that came on, uh said anything about the truth.
Speaker 1: I've spent countless hours was just about everybody that came
Speaker 1: on the podcast, and also vetted a lot of what
Speaker 1: they said with other sources. I think that the people
Speaker 1: that chose in the end not to come on, maybe
Speaker 1: we're afraid that they weren't going to be able to
Speaker 1: tell the truth. And they knew that I knew the truth.
Speaker 1: So that's all I can say about that. As far
Speaker 1: as the people that were on the podcast, I'm a
Speaker 1: stickler for the details. I'll drive someone crazy with the details.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'll call and call again and again to
Speaker 1: make sure that I get it right. Or if their
Speaker 1: story changed a little bit, why why did the story
Speaker 1: change a little bit? What was the where is where
Speaker 1: in lies? What really happened? You know? I mean, let's
Speaker 1: go back again and revisit this conversation about what happened
Speaker 1: eight years ago, that sort of thing. But I do
Speaker 1: everything to make sure that I get it right that
Speaker 1: and so you should. And I think that's probably one
Speaker 1: of the reasons you've been so successful with the podcast
Speaker 1: and why you have so many regular listeners, thank myself
Speaker 1: included obviously, so let's get to the questions that people
Speaker 1: asked on Facebook. These are there, There's a there's a few,
Speaker 1: um and the first one, I think, just because Bob's
Speaker 1: interview was recent, I kind of want to start with this.
Speaker 1: So Blake Harrison asked on Facebook why did Tim go
Speaker 1: to Bob's house? And when he went to Bob's house?
Speaker 1: Did Tim know what he was getting himself into when
Speaker 1: revealing all of this evidence to Bob. When this person
Speaker 1: says why did Tim go to Bob's house, It's hard
Speaker 1: for me to answer because I'm not sure the time
Speaker 1: frame that these are referring to. I'm assuming I'm going
Speaker 1: to go with the assumption that this person is asking
Speaker 1: about when Tim went to Bob's house on Wednesday night
Speaker 1: talking about the gun, and he originally went to Bob's
Speaker 1: house on a Tuesday to share with him the debit cards,
Speaker 1: sims debit card to say he wanted to fill it
Speaker 1: with guests, and uh, let me involve you in my crime, right,
Speaker 1: And then I think that Lisa Golidge, who was his
Speaker 1: girlfriend at the time, had a lot to do with
Speaker 1: prompting Tim two do what he had to do to
Speaker 1: involve Bob in the revealing of of the evidence. She
Speaker 1: knew about the creative evidence. She she was there when
Speaker 1: it was put into Tim's car the night that they
Speaker 1: went to Dan's apartment. She knew. She even said to
Speaker 1: Bob Castillo, please help us so that Tim doesn't have
Speaker 1: to pay for a crime that Dan committed. Um So
Speaker 1: I think Tim going to Bob's the Wednesday night, the
Speaker 1: same night actually Dan was arrested, and I'm sure he
Speaker 1: found out Dan was arrested an hour earlier, and I'm
Speaker 1: sure Lisa then said he's arrested. The whole house of
Speaker 1: cards is going to come down. You have to get
Speaker 1: in front of this. You have to involve Bob and
Speaker 1: maybe he could help us get this gun to the police,
Speaker 1: the proper thorities to get it out of your hands.
Speaker 1: And I think that's basically what happened there. As far
Speaker 1: as what was the second question, um did what did
Speaker 1: Tim know what he was getting himself into with the
Speaker 1: telling Bob about this evidence and to tag onto that
Speaker 1: he also wanted to know. Do you think Tim knew
Speaker 1: that Bob was going to roll on him as soon
Speaker 1: as I mean he did, he rolled on him pretty quickly.
Speaker 1: Do you think Tim knew that Bob was going to
Speaker 1: roll on him as soon as he had that evidence
Speaker 1: in hand, to make sure that he didn't get in trouble. Well,
Speaker 1: Bob didn't roll on him. What happened was is the
Speaker 1: the UH. The police ran the serial numbers on the
Speaker 1: gun and it came back to it was Daryl waznie
Speaker 1: X gun. And so Bob only knew what Tim was
Speaker 1: telling him, which wasn't much. It was one side of things.
Speaker 1: He was telling him the stories that Dan allegedly told
Speaker 1: Tim about what had happened with that gun, about how Sam.
Speaker 1: First he said that Sam had killed Julie with that
Speaker 1: gun and was on the run, and then he said
Speaker 1: at one point that another person was killed by Sam,
Speaker 1: so that there were two people that were killed by Sam,
Speaker 1: and so the stories kept changing. And the fact is
Speaker 1: is that Tim knew so much because he was there
Speaker 1: on the friday. He was there on the Friday when
Speaker 1: Dan came back with the first installment of money UH
Speaker 1: to give to Chris Williams, who loaned them the two
Speaker 1: thousand dollars to stave off the conviction. I mean Tim
Speaker 1: had the conversation with Dan during the intermission Saturday night
Speaker 1: in the nine performance when that young little boy overheard
Speaker 1: dance part of the conversation when he said, why did
Speaker 1: you have to break the window? When Tim did break
Speaker 1: a window to get into that apartment, he told him
Speaker 1: where the crate was to take the crate, the crate
Speaker 1: that had all of the bloody clothes and the tools
Speaker 1: that Dan used to dismember Sam's body. He told him
Speaker 1: where Sam's keys were to go sell the car. So
Speaker 1: Tim was involved ever since Friday of the murders, probably
Speaker 1: even earlier, but that's what we know at this point.
Speaker 1: So as far as how much did Tim know? Tim,
Speaker 1: Tim was looking to extricate himself as much as he could,
Speaker 1: but he was too involved. So I guess that I guess,
Speaker 1: maybe to rephrase the question, then, did Tim know while
Speaker 1: he was sharing all this information with Bob? Was it
Speaker 1: in Tim's even consciousness that everything he was saying was
Speaker 1: really quickly going to be shared with the police. I
Speaker 1: think Tim doesn't know the truth. Ever, he doesn't know
Speaker 1: how to tell the truth. From what I understand from
Speaker 1: his friends, Tim is just pathological, and so I think
Speaker 1: that Tim thought he could lie his way out of
Speaker 1: a situation. But yet somehow he did because he became
Speaker 1: a crucial witness for the prosecution for the state, and
Speaker 1: that is what saved him. That's they needed him so
Speaker 1: that they could dismiss any potential mental incapacitation defense from
Speaker 1: Daniel Wozniac. Well, he got what he wanted, I guess
Speaker 1: for now. Next question is from blithe Tyranny Diva on Facebook.
Speaker 1: The media referred to Rachel Buffett as an actress in
Speaker 1: quotes they weren't exactly specific as to her level or
Speaker 1: skill of an actress, but she took it as I'm
Speaker 1: an actress, I'm such a good actress. If the media
Speaker 1: had referred to Rachel Buffett as what she truly was
Speaker 1: quote want to be actress and not simply an actress,
Speaker 1: do you think that might have caused her to react
Speaker 1: differently to the media. And you think that if she
Speaker 1: thought she wasn't going to be famous from this or
Speaker 1: infamous or whatever, would she have maybe slipped up a
Speaker 1: little bit instead of feeling as if everyone bought her tetering, famed,
Speaker 1: innocent performance. I think Rachel's always about Rachel And one
Speaker 1: of the episodes was with Audrey McVeigh, who was their
Speaker 1: third wheel up until a week before the murders, and
Speaker 1: when the murders took place, and when the headlines were
Speaker 1: rampant all across the country, Rachel was certainly a player
Speaker 1: in in the telling of this case. Audrey had made
Speaker 1: a point of reaching out to Rachel and saying, can
Speaker 1: you know what can I do for you? I feel bad?
Speaker 1: Are you okay? Are you hanging in there? We're all
Speaker 1: the wedding plants were able to take care of the
Speaker 1: cancelation all that, And Rachel's response to Audrey was, why
Speaker 1: are you calling me? Because you just want fame. You
Speaker 1: just want you just want faming. You just want to
Speaker 1: be somehow attached to all this with me. And that
Speaker 1: was just horrifying to Audrey because that's the last thing
Speaker 1: she thought about or cared. But that just goes to
Speaker 1: show you the mentality of Rachel Buffett. So whether they
Speaker 1: called her an actress or want to be actress, or
Speaker 1: you know, half an actress, I think that Rachel was
Speaker 1: always going to look at this opportunity as her big break.
Speaker 1: I mean, one of the reasons I was told by
Speaker 1: a couple of her remaining friends was that she didn't
Speaker 1: want to take the plea deal that the prosecutor offered
Speaker 1: her up until a couple of weeks before her trial,
Speaker 1: which was a offer of accept and plead guilty to
Speaker 1: a misdemeanor and no jail and I'll expunge the misdemeanor
Speaker 1: after a year. She wouldn't take it because her thought
Speaker 1: process was, I'm not going to be able to have
Speaker 1: a book or a movie deal if I plead guilty
Speaker 1: to anything. But what if you're found guilty in the future. Well,
Speaker 1: she didn't think about that part. Again, the narcissism kicks
Speaker 1: in and you think, I'm gonna act my way out
Speaker 1: of this, and she went for this trial. What what
Speaker 1: boggles my mind is that she went all the way
Speaker 1: with this right and decided to play her card with
Speaker 1: a trial. Yet she didn't get up on the witness
Speaker 1: stand and speak on behalf of herself. She she she
Speaker 1: could have, and you would think that that would be
Speaker 1: the reason why she would go to trial, but she
Speaker 1: never did so. Christina Reynolds had a related question. Uh says,
Speaker 1: my question would be about Rachel's accessory conviction. Since she
Speaker 1: was convicted of the accessory charge, is it actually possible
Speaker 1: to move forward with a murder charge with the way
Speaker 1: of the law reads, would they have to throw away
Speaker 1: that conviction? Just curious on the on the legality. And
Speaker 1: that's actually a question that a lot of people have
Speaker 1: been asking. What now, as she done? Can all the
Speaker 1: seventh that ends that you've accumulated that's probably somewhere on
Speaker 1: the annals of the Orange County District Attorney. Can this
Speaker 1: all be brought up by Todd Spitzer whomever? Um So,
Speaker 1: I guess the question is what can be done now
Speaker 1: to Rachel now that she's been convicted of just this
Speaker 1: seemingly small the two families of accessory after the fact.
Speaker 1: The law is simple. You can convict someone of an
Speaker 1: accessory charge and then you could subsequently charge them with
Speaker 1: murder or accomplice if there is a new act. If
Speaker 1: if new evidence and a new act comes forward that
Speaker 1: you weren't that wasn't used in your original charge and
Speaker 1: conviction of the accessory charge. If a new act comes forward,
Speaker 1: you can be charged with murder even though you've already
Speaker 1: been convicted of an accessory charge. So Mark Bigeinger, I
Speaker 1: hope I didn't mess up his name, asks how much
Speaker 1: involvement do you think Noah had? Given that the theater
Speaker 1: is on a military base. There's a couple of questions,
Speaker 1: given that the theaters on a military base, what federal
Speaker 1: laws are in place, and how do they work in
Speaker 1: relation to a civilian committee in a crime? And and
Speaker 1: his last question was is Tim still in jail on
Speaker 1: pro violations? So I'll do the last one. First, Tim
Speaker 1: is out. He was out about a week ago. And
Speaker 1: as far as the military base being federal grounds, at first,
Speaker 1: the FBI was involved and they were there on the
Speaker 1: scene when the when the when the body was found.
Speaker 1: But from what I understand from Mr Murphy, he said
Speaker 1: that the FBI is not as effective at prosecuting murders,
Speaker 1: so the they eventually relented and gave it to the
Speaker 1: d a's office. That's what I was told by Mr Murphy.
Speaker 1: As far as Noah's involvement, I think he certainly knew.
Speaker 1: He certainly sounded like he knew quite a bit of
Speaker 1: what was happening. When he visited this Spaths two days
Speaker 1: after Dan had confessed to the murders. He was an
Speaker 1: interesting Yeah. He went down to the Spaths with Rachel
Speaker 1: and her two leader bottle of vodka and he shared
Speaker 1: with John Spath how I mean John Spath was incredulous.
Speaker 1: He couldn't believe that Dan, the man that he had
Speaker 1: known for quite some time, because he had been dating
Speaker 1: his daughter for two years and they really considered him family.
Speaker 1: I mean they went on family vacations together, holidays, and
Speaker 1: so he did. He voiced to know how he found
Speaker 1: it shocking that Dan was capable of such horrific murders
Speaker 1: when he never saw any of those tendencies in him.
Speaker 1: And Noah said, yeah, no, I can believe it. We
Speaker 1: used to sit around and plan murders together, how we
Speaker 1: would get away with it, and and uh and honestly,
Speaker 1: I I think that the motivation was money, because he
Speaker 1: was being evicted and I was really pressuring him. I
Speaker 1: was like, what's going to happen, dude, I this is
Speaker 1: at least that's in my name and my credit is
Speaker 1: going to get destroyed. And he told John Spat that
Speaker 1: Dan told him as long as I could get four
Speaker 1: hundred dollars a day, he said, will be fine. What
Speaker 1: a miraculous number to pull out of the air exactly
Speaker 1: what they were doing, so, I mean, you can just
Speaker 1: deduce from there. Unfortunately, that's all we'll be doing because
Speaker 1: they just let everybody else go. It seems like, well,
Speaker 1: the reason that the police said they didn't go further.
Speaker 1: They did originally charge him with accessory after the fact
Speaker 1: because in his car was underneath the driver's seat was
Speaker 1: Noah's car. Yeah, Noah's car was an envelope with four
Speaker 1: in it, which was the payment that they had received
Speaker 1: that day when they went by Wesley's house to pick
Speaker 1: up the money, and Noah was in that car. So
Speaker 1: breaking news on Sleuth. I think that's the first time
Speaker 1: we've talked about the that is the first time I
Speaker 1: mentioned the fo in his car. Yeah, so they arrested
Speaker 1: him for access way after the fact. But I asked
Speaker 1: the Coast to Mesa police why they didn't pursue charges
Speaker 1: against Noah, particularly after the Spats came forward and share
Speaker 1: with them what Noah was telling them, and they said, well,
Speaker 1: he was very helpful in convincing Rachel to take the
Speaker 1: stress test, the voice stress test. I said, well, what
Speaker 1: else is he going to say? Of course he's not
Speaker 1: going to say don't take it. It's gonna look guilty
Speaker 1: if he does that. So I I don't know. I
Speaker 1: scratched my head on that one. But there was a
Speaker 1: lot of scratching that went on in this case. So,
Speaker 1: speaking of co conspirators allegedly, Arlene Vorhees asks, how was
Speaker 1: any documentation in correlation with Tim's involvement kept out of
Speaker 1: any legal discussion discovery? Why wouldn't Daniel's defense want to
Speaker 1: bring that to light during the trial, even though Daniel
Speaker 1: would have adamantly fought against it. Well, that's a question
Speaker 1: that I have asked the Ends counseled directly, and there
Speaker 1: are certain questions he does answer for me, and certain
Speaker 1: he won't, and that's one he won't because he feels
Speaker 1: that that uh is a direct correlation to his strategy.
Speaker 1: But I can say what I feel. What my opinion is,
Speaker 1: which has always been my opinion throughout the investigation of
Speaker 1: this case, is that Daniel doesn't want anybody to point
Speaker 1: the finger and his brother. He doesn't want his brother
Speaker 1: to have to go down for any of this. He
Speaker 1: wants to take it all himself, which is why I
Speaker 1: think he was upset with Daniel holk Yard when Daniel
Speaker 1: Holker came on the show and talked about how he
Speaker 1: felt Rachel's involvement is really what took them to the
Speaker 1: dark side, and that Rachel was really the mastermind and
Speaker 1: all that because Rachel and Tim spent about a week
Speaker 1: together after Dan was incarcerated, after he confessed to the murders.
Speaker 1: She went to where the hotel where where Tim and
Speaker 1: Lisa Goulds were staying, and they did a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of smoking meth together, and I think that's where they
Speaker 1: talked about, Okay, you go down, I go down, whatever
Speaker 1: I mean. And that's been something that Tim told me directly.
Speaker 1: I mean Tim told me a matter of fact, we
Speaker 1: spent that week together and we decided if you go down,
Speaker 1: I go down. I mean, what else is that? I said,
Speaker 1: what does that mean? He goes? So I don't think
Speaker 1: Dan wants to roll over on anybody because he just
Speaker 1: doesn't want to feel guilty of involving them and and
Speaker 1: having them end up where he is. In fact, I
Speaker 1: was told by a source that he very specifically told
Speaker 1: this blogger that Daniel Halkyard refers to this blogger as
Speaker 1: a woman that has a website community she was in
Speaker 1: the theater community d and she has a website that
Speaker 1: says Daniel Wazniac is my best friend, or Daniel was
Speaker 1: Nac my friend, something like that and uh, Allegedly, Dan
Speaker 1: Wasniac told her that I'm very worried with this podcast
Speaker 1: and Linda Sawyer's investigation because I think if she keeps going,
Speaker 1: Tim will end up in a cell right next to me.
Speaker 1: So interesting that he's listening all of the information that's
Speaker 1: come out, like what is going on, He's got to
Speaker 1: be going nuts if he's got no matter what his um,
Speaker 1: no matter what he wants to put forth, it's here right.
Speaker 1: Obviously he also had a narrative, right, so the d
Speaker 1: A can have a narrative. Daniel Woznia can have a narrative.
Speaker 1: I'm about the truth, okay, so the truth is all
Speaker 1: that matters to me. And from what I understand, Dan
Speaker 1: is very upset with the investigation that Sleuth has brought forth,
Speaker 1: and and he actually directed the blogger woman to go
Speaker 1: speak to Tim while he was incarcerated, while he was
Speaker 1: in the county jail. Yeah, from what I understand, the
Speaker 1: bloggers shares with Dan certain elements of the podcast that
Speaker 1: she believes would irritate him or upset him. He's actually
Speaker 1: written to me and told me that he wanted to
Speaker 1: cooperate with me, but every time he mentions my name
Speaker 1: to her, it's like this Linda Blair peace bitting moment,
Speaker 1: and she, for whatever reason, I guess, feels some kind
Speaker 1: of rivalry, but I don't feel that way towards her.
Speaker 1: In fact, I have invited her on the program. She declined,
Speaker 1: But again, I'm all about seeking the truth. I'm never
Speaker 1: going to sugarcoat the truth, and that's the bottom line,
Speaker 1: and I don't want to hurt anybody in that process.
Speaker 1: That that is what my job is. And so if
Speaker 1: Daniel hears that Mike's injuries to his father is what
Speaker 1: exacerbated his death. I mean, he was a diabetic, he
Speaker 1: was a very sick man, but he wouldn't have died
Speaker 1: if he didn't have those injuries. And they were injuries
Speaker 1: that weren't tended to write away by medical professionals. So
Speaker 1: that's the truth, that's what happened, and I have to
Speaker 1: I have to share that with the public because again
Speaker 1: that's my job. So let's go back to talking to
Speaker 1: about Tim. Chris Baker said, given the way that Tim
Speaker 1: has seemed to always treat Dan, and you've been pretty
Speaker 1: clear in the podcast that he wasn't that he wasn't.
Speaker 1: Dan's the biggest fan um. Why is it then that,
Speaker 1: with us all this animosity, why do you believe that
Speaker 1: Dance continued to cover for him? I mean, he wasn't
Speaker 1: he wasn't his best friend, he didn't like him, he
Speaker 1: said bad things about him to his friends. Given all this,
Speaker 1: why still still why is he covering for him? Maryanne
Speaker 1: Wisniak his mom. The mom. The mom is all he
Speaker 1: has left besides the blogger woman. The mom financially puts
Speaker 1: money in his account every month so that he can
Speaker 1: have whatever amenities at San Quentin provides, And he doesn't
Speaker 1: want to disappoint her anymore than he already has. I mean,
Speaker 1: let's face it, this woman's been through Helen back. All
Speaker 1: three boys have just been an absolute painful nightmare for her.
Speaker 1: I mean, no matter what happened in that house, no
Speaker 1: matter what went on, and what's the cause of it,
Speaker 1: we might not ever know, But how much can one
Speaker 1: woman take? And so I think that because she only
Speaker 1: has tim left, I think that he will do anything
Speaker 1: to make sure that he's free to still be in
Speaker 1: her life, whether or not she hears a recording of
Speaker 1: her eldest son talking to her middle son about when
Speaker 1: mom is dead, When will mom be dead even even
Speaker 1: knowing that and even hearing that Tim is still all
Speaker 1: she has because Mike has been banished and Dan's sitting
Speaker 1: on death row. So that brings me to a good
Speaker 1: question follow up question from Jamie Carroll. Clearly there was
Speaker 1: something going on in the Wallasniac family. How do all
Speaker 1: of the boys come out as such horrible people? And
Speaker 1: would you consider that lack of parenting or overparenting. Well,
Speaker 1: I don't want to judge Marianne Wozniak in her role
Speaker 1: in all of this. I can only tell the listeners
Speaker 1: what I've learned from family members, which was that Marianne
Speaker 1: was a working mom and her mother really was the
Speaker 1: caregiver in the boys lives. Whenever there was a problem
Speaker 1: with one of the boys with someone else, it was
Speaker 1: always the other person's fault. It was always it's not you, boys,
Speaker 1: it's them, or or she'd always throw money at the problem.
Speaker 1: Bottom line is let them get away without any consequences
Speaker 1: to their behavior. And so that and the combination of
Speaker 1: the control Maryanne Wosnia desperately tried to hold onto with them.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that when you're at work, you're
Speaker 1: a boss, right and you make decisions and choices, and
Speaker 1: people jump and listen and do what you ask of them.
Speaker 1: But she'd come home and didn't necessarily have that same control,
Speaker 1: even though she tried. She tried to dictate with them
Speaker 1: certain choices that they would make, and tried to tell
Speaker 1: them how they needed to live their lives, tried to
Speaker 1: control the people that they chose to date. And what
Speaker 1: happened was, in order to escape from that control, they
Speaker 1: started to lie. They started to lie because they wanted
Speaker 1: to please her and yet at the same time live
Speaker 1: their own life. And so the lies just became part
Speaker 1: of everyday living. It became part of their reality. And
Speaker 1: and I think lies turn into cheating and stealing and
Speaker 1: and then this lifestyle of drugs, and it's all about
Speaker 1: the control or lack of control. And they said, no
Speaker 1: matter how hard they tried, they just couldn't live up
Speaker 1: to her standards. And so what do you do when
Speaker 1: you feel like you're less than You just say the
Speaker 1: hell with it and you just kind of go crazy
Speaker 1: in your life and do whatever makes you happy at
Speaker 1: the moment, or escape it in some way in any way,
Speaker 1: because you're constantly aware that you're not able to please
Speaker 1: this woman you're supposed to love, right, and that's supposed
Speaker 1: to be there for you unconditionally. But she was never
Speaker 1: happy with anything that they did. So when it came
Speaker 1: time for them to break out and do something on
Speaker 1: their own. So I think that if they stayed within
Speaker 1: her boundaries of what was acceptable Christian behavior, they would
Speaker 1: try to walk that line. But they're boys, and they
Speaker 1: wanted to go do some wild things too, and and
Speaker 1: that was just scorned upon and and uh and so
Speaker 1: the lies began, and that began. I think the whole,
Speaker 1: the whole unfortunate life of crime. Wow, says a lot.
Speaker 1: It says a lot. So Becca and Mendoz asks, well,
Speaker 1: the Hair and Kibewishi families file a civil case against
Speaker 1: Rachel or Tim for their involvement. I think that's a
Speaker 1: really good question because obviously more of the details that
Speaker 1: haven't been answered, like the bloody shoes, the sneakers that
Speaker 1: they pulled out of Tim's closet with grass on them,
Speaker 1: the footprints in the attic, the dusted prince in Sam's
Speaker 1: car that were never validated, than the results were never
Speaker 1: found out. I think all those things would come to
Speaker 1: light in a civil case. I don't know if the
Speaker 1: families can withstand going through a civil case. They've been
Speaker 1: through a lot, and this has been an arduous process.
Speaker 1: That's been many years that they've had to go to court,
Speaker 1: and uh so, whether or not they have the fortitude
Speaker 1: to go through it again, I don't know, but I
Speaker 1: think they'd get a lot of answers if they did.
Speaker 1: I think you're probably right. So Leslie Ashley had a
Speaker 1: few questions. The first question is if Rachel and Dan
Speaker 1: were so broke, how are they paying for their wedding,
Speaker 1: even the modest wedding. And I can tell you from
Speaker 1: experience because I've worked in weddings, even the modest weddings
Speaker 1: are at least a few thousand dollars. And were his
Speaker 1: parents invited to the wedding? So to answer the question
Speaker 1: about payment, I had met Rachel's parents and one of
Speaker 1: the pre trial hearings, one of Rachel's pre trial hearings,
Speaker 1: they sat in front of me and we talked at
Speaker 1: Lengthen one of the things that Mr Buffett wanted me
Speaker 1: to be clear about was that he was paying for
Speaker 1: the wedding. That they had gone to a local restaurant
Speaker 1: and they had worked out some kind of arrangement where
Speaker 1: they were able to get some kind of a discount
Speaker 1: for the food, the buffet, whatever. So it was really
Speaker 1: just the honeymoon that Dan was supposed to be responsible for,
Speaker 1: and uh, yeah, so he was. He he was paying
Speaker 1: for that. As far as Dan's parents being invited, I
Speaker 1: think that they were invited, but he had come up
Speaker 1: with some kind of a phony email that he had
Speaker 1: sent to them, because in the end, I don't think
Speaker 1: he really wanted them to come. So he sent an
Speaker 1: email saying, you know, get back to us if you
Speaker 1: want to come or not, and then they answered, but
Speaker 1: they answered an email that never went to anybody. So
Speaker 1: the buffets thought that they just didn't want to come
Speaker 1: because they didn't respect Rachel. So again, it was just
Speaker 1: part of all of the manipulations of of Dan and
Speaker 1: all all of the lies and Deceit was Mike Wosniac
Speaker 1: ever charged for the attack on his dad. No, not
Speaker 1: at all, not at all. Ever reported the police because
Speaker 1: that's what Daniel Holacar mentioned. I think that Daniel Wozniak
Speaker 1: was upset with I did say that Marian Buffett refused
Speaker 1: to allow Darryl to go to the emergency room because
Speaker 1: Dan Wozniak, her son's trial was in the process of happening,
Speaker 1: so she was worried another Wisnia headline because with the
Speaker 1: injuries that Darryl had, there was no question that the
Speaker 1: authorities would have been called by the r doctors and
Speaker 1: she knew that. So he didn't have the medical tension
Speaker 1: he needed at the time he needed it. That was
Speaker 1: told to me, not only by Tim, but by Kathleen
Speaker 1: Comfort as well. And as I told you, Bob Kristilla
Speaker 1: in the episode twenty says, I came there the night
Speaker 1: he was beaten up and it was horrific. I mean
Speaker 1: there were two black eyes, bruises all over his legs,
Speaker 1: blood everywhere. It was just awful. That's now, this is
Speaker 1: just this is as follow up from me. That's murder,
Speaker 1: that's technically maybe second degree. Their still murder and there's
Speaker 1: no statute on that. Do you think that could come
Speaker 1: back after the information you've perhaps from Bob's testimony, from
Speaker 1: Bob's interview, the information you Vancard, do you think that
Speaker 1: could come back to Mike. I don't know if the
Speaker 1: d A or the authorities want to look at anybody
Speaker 1: at this case. Other than Dan Wosney act. I hope
Speaker 1: they look at everybody. I hope that they examine Rachel
Speaker 1: and Tim and Noah and Mike. I think I think
Speaker 1: they all deserve the scrutiny of a proper vetting of
Speaker 1: new charges on these people that were involved in these crimes.
Speaker 1: So Leslie Ashley also asked did Scott Sanders ever have
Speaker 1: a clue or hint to the informant scandal prior to
Speaker 1: the Woesniak into Chry case or was this the one
Speaker 1: thing that really brought the whole thing to bear. I
Speaker 1: think the combination of Scott Sanders having Daniel Wozniak as
Speaker 1: a client as well as Scott to Cry as a client,
Speaker 1: he was able to sort of cross reference both of
Speaker 1: his files and both of his findings, and and and
Speaker 1: and through that process he found out about these informants
Speaker 1: and what was going on, and that sort of blue
Speaker 1: it all up from there. But it was because he
Speaker 1: had that unique perspective of having both of these clients
Speaker 1: at pretty much the same time. Gene Hopkins asks what
Speaker 1: level of contact does Dan's mom and Tim Wilsniack maintained
Speaker 1: with Dan at San Quentin? Tim never sees Dan never
Speaker 1: talks to him, never sees him, didn't see him when
Speaker 1: he was in County Jail. Went to see him once
Speaker 1: with his mother when Darryll died the father um. But
Speaker 1: mary Anne she sees him quite often. She goes up
Speaker 1: for holidays. Understanding, My understanding is that Marian is pursuing
Speaker 1: the purchase of a condo up there. I know that
Speaker 1: Tim told me that his eyes got a little watery
Speaker 1: when he told me that, because I said to him, well,
Speaker 1: what about you, You're still here, and he said, that
Speaker 1: doesn't matter to my mom. So yeah, so there's definitely
Speaker 1: a rivalry there. There's no doubt about it. Whether or
Speaker 1: not Mary Anne can appreciate it or recognize it, I
Speaker 1: don't know. But it seems as if her focus is
Speaker 1: still on Danny, not Tim, which may be the reason
Speaker 1: will according to Bob, is the reason that Tim held
Speaker 1: so much hostility towards Dan, and I think that's correct,
Speaker 1: and I think that I think also she's she's an
Speaker 1: elderly woman, she was an older mom. And how many
Speaker 1: times can you put your son in rehab? I mean
Speaker 1: it's been countless half a dozen times, in and out,
Speaker 1: in and out. How much money can you spend, and
Speaker 1: she doesn't like spending money. She has money, but she's
Speaker 1: very frugal, so she is one that would rather not
Speaker 1: spend money. I mean, in the case of Daniel Wasniac's defense,
Speaker 1: I mean, he was represented by a public defender, A
Speaker 1: damn good public defender. I mean, honestly, he was very
Speaker 1: fortunate in the lawyer that he had. But yeah, why not.
Speaker 1: Why she's got the money? This is her baby question.
Speaker 1: I thought, with all that money, you'd think top notch.
Speaker 1: I mean, I come from New York City, so you
Speaker 1: pay for what you get as far as defense counsel
Speaker 1: and as far as justice. And when I first came
Speaker 1: into this courtroom, I actually had a friend with me
Speaker 1: at the time, and that friend turned to me. And
Speaker 1: this was when Matt Murphy was sitting at the you know,
Speaker 1: the prosecution table, and Scott Sanders was at the defense
Speaker 1: table with was the exitting next to him. And Scott
Speaker 1: got up for some motion and started talking, and my
Speaker 1: friend turned to me and said, who's paying for him?
Speaker 1: And I turned back, I said, you are, and and
Speaker 1: that'sender a public defender. But I guess in Orange County
Speaker 1: the public defenders off is the community pays a decent
Speaker 1: amount of money for top notch lawyers, and so for
Speaker 1: people that are indigent or people that don't have the
Speaker 1: means that they have, they have good counsel that they
Speaker 1: have options for their representation. So, speaking of was next representation,
Speaker 1: Cheryl Scotchio asked what was next defense? He obviously freely
Speaker 1: admitted everything and brought the police to the body. So
Speaker 1: why did he plead not guilty? Was he given the
Speaker 1: chance to plead guilty and avoid the death penalty? He
Speaker 1: was not given the chance. It was asked, and it
Speaker 1: was turned down by the public. The public defender asked
Speaker 1: for that, and the d A said no. And the
Speaker 1: fact that they went to trial was because he was
Speaker 1: trying to fight the death penalty. So l Bush wants
Speaker 1: to know at what point in the story did Rachel
Speaker 1: and Tim stop visiting rioting expressing support Dan. Well, as
Speaker 1: I said, Tim really never did support Dan, and Rachel
Speaker 1: stopped within a month of his incarceration. She from what
Speaker 1: he told Steve Hair. Steve Hare had visited Dan several
Speaker 1: times while he was in County jail waiting for his trial,
Speaker 1: and he told Steve Hair that Rachel came one day
Speaker 1: about a month into his time there, and walked up
Speaker 1: to the glass plated window and just put her two
Speaker 1: hands up in the air with and flipped him two
Speaker 1: birds and walked out and he never saw her again.
Speaker 1: And he has no idea why. Wow. Well, the next
Speaker 1: question I was gonna ask you is does he know
Speaker 1: how quickly she moved on? But I guess that sort
Speaker 1: of explains it. Well. I think after listening to this podcast,
Speaker 1: he knows how quickly she moved on. And also in
Speaker 1: the trial he heard the statements about her of what
Speaker 1: she said to police the morning after he was arrested
Speaker 1: for accessory after the fact. Remember he was arrested Wednesday
Speaker 1: night from his bachelor party, and then that early the
Speaker 1: next morning, three o'clock in the morning, she was taken
Speaker 1: from coast from cam to Martinique to the Coasta Mesa
Speaker 1: police station and it's there that she said that you know,
Speaker 1: he wasn't the greatest lover, he didn't have a lot
Speaker 1: going on downstairs, and she wasn't crazy over the top
Speaker 1: about him, but that was okay. So all these things
Speaker 1: were said in court, in open court. In fact, I
Speaker 1: can recall Steve Hair getting up in the courtroom and
Speaker 1: sort of turning around to all of us and had
Speaker 1: this like chess their cat smile on his face because
Speaker 1: they were talking about the size of Dan's penis and
Speaker 1: that made him happy. So but uh, yeah, I think
Speaker 1: I think Dan had a pretty good idea after that
Speaker 1: incident with her flipping him the birds, that that she
Speaker 1: was done with him. M So, speaking of Steve Hair,
Speaker 1: a question I actually had that I was gonna ask earlier.
Speaker 1: He's upset you. You've talked a bit about him being
Speaker 1: upset with you, and I just wanted to see if
Speaker 1: you mind going telling us why and what your opinion is,
Speaker 1: and do you think there's any possibility to reconcile in
Speaker 1: the future. I've tried. It's definitely painful. I care very
Speaker 1: deeply about theirs and I want what's best for them,
Speaker 1: and I reminded them that I made a promise to
Speaker 1: their son and I have continued to keep that promise.
Speaker 1: And part of that is the ability to reveal the
Speaker 1: truth about this case. And the reason his son was
Speaker 1: a target was because of his background, because Sam shared
Speaker 1: his background with them, and when I invite guests on
Speaker 1: my show and I interviewed them just like you're interviewing
Speaker 1: me right now. I don't ever intend to censor anybody
Speaker 1: or two delete or edit out answers that they give me,
Speaker 1: because that's not what a journalist does. A journalist exposes
Speaker 1: the truth. A journalist digs deep till they get to
Speaker 1: the truth. And part of that is allowing guests to
Speaker 1: come on and tell their story and tell what they know.
Speaker 1: And so when I asked Scott Sanders the question about
Speaker 1: what what did he perceive as the most egregious ruling
Speaker 1: that Judge Connelly had imposed during the case, and he
Speaker 1: said the fact that he wouldn't allow Sam's passed in
Speaker 1: as a killer. He used the word killer. I think
Speaker 1: he probably regrets that word, but that's the word he used,
Speaker 1: and that's what he said. That was his sentiment because
Speaker 1: he felt the prosecutor opened up that door by sharing
Speaker 1: with jurors how Sam was a decorated veteran and presenting
Speaker 1: this image of Sam as as this person that should
Speaker 1: be honored and admired, which his time in the service
Speaker 1: should be honored and admired. Right, But because legally the
Speaker 1: prosecutor opened up that information, he also opened up the
Speaker 1: door to the defense counsel saying okay, but we should
Speaker 1: know then, the whole story of Sam Hair, which included
Speaker 1: this past where Sam was charged with murder. So that's,
Speaker 1: in essence, the core of why the Hairs we're upset
Speaker 1: with me? And I find it very disturbing that the
Speaker 1: prosecutor in this case took advantage of that situation by
Speaker 1: saying that I am somehow denigrating Sam's past, that I
Speaker 1: am denigrating Sam's memory when there's over thirty five hours
Speaker 1: of content in Sleuth, and four minutes of it was
Speaker 1: dedicated to that conversation. And so the thrust of my
Speaker 1: work and what I've done here has all been in
Speaker 1: memory of Sam and Juley's so that they can rest
Speaker 1: in peace knowing that everyone involved in their murders has
Speaker 1: faced some consequences. And That's always been my intent, and
Speaker 1: that's what I've always hoped would be the final impression
Speaker 1: of my work. Wow. So the last question I think
Speaker 1: this is pertinent. This is Leslie Ashley. Again, a lot
Speaker 1: of people from Dan's past have said some very good
Speaker 1: things about him, about who he was, their impressions and
Speaker 1: so on. What do they or you think is really
Speaker 1: wrong with him? Is he just a psychopath? That say,
Speaker 1: able to charm and manipulate people. There's all kinds of
Speaker 1: reputable people defending his character. What do you think to
Speaker 1: kind of wrap this up, what do you think it
Speaker 1: is really the issue? As he just really thinks he's
Speaker 1: a really good actor. Do you think he was going
Speaker 1: to get away with it or do you think there's
Speaker 1: really perhaps something deeply wrong that would make him do
Speaker 1: what he did. Well, there's clearly something deeply wrong with him,
Speaker 1: and no, he's not a very good actor. I think
Speaker 1: the reputable people that the listeners are referring to are
Speaker 1: people that have since realized they didn't really know Dan
Speaker 1: Wassniak at all. I mean, you heard Daniel Holkyard today
Speaker 1: say myself and my family were pulling away here, we're done.
Speaker 1: I don't know who this person is, and maybe they
Speaker 1: never knew who this person is. In the fact, the
Speaker 1: Spaths said the same thing by the end of their episode.
Speaker 1: We're not condoning anything he did. Uh. We we think
Speaker 1: that we were duped by Dan and we never really
Speaker 1: knew him. So I think that, ah, the reputable people
Speaker 1: have far left Dan's side, and I think Dan, from
Speaker 1: a very early age learned how to live two different
Speaker 1: lives and and the dark one took over. It's unfortunate
Speaker 1: because now there's two less people walking around because of him,
Speaker 1: and maybe a few more people that have yet to
Speaker 1: be prosecuted. You got it, Well, this has definitely been illuminating.
Speaker 1: I'm glad to hear you say so. I um definitely
Speaker 1: appreciate the opportunity. And you didn't hold anything back. And
Speaker 1: I'm really happy for all the questions and thankful that
Speaker 1: everybody stepped up and and they were really good questions.
Speaker 1: There were a lot, and again thank you to everybody
Speaker 1: on Facebook and everybody to ask questions, because there was
Speaker 1: a lot of good stuff there. I mean, I had
Speaker 1: a few that I've been asking you, but some of
Speaker 1: the stuff they asked, I went, wow, yeah, that's I
Speaker 1: didn't think about that. So I'm glad they were there.
Speaker 1: And I'm really uh pleased with the ability to be
Speaker 1: able to do this for the listeners because the listeners
Speaker 1: the end are so important to me because they inspire me,
Speaker 1: and they they keep me motivated to stay on course,
Speaker 1: to stay on track, and and I'm so grateful for
Speaker 1: each and every one of them. So I hope that
Speaker 1: I have been able to address all of their questions. Uh,
Speaker 1: and I hope that they feel that they now know
Speaker 1: more than they did before. And there you go Season
Speaker 1: one of Sleuth. Thank you, thank you. Before I say
Speaker 1: goodbye to all of my listeners at the conclusion of
Speaker 1: Season one of Sleuth, I first need to explain the
Speaker 1: condition of my voice. We have been recording the finale
Speaker 1: episode now for the past two days, and at the
Speaker 1: end of yesterday's session, I'm sure you could hear my
Speaker 1: voice was starting to go, and this morning I pretty
Speaker 1: much lost it. I suppose it's pretty ironic that after
Speaker 1: over three hundred interviews and this relentless, exhaustive investigative journey
Speaker 1: I've been on for three years, I was bound to
Speaker 1: lose my voice on the very last day. So bear
Speaker 1: with me, because I am going to share with you
Speaker 1: scratchy voice and all what I know after spending time
Speaker 1: with my sorece Deep Throat. At the beginning of this episode,
Speaker 1: I told you that I had been trying for weeks
Speaker 1: to persuade Deep Throat to come forward. I had lunches
Speaker 1: and dinners and phone calls and texts, and while she
Speaker 1: did tell me everything she knew, she was trepidacious about
Speaker 1: coming forward. I tried to explain to her that it
Speaker 1: would be helpful not only for the victims families, but
Speaker 1: we could go to the police, we could go to
Speaker 1: the New d A and share with them everything that
Speaker 1: she knew. But she still felt that the consequences of
Speaker 1: her coming forward were too severe, too grave, and so
Speaker 1: I promised her, while I was going to tell the
Speaker 1: details of what she shared with me to my listeners,
Speaker 1: I would still maintain her anonymity and not reveal her
Speaker 1: identity unless I had her blessing. So I've decided to
Speaker 1: call Deep Throat on air right now for my final
Speaker 1: attempt to see if she will in fact come forward
Speaker 1: on her own and share all she knows about her
Speaker 1: conversation with Rachel Buffett and Rachel Buffett's role in these murders.
Speaker 1: All has been forwarded to an automatic voice message system
Speaker 1: is not available at the town. Please recall in your
Speaker 1: message when you have finished recording. You may hang up
Speaker 1: or press one for more options. Hi, this is Linda
Speaker 1: Sawyer from Sleuth. I wanted to give you one last
Speaker 1: opportunity to share with the listeners everything that you shared
Speaker 1: with me regarding your conversations with Rachel and her confession
Speaker 1: to her role in the murders of Sam and Julie Kibuishi.
Speaker 1: I guess no matter what was said, you know that
Speaker 1: you can rely on me to maintain the anonymity of
Speaker 1: your identity. I had only wished that somehow you had
Speaker 1: found the courage to come forward, because it would mean
Speaker 1: so much to so many people, most importantly for the
Speaker 1: memory and for the souls of Sam and Julie. Have
Speaker 1: a good day. I tried, ye. So there you have it,
Speaker 1: my last attempt at getting Deep Throat to come forward.
Speaker 1: So let me share with you everything that I know
Speaker 1: based on my conversations with Deep Throat. It starts with
Speaker 1: a gentleman by the name of Billy Elliott, and Billy
Speaker 1: Elliott was Rachel Buffett's boyfriend when they met at Medieval Times.
Speaker 1: They started dating, and they had maintained a relationship from
Speaker 1: medieval times all the way to not Sperry Farm, which
Speaker 1: is where Billy now works, and Rachel knew many of
Speaker 1: the people that worked there as well. In the cast
Speaker 1: Billy would often have parties at his house, cast parties,
Speaker 1: and it was there that Deep Throat first Rachel Buffett
Speaker 1: and they developed rapport and Rachel felt comfortable I suppose
Speaker 1: because she was actually one of the only women at
Speaker 1: these parties, and so she would pull her into a
Speaker 1: room privately and and so of open up about the
Speaker 1: role she played in the murders of Sam Harry and
Speaker 1: Julie Cabuishi, and she basically over time, this was several encounters,
Speaker 1: she confessed that she knew everything and she was in
Speaker 1: on the plan from the beginning. But she was one
Speaker 1: thing that she said the Deep Throat that was really disturbing, Well,
Speaker 1: there were many things that were disturbing, but the one
Speaker 1: thing that really struck Deep Throat is so odd was
Speaker 1: that she really didn't think there was anything wrong with
Speaker 1: her not coming forward. Rachel just didn't understand why it
Speaker 1: was a bad thing that she didn't tell anybody about
Speaker 1: the plan. I mean, honestly, could you believe this? I
Speaker 1: just it just escapes any logical, reasonable thinking. But that's
Speaker 1: what she told her. And she said the brothers, Tim
Speaker 1: Tomosniak and no A Buffett they all knew too, they
Speaker 1: were all involved in the planning. And Deep Throat went
Speaker 1: a step further and told me details that Rachel told
Speaker 1: her about the crime scene, specific details about the crime
Speaker 1: scene that, in deep Throat's mind, only someone that was
Speaker 1: there for the murders could have known. I specifically asked her,
Speaker 1: do you think Rachel was there for Julie's murder? And
Speaker 1: she said yes, based on what Rachel told me. And
Speaker 1: and think back about Who's interview with Ashley Mathis, when
Speaker 1: Ashley Mathis told us the story about Rachel barging into
Speaker 1: their apartment and just heading right for the deck because
Speaker 1: the deck was right opposite Sam Harre's apartment, and she
Speaker 1: clearly wanted to see into Sam's apartment and to see
Speaker 1: who was there or what you could see from that deck,
Speaker 1: for fear that maybe Ashley or Haley, her roommate, could
Speaker 1: have seen Rachel there. I mean that when I told
Speaker 1: the defense counsel that he he said, I wish I
Speaker 1: knew that story, because that, to me is quite damning.
Speaker 1: There's no other reason why Rachel would have done that
Speaker 1: a day after Dan confessed to the murders. She wouldn't
Speaker 1: have done that for Dan's sake. She would have done
Speaker 1: that for her sake. We know at this point that
Speaker 1: Rachel pretty much makes decisions and choices based on whatever
Speaker 1: it is that works well for her. So it all fits,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. Deep Throat also told me there was another
Speaker 1: person that Rachel also confessed this story too in the details,
Speaker 1: so there are two people. I guess that Rachel decided
Speaker 1: it was time to tell the truth. But the most
Speaker 1: frightening element to what I learned from my conversations with
Speaker 1: Deep Throat is that Rachel Buffett, Billy Elliott, and a
Speaker 1: host of other actors who met in Nottsbury Farms decided
Speaker 1: to venture out on their own to produce a cheap
Speaker 1: back galley, low budget film starring Rachel Buffett, with the
Speaker 1: subject of the murders of Sam Hare and Julie Kibuishi.
Speaker 1: How they portrayed her role in all this remains to
Speaker 1: be seen because the movie is top secret and supposedly
Speaker 1: Billy Elliott only has a copy to this movie. The
Speaker 1: making of this movie and the subject matter that's portrayed
Speaker 1: shows how demented this woman's mind is that she would
Speaker 1: choose this subject matter for a movie that she started.
Speaker 1: After learning about this movie depiction, this sick, demented movie
Speaker 1: that was shot about Sam and Julie's murders, I immediately
Speaker 1: reached out to Lieutenant at Effort at the Costa Mesa
Speaker 1: Police Department and asked him if we could meet regarding
Speaker 1: new information that I learned. His response was that he
Speaker 1: couldn't meet with me because the case of Sam Her
Speaker 1: and Julie Kabie she is essentially close posed, but that
Speaker 1: if I had any additional information or evidence that I
Speaker 1: should reach out to the Costa Mesa detective now in charge,
Speaker 1: which is Sergeant Scott Stafford, which I planned to do
Speaker 1: at the conclusion of this episode. And with that, folks,
Speaker 1: I hope that you have been able to appreciate all
Speaker 1: the work that myself and my team at Sleuth has
Speaker 1: put into this journey that started three years ago and
Speaker 1: is ending today. And I feel so honored that each
Speaker 1: and every one of you took the time out of
Speaker 1: your lives to spend time listening to Sleuth, recognizing and
Speaker 1: acknowledging the work, and sharing it with your friends and associates,
Speaker 1: And truly, from every chamber of my heart, I thank
Speaker 1: each and every one of you, because without you, we
Speaker 1: might not see justice. And it's because of the power
Speaker 1: of the people and the amalgamation of all of your
Speaker 1: voices that can help pressure authorities and the justice system
Speaker 1: in Orange County to do the right thing that maybe,
Speaker 1: for once we might see complete justice for Sam and Julie.
Speaker 1: Thank you, God, bless and have a wonderful new year.
Speaker 1: If you enjoyed this episode of Sleuth, share it with
Speaker 1: a friend and be sure to leave a rating or review.
Speaker 1: Follow Sleuth on I Heart Radio, or subscribe where every
Speaker 1: you listen to podcasts so that you never miss an episode.